This had to happen, formally, at one point or another

[Tom]

some questions for Tom:


In your own words, and ideally using real life examples that you've experienced - why are INFps your opposite, and INFjs your dual? What is it about your experiences with both types that makes you really "feel" like those are the right intertype relationships for you?

When you realize that your dual is your opposite, ask me again, only better.

You paid much attention to theoretical physics? Fields exist just as much as objects. Objects are just easier to grab.

I see objects and fields existing; Te is part object ("of objects" but Se is closer to objects), and so is not one of those two core elements.

The very reason I have quotes around "exist" is so that nobody makes the assumption I don't know what I'm talking about in this area. And those things do not "exist", because they ONLY EXIST AS PERCEPTIONS. None of the IME's "exist"; they are only methods of perception of what does "exist", based on both "existing" and conceptual factors.

So, to be brutally clear: only those things which actually exist, exist. Perceptions of the universe are conceptual, and are not actually existent. They "exist" only as concepts and perceptions, which do not exist. If you want to break them down to a point where they exist, you'll have to prove that there is an exact chemical pattern which causes thoughts about those concepts, rather than a conceptual framework which can be thought of in several different ways and has zero grounding in reality. Concepts "exist", but not really.

PS- "Objects" is a concept, but the objects, just like all their infinite, tiny parts, do exist. The bonds between them actually exist as well; they are forces, etc., not concepts, which do not exist!

[Brilliand]

The very reason I have quotes around "exist" is so that nobody makes the assumption I don't know what I'm talking about in this area.

I'll argue with what you say. I prefer not to make any assumptions as to whether you know what you're talking about. I'll find that out when I argue with you.

And those things do not "exist", because they ONLY EXIST AS PERCEPTIONS. None of the IME's "exist"; they are only methods of perception of what does "exist", based on both "existing" and conceptual factors.

You dissolve the argument into oblivion. Fair enough; I'll follow you into nihilism if you're willing to go. I've been there before.

So, to be brutally clear: only those things which actually exist, exist. Perceptions of the universe are conceptual, and are not actually existent. They "exist" only as concepts and perceptions, which do not exist. If you want to break them down to a point where they exist, you'll have to prove that there is an exact chemical pattern which causes thoughts about those concepts, rather than a conceptual framework which can be thought of in several different ways and has zero grounding in reality. Concepts "exist", but not really.

PS- "Objects" is a concept, but the objects, just like all their infinite, tiny parts, do exist. The bonds between them actually exist as well; they are forces, etc., not concepts, which do not exist!

Why? You've no basis for this; you've merely chosen as the sole expression of reality. Therefore I suspect you of being an ego type...

To reiterate, the only reason you have for being the measure of reality is circular, and based on being the measure of reality.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I see Tom's style of socionics to be that far removed from anything that I understand that as far as i'm concerned, any typing he makes is meaningless.

Also Tom, LSI's have a way of dealing with people whick makes me feel like a worthless human being. The way you talk down to people and argue on this thread makes it extremely difficult for me to see you as my mirror.

To me, you're understanding of socionics is to completely select a bundle of things-for instance, logical types don't exist. Well, sorry, I meet people and they are definitely logical types. That you may wish to disagree with that till the cows come home is irrelevant, they exist.

I think you're understanding of socionics is highly abstract, but different from other abstract LSE's such as for instance Smilingeyes who's writings of socionics is always based and related to the real world. Don't see that from you at all.

Not that can't base someones typing on their interpretation of socionics, but I see you as someone who rejects real life empirical evidence for the sake of preserving their theory. I also see no flexibility in you that I personally see in LSE's. I also-although this is more subjective, don't know many LSE's who don't get angry. That you keep saying you don't get angry doesn't make sense for strong Te (LIE's are often angry too).

Oh, it's unlikely i'll debate with you over this. But, I do remember the thread you were trying to create rules, I couldn't see any Te in that or in your approach for wanting to create it.

Also, you're general approach, seems that other possibilities is devalued in you, don't know where Ne would fit into your ESTj typing.

At the moment, i'm struggling to see you as an ESTj and think ISTj should be given serious consideration by you.

Edit: Anyway, a lot of this post can be equally said as rubbish.. I just don't know where to start from, as my op asking for something about yourself seems to have passed you by. Not everyone pays attention to what you write-and it's only been just over 200 posts. I would ask that you talk about yourself, explain why you're ESTj..but the point of this typing thread is for you to search for a type, or is it to browbeat people into believing you're ESTj? Can't really see the point in you creating a typing thread when you are apparently so convinced already of your type, why do it?

[Ritella]

Talk to UDP. He thinks he's the same type as you. You can revel in one another's 8w9ness and LSEness.

lol

[Ezra]

By the way, the External Dynamics of Objects and the External Statics of Fields are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT elements. Just because Jung wrote something makes that thing neither correct nor socionics. The truth of the matter is that both of those elements are called "thinking" for ease of use in Model A, and because they share certain coincidental similarities (which is to say that they are not "thinking types, and therefore similar", but, instead, they share certain aspects that appear similar, and therefore they are confused with each other).

If you're going to tell me I seem "logical", then say, instead, I seem "rational", and to deal with the external elements (which means be clear and actually have reasoning behind your statements).

Edit: "Rational" means dealing primarily with external means, not "j", because I know someone would have made that mistake somewhere down the road.

When I say "logical", I'm talking about it in this sense. Essentially, your comments are irrelevant. You're trying to clarify what I already know.

See, all this shit about being clear and more evidently reasoning - that is all Ti-related. The few Te types I have encountered on this forum never harp on about how one needs to provide a real logical argument against or for a certain type. And the more you deny it, the more obsessive it becomes. The more you go on about how "logical" and "rational" other people need to be.

I just had this moment of deja vu when reading Tom's reasoning for being Te>Ti (which is what I presume it was), because I've read/heard it all before with idolatrie.

At least idolatrie and you were far easier to convince (because you have more of a head on you). In fact, your open-mindedness actually shocked me. Even I took fucking ages to admit that I wasn't Te base. It was difficult, because I was so stuck in that mindset that nothing could change it. Ah well, we all succumb to the truth in time.

I don't know about idolatrie, but I doubt you've heard it all, or even most of it, honestly.

I'm pretty sure she has. In fact, we (those who were there when idolatri was posting) all have.

But, in reality, I'm very certain of my type (which doesn't mean that I can't be convinced otherwise; just because nobody has even come close on this forum doesn't mean I'm blindly stoic.). I'm hoping to be "wowed" with something I've looked over, or just to stamp out the uncertainty on this forum.

Yeah, that's the point. If you're an Eight, which I think you are, observing what you're doing at the moment, you're going to continue with this bullshit thinking. Honestly, what is the point in creating this thread if you're going to shun everything anyone says? If you're so confident about your type, surely you'd just shut the fuck up and revel in how right you are. But you clearly haven't. There's something that drives you to create this. Create some drama. Stir some shit up. I don't know. The point is, the only people on this forum who think you're an LSE are those who have no clear conception of socionics, and those who don't have a conception of anything. Listen to the sane people.

Questioning type constantly is all very well, but unless you have some serious insight with a good deal of backing, your argument is going to be severely lacking in the face of my knowledge of myself. But, please, I invite and encourage anyone who can to make a good case in any direction, I'd love to hear them all.

TI, TI, FUCKING TI!

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think he's ISTj.

I honestly don't understand why anyone would take into consideration the advice of someone who is blatantly not an ESI but who thinks they are.

[Ezra]

Tom, this thread really provides more evidence for you being LSI > LSE.

you have opened up to discussion about your type, but you are basically presenting it as "I've made up my mind already, now do your darnedest to prove me wrong", presenting it as a challenge almost, as if, you already "know" that it's going to be extremely hard for somebody to do that. a definite LSI characteristic.

now as for the 3 goals you have for this thread:

basically, you have a desire to eliminate any ambiguity whatsoever. you want to eliminate all "incorrect" possibilities and make everything regarding your type clear and "correct" to you and everybody else; then I imagine that you hope this definite typing becomes established so that everyone can move on with their lives and never worry about questioning your type again. you want it to be irrefutable. am I right? you also did something similar when asking for clear-cut forum rules a short while ago.

also, you started a new thread just to announce that you had changed your subtype. this is not a big deal to most people; but it could be to an LSI, as doing that obviously involved a shift in worldview, a changing of how you see things. this is not necessarily "easy" for any type, but to an LSI, it can be very hard, since they are so grounded, loyal to their convictions, and in general tough to convince of anything that they don't already believe and have decided for themselves. so making a sort of change like this can be a "big" deal, and you presented it as such.

all of this is TiSe at work. you are really playing the perfect role here of an LSI, Tom.

FUCKIN' A.

+∞

[UDP]

When you realize that your dual is your opposite, ask me again, only better.

Whaa? Is that a joke?

[unefille]

also, you started a new thread just to announce that you had changed your subtype. this is not a big deal to most people; but it could be to an LSI, as doing that obviously involved a shift in worldview, a changing of how you see things. this is not necessarily "easy" for any type, but to an LSI, it can be very hard, since they are so grounded, loyal to their convictions, and in general tough to convince of anything that they don't already believe and have decided for themselves. so making a sort of change like this can be a "big" deal, and you presented it as such.

all of this is TiSe at work. you are really playing the perfect role here of an LSI, Tom.

and fwiw: you don't come across as angry to me at all. often, it's the LSI's dual, the EIE, who is the angry one and needs an LSI to calm them down

The bolded made me lol so much -- every time I wanted idolatrie to consider anything (such as her instinctual stacking), I would have to launch a full assault, have lots of very 'intense' conversations -- and she would always reserve her opinions and 'have a ponder'.

Everything Tom is writing simply reminds me of idolatrie so much -- including the fact that she simply considers our conversations debates where neither side is emotionally attached, getting angry or upset and we both walk away unaffected, and people who see us are convinced we're in a heated argument that our friendship will never recover from. The basis of our behaviour when we discuss things is that we want no holds barred intellectually; putting forward the strongest arguments, tearing apart any argument that we see as weak, in order to actually GET SOMEWHERE -- we're both trying to convince the other because we've deeply considered our positions and have good reasons for thinking what we think, which is why our exchanges are naturally more combative in nature than discursive -- we're not lightly entertaining everything we throw at each other because we're each convinced of our own positions -- and it's intellectually stupid to pull punches if we think the other person has made a mistake.

God, idolatrie would get hung up on the imprecise use of one word or definition in an argument and I used want to shake her so much when that happened, but she insisted that imprecision led to fallacious conclusions. She'd get so stuck on clarifying small points, but it was good, because it made me slow down my thinking and clarify things as well. Ok, now I'm probably going off topic. How off-topic depends on how LSI Tom is, I guess.

At least idolatrie and you were far easier to convince (because you have more of a head on you). In fact, your open-mindedness actually shocked me. Even I took fucking ages to admit that I wasn't Te base. It was difficult, because I was so stuck in that mindset that nothing could change it. Ah well, we all succumb to the truth in time.

Oh, it was INCREDIBLY difficult and frustrating to convince idolatrie simply because we're people who lock onto our beliefs -- most of it happened offline. I just constantly barraged her with arguments. I only had that energy because I wanted to get MY type right and I fucking HATE inconclusive results and she was the most important intertype relationship for typing. I cannot even CONTEMPLATE opening my type up to self-questioning again, though if I were challenged, I would probably do what Tom is doing now: I'd welcome all-comers, confident that I was correct and planning to demolish all argument against me in order to vanquish all dissent. We were talking about it constantly - I was living at her place during the retyping saga, so we could literally talk about it all day, all the time -- she only broke because I became so absolutely CERTAIN that I was EIE and I interrogated everything I knew about her (which is quite a lot). There was a lot of times when I COULD TELL that she was getting irritated or upset by 'accusations' that she was Ti, not Te (and that her understanding was faulty -- she got quite FURIOUS and very very intense after a post Gilly made to that effect), but she kept INSISTING that she wasn't upset, simply annoyed at how WRONG and CONFUSED and MISLED other people were -- she simply didn't want to deal with their 'bad thinking'. I occassionally reconsider whether she's E1 after all, because the denial of anger is just SUCH AN ISSUE with her. Seriously, this whole thread just makes me snort with recognition -- it's really really uncanny.

[UDP]

I occassionally reconsider whether she's E1 after all, because the denial of anger is just SUCH AN ISSUE with her. Seriously, this whole thread just makes me snort with recognition -- it's really really uncanny.

That, but also the whole post...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Interesting post unefile.

For further information (in general in this thread): My reaction to when I get aggressive is to feel bad about it-a typical "caregiver" response. I don't think Tom has issues with being aggressive (or sees it that way). I actually read most of his posts on this thread as aggressive, and on the rule creating thread..a confrontation if you will. But he says he's not, which for me makes me think it's a different perspective on things between Ti and Te logical types in the beta delta quadras. Mines is more logical delta, Toms strikes me as logical beta. And more of a difference in caregiving/aggressor too.

Although for Toms preference you can substitute "logical" for Ti and Te in the quadras.

[UDP]

Interesting post unefile.

For further information (in general in this thread): My reaction to when I get aggressive is to feel bad about it-a typical "caregiver" response. I don't think Tom has issues with being aggressive (or sees it that way). I actually read most of his posts on this thread as aggressive, and on the rule creating thread..a confrontation if you will. But he says he's not, which for me makes me think it's a different perspective on things between Ti and Te logical types in the beta delta quadras. Mines is more logical delta, Toms strikes me as logical beta. And more of a difference in caregiving/aggressor too.

Although for Toms preference you can substitute "logical" for Ti and Te in the quadras.

The thing is, for a while, my posts were also very aggressive and confrontational. I'm sure people remember that.

I feel like mine were so in a different way, but, I'm not sure.

[note: the following is not to stir up old arguments or bitterness, it's to explain what it was like for me] What I felt at the time, when people were saying things, was angry. I am not sure if I gave an official "I'm angry" or "I'm not angry" about it, but it did make me quite angry at the time. I couldn't stand how people were saying certain things about me, which were not true. It wasn't peoples arguments or them being illogical (generally, I suppose) so much because I can see how people think certain things based off of what they know or understand, but it would infuriate me that people would base things off of material or evidence that was not true, or not completely the case. And that's what made me very angry - and that's what emboldened me to offer massive amounts of resistance.

I wanted to squash erroneous conceptions of myself and false understandings of me. And I think that a certain amount of the shift from being "overtly combative" to more nonchalant is sort of related to maturity or just forum experience, if you will. Not that Tom is immature, no. But I suspect that everyone, in some way or fashion - if they care enough to do so - has to go through a phase of taking on challengers and dealing with opposing or differing thoughts about yourself. * What changed was when I realized that no amount of effort I exerted would really achieve my goal - people would see over time what the truth was, if they wanted to, and that was much more effective and truthful than me lobbying other people. It took me a while to see that, however, and thanks to some people for bringing it up (repeatedly). That, and, my focus on being a type or making it clear to other people has changed. Now it's mostly about trying to promote clarity, and understanding of socionics/functions, and less about 'me and my type'.

To clarify: this post is geared towards pointing out that there are some other things going on here, I'm sure. But, I still generally agree with unefile, for now, in terms of Tom's type.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

UDP, you make a good point, and I actually thought something along those lines when I wrote my post-about the differences between anger and aggressiveness.

It's been my experience, as I mentioned in my previous post, that types strong in Te (esp those with dominant Te or Te sub types, like myself). Can get angry. However, there is a semantical difference between being angry and aggressive. One can be aggressive without being angry for instance.

Of course, everyone can get aggressive sometimes, but it's overall behaviours I think one has to look at for socionics. What prevails in a persons overall demenor? How does one feel themselves with it?

As another note, I think your anger over your typing queries could be construed by some as aggressiveness, at least on a superficial level. I'm just reading between the lines. That you've made so many posts, extensive posts in defence of yourself, i've seem them lack the aggressive and finality confrontation that typically I see in beta ST's. Of course, as I mentioned, beta ST's probably don't feel aggressive, it's just what they do, what comes natural.I don't think caregiver delta's enjoy aggressive tendencies in themselves. I could probably flesh this out more, but I don't have time to make it more elaborate. Hopefully you can catch the basis of my post. If more clarification is needed, please ask (considering i'm right of course, or indeed if i'm not also).

[Warlord]

ok, which relationship, then?

None, what type of friends someone mostly has is circumstantial. Probably people of the same club are more likely to friends, because of shared interests than people of the same quadra, unless they also share the club.

[Simon Ssmall]

Either I'm a socionics nonsense or I type people extremely awful. I have friends from 3 quadras, I dated girls from all quadras. I like variety and people from all walks of life and even if lately I hang out mostly with gammas I still think I am Delta and see no reason to believe otherwise.

[Brilliand]

Whaa? Is that a joke?

I actually agree with your dual being your opposite, although it isn't consistent with Tom's views. In fact it's inconsistent with Model X in general (because under that model being opposite would involve being opposite quadra), but it fits very well with my idea that E/I, N/S, T/F and Static/Dynamic are the four fundamental dichotomies. (Your dual is opposite you on all four of those)

[1981slater]

Either I'm a socionics nonsense or I type people extremely awful. I have friends from 3 quadras, I dated girls from all quadras. I like variety and people from all walks of life and even if lately I hang out mostly with gammas I still think I am Delta and see no reason to believe otherwise.

Me too! But don't forget controversial people (read: ENTp ) are usually disliked by the people don't know them very well. Thus, most of my friendships are ISFps, but not all of them.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I actually agree with your dual being your opposite, although it isn't consistent with Tom's views. In fact it's inconsistent with Model X in general (because under that model being opposite would involve being opposite quadra), but it fits very well with my idea that E/I, N/S, T/F and Static/Dynamic are the four fundamental dichotomies. (Your dual is opposite you on all four of those)

As a rambling note because i'm on a roll lol, I agree with the idea of ones dual being their opposite, but it's an opposite that locks together.

How it works for me: I connect with them through my 6th function seeking and they with me through their 6th function seeking. The 6th function I am most concious of out of the two seeking functions so I am aware of myself searching for it more. Then, their dominant function doesn't repel me..the difference between illusionary and dual relations..so connection of the opposites continues to lock together.

[Ritella]

The bolded made me lol so much -- every time I wanted idolatrie to consider anything (such as her instinctual stacking), I would have to launch a full assault, have lots of very 'intense' conversations -- and she would always reserve her opinions and 'have a ponder'.
.......
There was a lot of times when I COULD TELL that she was getting irritated or upset by 'accusations' that she was Ti, not Te (and that her understanding was faulty -- she got quite FURIOUS and very very intense after a post Gilly made to that effect), but she kept INSISTING that she wasn't upset, simply annoyed at how WRONG and CONFUSED and MISLED other people were -- she simply didn't want to deal with their 'bad thinking'. I occassionally reconsider whether she's E1 after all, because the denial of anger is just SUCH AN ISSUE with her. Seriously, this whole thread just makes me snort with recognition -- it's really really uncanny.

Wow. i do not have the energy or willpower to deal with this sort of thing. Ne-PoLR + Ti-Ego is so.....draining.
How do you do it?


And Tom, no offense, but at this point I do think you're LSI. I'm not going to tell you my reasons, though, because I get a sense that you'll just want me to subscribe them to your rules/definitions- which, by the way, is how LSIs make me feel- and that seems completely circular to me... :/

Also, I still think Jake is most likely ILE > ILI. And a Supervision relationship might actually make a lot of sense.

[Tom]

I'll argue with what you say. I prefer not to make any assumptions as to whether you know what you're talking about. I'll find that out when I argue with you.

It sounds as if debate with you will continue to be far more interesting than with most on this forum.

You dissolve the argument into oblivion. Fair enough; I'll follow you into nihilism if you're willing to go. I've been there before.

I'm always there.

Why? You've no basis for this; you've merely chosen as the sole expression of reality. Therefore I suspect you of being an ego type...

To reiterate, the only reason you have for being the measure of reality is circular, and based on being the measure of reality.

I'm not saying that Se is even close to reality; none of the IMEs are. I only mean that Se is the only element through which one percieves the world "as is".

When I say "logical", I'm talking about it in this sense. Essentially, your comments are irrelevant. You're trying to clarify what I already know.

See, all this shit about being clear and more evidently reasoning - that is all Ti-related. The few Te types I have encountered on this forum never harp on about how one needs to provide a real logical argument against or for a certain type. And the more you deny it, the more obsessive it becomes. The more you go on about how "logical" and "rational" other people need to be.



At least idolatrie and you were far easier to convince (because you have more of a head on you). In fact, your open-mindedness actually shocked me. Even I took fucking ages to admit that I wasn't Te base. It was difficult, because I was so stuck in that mindset that nothing could change it. Ah well, we all succumb to the truth in time.



I'm pretty sure she has. In fact, we (those who were there when idolatri was posting) all have.



Yeah, that's the point. If you're an Eight, which I think you are, observing what you're doing at the moment, you're going to continue with this bullshit thinking. Honestly, what is the point in creating this thread if you're going to shun everything anyone says? If you're so confident about your type, surely you'd just shut the fuck up and revel in how right you are. But you clearly haven't. There's something that drives you to create this. Create some drama. Stir some shit up. I don't know. The point is, the only people on this forum who think you're an LSE are those who have no clear conception of socionics, and those who don't have a conception of anything. Listen to the sane people.



TI, TI, FUCKING TI!



I honestly don't understand why anyone would take into consideration the advice of someone who is blatantly not an ESI but who thinks they are.

Being clear and precise has to do with external elements, not only Ti. I do agree that most people on this forum have an understanding which is severely lacking, and I'm not entirely sure where you stand in terms of knowledge (in terms of which definitions you use, not how well you know those definitions).

While I don't subscribe, necessarily, to Model X, I do agree with the specific definitions of the functions it uses. My knowledge/definitions are entirely based upon the 8 exact definitions and Model A. I do not subscribe to this "ish" and "manifests like" and "sort of" generatic bunk of the elements, with that Jung/MBTI "4 dichotomy" bunk. I enjoy exact definitions, because I deal primarily in external functions, away from some subjective, intuitive "sense" of each.

Whaa? Is that a joke?

Not in the slightest. You've asked a good question (or come close to doing so, anyway), but I'm only going to answer it for you if you know what you're talking about; I already know the answer for myself.

I actually agree with your dual being your opposite, although it isn't consistent with Tom's views. In fact it's inconsistent with Model X in general (because under that model being opposite would involve being opposite quadra), but it fits very well with my idea that E/I, N/S, T/F and Static/Dynamic are the four fundamental dichotomies. (Your dual is opposite you on all four of those)

Well, you've not pegged my views with either Model X or yours, to be honest. Your dual IS your opposite, but because all of their functions are complimentary (filling all the gaps) to each of yours.

Ne/Si is the internal statics of objects with the external dynamics of fields
Te/Fi is the external dynamics of objects with the internal statics of fields.
And so forth.

Model X only suggests that you are primarily good at your valued functions (as well as your subtype actually being your "mode", etc., but for now this will do). I don't necessarily agree with this, but, regardless of which Model I subscribe to, my definitions are the ones that Archon/Ashton/Steve/Strrrng/etc. use.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Tom, you're such an LSI. I've almost pretty much decided! (which for me being a dynamic irrational type is quite close to almost definite.. I can hardly even say definite here)!

That you find Brilliand to be just about the only person here worth discussing with just shows Ti-Ti pov between yourself and Brilliand. ISTj-INTj. Except to me, Brilliand is more open minded than you appear to be (Se-Ne ego). You've ignored a few posts on this thread, or at least not bothered commenting on people making an effort. Thank you?

Well, hope you come to right conclusion, peace bro.

[Ritella]

^^^ Yes.
It's interesting that, on this forum, several "LSEs" disregarded the LSI typing initially due to a misintepretation of LSIs as the essentialy unhealthy version of that type.

[crazedrat]

I think he is LSE-Si ..
I've seen them get super competitive like this before.

[UDP]

I actually agree with your dual being your opposite, although it isn't consistent with Tom's views.

What the FUCK does this mean?

lol, either something has happened to the socionics world or you guys are starting to go Tcau with your own ideas.

In fact it's inconsistent with Model X in general (because under that model being opposite would involve being opposite quadra), but it fits very well with my idea that E/I, N/S, T/F and Static/Dynamic are the four fundamental dichotomies. (Your dual is opposite you on all four of those)

Oh, so you guys are talking about "Model X"

You have to say these things... not everyone is going by the same model. Or... interpretation of things.

[crazedrat]

What do you think opposites are? They are two divided things which if reunited complete a whole. That's almost the definition of duality

[strrrng]

Model X only suggests that you are primarily good at your valued functions (as well as your subtype actually being your "mode", etc., but for now this will do). I don't necessarily agree with this, but, regardless of which Model I subscribe to, my definitions are the ones that Archon/Ashton/Steve/Strrrng/etc. use.

I think the idea of being good at a function -- "strong" -- is one of the biggest conceptual problems with the theory. "Model X" (which isn't even really a model) doesn't say, "you are skilled in these four realms of reality and blind to the others," thus bestowing upon me, an INFp, the ability to implement my big bad will with Se and play emotional games with Fe, blah blah. It's not like that; it's general, internal. People don't want to view functions as the psychic processes that they are, instead preferring to relegate them to behavioral categories to divide up their experience into nice segments and peg people quickly. It's not models and paradigms; it's peoples' fucked up ideas of the fundamental things the entire theory is based off of.

And I agree with your self-typing. Being willful, logical, controlled and getting a bit heated in a debate doesn't make you a beta ST; nor does asking for logical rules or clarity in others' opinions make you Ti-valuing.

What do you think opposites are? They are two divided things which if reunited complete a whole. That's almost the definition of duality

Pretty much.

[Ritella]

I think he is LSE-Si ..
I've seen them get super competitive like this before.

It's not that he's competitive. In fact, I think that's the point; mistyped LSEs seem to think this "aggressive" quality is why they aren't LSIs. But really, any type- particularly an unhealthy case of one- will be unnecessarily competitive, self-righteous, and imposing.
The reason why he's more likely LSI is his whole method of reasoning for why he's LSE. To me, it's as if you have to "speak his language," by subscribing to his implicitly assumed axioms, in order to begin a discussion with him. That's normally an indication of Ti (particularly blocked with Ne-PoLR) for me.

[07490]

There are ALOT ALOT of Introvert intuition used by tom in many of his post. When he switched from LIE to LSE i still thought he was an LIE becuase NI was always there. He predicts relate things he know on top of his head and compare and contrast those he knows in reality. I think most LSE would get ovewhelmed by this sort of infromations. But if he is an LSI, WHich makes that of his hidden agenda, it would make sense.

[crazedrat]

people underestimate ESTjs ability to think. I don't see Ni, I see Te coupled with an elaborate web of Si. There is very little implication in what he says; his points may be complicated, but they are explicit. Socionics itself is an elaborate language ..

[Ritella]

people underestimate ESTjs ability to think. I don't see Ni, I see Te coupled with an elaborate web of Si. There is very little implication in what he says; his points may be complicated, but they are explicit. Socionics itself is an elaborate language ..

not really, or at least i don't; my issue is not that he can think.
"Elaborate" is an interesting word choice for Si.
And, yes, Socionics is a language, but he adds his own to it.

[crazedrat]

could you really see tom and numbers in love?

[ArchonAlarion]

Si is a sum total of all physical processes in a given field.

That can get pretty elaborate imo

[crazedrat]

and the more elaborate it gets, as he attempts to hold onto his explicit definitions, the more Ni will seem to undermine him with alternative interpretations and perspectives, driving him toward further elaboration; hence Ni polr which you can observe on this thread. What you're mistaking as Ni is him attempting to defend himself from this process by expanding his Te and Si definitions. That just makes him reactionary.

[JuJu]

Tom, your self-typing is the same as my dad's type; most people here seem to think you're my dual... The two types are easy to tell apart.

In your profile photo, which one is you??

I know you think you are LSE, but you're ahead of the game if you haven't settled on a type yet. It's obvious that unknown is what it is.

[ArchonAlarion]

the middle one

but then again we are purposefully making mad dog faces...

so not really VI reliable there

[UDP]

What do you think opposites are?

"Opposite" essentially meant "conflictor" in how I was interpreting it there. Opposite as in conflicting type.

They are two divided things which if reunited complete a whole. That's almost the definition of duality

That's duality, and that's being complementary, but that's not being opposite (to me). How you worded that implies ONE thing, that was divided, and thus can be reunited. We're getting into personal semantics now I suppose, but to be clear about where i was coming from - Opposite is not complimentary.


I agree that "my dual is my opposite" if you mean opposite in terms of: "but it fits very well with my idea that E/I, N/S, T/F and Static/Dynamic are the four fundamental dichotomies."... but I think it is not quite right to say that those are the four fundamental dichotomies of socionics. I don't agree with that phrasing of the statement.

I see my dual as being complementary to me, which entails certain similarities (particularly valued functions). But not opposite of me. Opposite of me is my conflicting type, and there is nothing that smacks of a divided whole there.

[crazedrat]

If two things aren't complimentary then they are completely irrelevant to eachother. By your definition of 'opposites' things like a computer and a shoe are opposites. White and black combine into the higher concept of shading, fat and skinny combine into the higher concept of size .. opposites must have an overarching concept which grants them similarity. Think of one which doesn't?
I don't think it really effects what Toms type is, anyway

[ArchonAlarion]

Ne and Si are opposites

You are actually closer psychologically to your conflictor and super-ego than you are to quasi identity and extinguishment.

Conflicting elements want to exist in the same space and describe the same thing, but in opposite ways (internal/external)

[07490]

Ne and Si are opposites

You are actually closer psychologically to your conflictor and super-ego than you are to quasi identity and extinguishment.

Conflicting elements want to exist in the same space and describe the same thing, but in opposite ways (internal/external)

How can you said what is closer or not closer psychologically?

[crazedrat]

its like um ... how are you going to draw a picture without the presence of both white and black? Opposites work together for a higher purpose ..
This argument has pretty much killed the thread though

[Tom]

Tom, you're such an LSI. I've almost pretty much decided! (which for me being a dynamic irrational type is quite close to almost definite.. I can hardly even say definite here)!

That you find Brilliand to be just about the only person here worth discussing with just shows Ti-Ti pov between yourself and Brilliand. ISTj-INTj. Except to me, Brilliand is more open minded than you appear to be (Se-Ne ego). You've ignored a few posts on this thread, or at least not bothered commenting on people making an effort. Thank you?

Well, hope you come to right conclusion, peace bro.

I enjoy debating Brilliand because he actually thinks his responses through and comes to conclusions with support. On top of that, he takes things seriously and appears to have a very good understanding, at least, of the definitions he does use.

And yes, I have looked over some of the responses; I've read them all, but I simply either haven't had time to comment, or don't want to explode this thread into another topic. If I want to teach UDP what socionics actually is, for example, I'll start a new thread. Which is my message to UDP: while I in no way think you're stupid, I think you do need to get a clearer understanding of the functions (or duality, at least). Te-base types (or 8's at least) don't generally have intense emotional struggle, btw.

I think the idea of being good at a function -- "strong" -- is one of the biggest conceptual problems with the theory. "Model X" (which isn't even really a model) doesn't say, "you are skilled in these four realms of reality and blind to the others," thus bestowing upon me, an INFp, the ability to implement my big bad will with Se and play emotional games with Fe, blah blah. It's not like that; it's general, internal. People don't want to view functions as the psychic processes that they are, instead preferring to relegate them to behavioral categories to divide up their experience into nice segments and peg people quickly. It's not models and paradigms; it's peoples' fucked up ideas of the fundamental things the entire theory is based off of.

And I agree with your self-typing. Being willful, logical, controlled and getting a bit heated in a debate doesn't make you a beta ST; nor does asking for logical rules or clarity in others' opinions make you Ti-valuing.

I know; I just tried to give a brief summary of what Model X "says" to those who don't have any experience with it. I agree that I may have overstated things.

And you're quite right.

There are ALOT ALOT of Introvert intuition used by tom in many of his post. When he switched from LIE to LSE i still thought he was an LIE becuase NI was always there. He predicts relate things he know on top of his head and compare and contrast those he knows in reality. I think most LSE would get ovewhelmed by this sort of infromations. But if he is an LSI, WHich makes that of his hidden agenda, it would make sense.

I do not use Ni. LSEs are not mindless oafs who can't see past their own noses.

people underestimate ESTjs ability to think. I don't see Ni, I see Te coupled with an elaborate web of Si. There is very little implication in what he says; his points may be complicated, but they are explicit. Socionics itself is an elaborate language ..

Exactly, and thank you.

Si is a sum total of all physical processes in a given field.

That can get pretty elaborate imo

But are still explicit; yes, anyway.