Derail of Similar Forum Members

[strrrng]

Hi Nicksy!

Hello there

Are you still on this?

/me grabs debrainwashing stick

I just see your cognition being wired that way. Once. Again. It has no bearing on all the other personality-relevant traits that are more intrinsically embedded into you, which strike the similarity between me, Justin, etc.

[*]starfall and esper (I imagine very intelligent, all-seeing women who will become oracles when they get old :tongue

Yes, exactly. I was going to include them, but it felt like pointing out the obvious, or something. But your thought process is my own.

[*]crazedrat and strrrng (lol... )[/LIST]

Do tell.


And pray tell, how are Ashton and I similar? -- aside from the superficially conspicuous combative attitudes towards certain individuals.

[Gilly]

I just see your cognition being wired that way. Once. Again. It has no bearing on all the other personality-relevant traits that are more intrinsically embedded into you, which strike the similarity between me, Justin, etc.

1. Intelligence fixation
2. Formal logic training
3. High intelligence
4. Large amounts of study and thought in things that I have strong opinions on
5. Ni subtype
6. Ex-philosophy major
7. Tendency to use formal tone in debates

I'm sure I could think of more. But the first 3 are the important ones, and I think they explain and/or encapsulate your observations better than Socionics .

[strrrng]

1. Intelligence fixation

Absolutely irrelevant. No one is complimenting you on logical intelligence -- or lack thereof, monsieur!

...what's that? I sense a balloon being inflated -- ah, just Gilly's preliminary tumidity here we go.

2. Formal logic training

has no bearing on 'logic', in any practical sense of the word.

Helium spreading slowly...

3. High intelligence

And thus, the balloon has risen, off into the clouds, with you sitting in there, dick in hand.


(Irrelevant)

4. Large amounts of study and thought in things that I have strong opinions on

No bearing on This applies to me, but I'm still agenda.

5. Ni subtype

You VI nothing like any Ni subtype.

6. Ex-philosophy major

This balloon may pop soon.

7. Tendency to use formal tone in debates

Or just a "formal" type of logic in general, where everything is systematized and explained in accordance with the given parameters of a system (i.e. how you always revert back to the paradigm argument against people like Ashton in stickam). Beta NFs aren't exactly concerned with systems as they pertain to the explicitly defined context; that would be TiSi

I'm sure I could think of more. But the first 3 are the important ones, and I think they explain and/or encapsulate your observations better than Socionics .

Yeah, except that none of them are reasons behind me thinking you're Ti ego.

[Gilly]

Ok, let's hear your reasons.

[strrrng]

Ok, let's hear your reasons.

If you really care, we can pm about it. Although, we've discussed it many times now, so I don't know what you're looking to find out. My initial comment wasn't designed to incite a real argument -- rather, just to make an insouciant observation -- but it seems you're still prone to it. What must that mean?

[Gilly]

I don't know about the interpersonal aspect for me (seems right for Gilly, mostly), but I agree on the linguistic aspect. There's a definitive difference between being able to read people well, and being able to apply that knowledge effectively in interaction. This discrepancy is mainly what causes my doubts about my ability in this area.

Which correlates rather well to me being a Ti type and you being an Fe type.

Wait a second...

[Gilly]

If you really care, we can pm about it. Although, we've discussed it many times now, so I don't know what you're looking to find out. My initial comment wasn't designed to incite a real argument -- rather, just to make an insouciant observation -- but it seems you're still prone to it. What must that mean?

More than anything that you might be implying :wink:, it's because I care about your opinion. I really don't doubt that I am at least Beta NF, and I am fairly sure that, of the two, EIE fits better overall.

As for your idea of what an Ni sub VIs like, well, this is half the problem: people who are the same subtype don't always share certain characteristics. Remember, we're talking about 1/32 of the population; you think that big a cross section are all going to have discernible physical similarities that would in some way correlate to type? Your Te is failing you, Nicky

And by the way, my reference to "intelligence fixation" is less about my actually being intelligent, and more about my self-image of being an intelligent person, the kind of person it has led me to become, the things it has led me to do, what it causes me to emphasize in my self-presentation and personal development, etc.

@ the paradigm argument: if you understood the theory behind Model A, or my real rationale for what I was saying to Ashton in those debates, you'd see that it has less to do with me being a Ti type and more to do with disclarity resulting from incompatible frames of reference. Expat makes similar arguments with regards to Ashton's approach, so I hardly see how that makes me any more a Ti type than Expat.

@ DJ: I scored 99th percentile in SAT Math, and have distinguished myself academically in more than one course of study related to abstract reasoning, so I think I deserve at least two more "areas" :wink: Not that you have to agree. But it's true.

*selfpat*

Actually I think my interpersonal intelligence would probably rank below both of those on my personal scale, at lease in relation to what I observe in other people.

[strrrng]

Which correlates rather well to me being a Ti type and you being an Fe type.

Wait a second...

lol, no functional correlation to multiple intelligences.

I'm not disputing you, but SAT/ACT math is incredibly easy and doesn't necessarily imply strong mathematical aptitude.

Yeah, it is. And many kids score much higher than their natural ability warrants, through formulaic learning, memorization, etc.

sigh. Gilly, probably most of the people on the forum can say the same. I think a large proportion of the forum is or was "academically smart," doing well on these sorts of tests.

Yeah. It's not too hard to take natural intelligence and utilize it to easily succeed in the banal academic world.

Is this the part where I brag sigh

More than anything that you might be implying :wink:, it's because I care about your opinion. I really don't doubt that I am at least Beta NF, and I am fairly sure that, of the two, EIE fits better overall.

Yeah, but I guess it just comes down to the fact that we still harbor different conceptions about how the types work. You seem to attribute a lot of your behavioral stuff to the quadra values, which I see as being more correlated with your enneagram type and general life experience. EJ temperament makes no sense whatsoever to me, based on your energy levels and demeanor; IP is only more plausible because it's irrational. But whatever.

As for your idea of what an Ni sub VIs like, well, this is half the problem: people who are the same subtype don't always share certain characteristics. Remember, we're talking about 1/32 of the population; you think that big a cross section are all going to have discernible physical similarities that would in some way correlate to type? Your Te is failing you, Nicky

Well, I was thinking about the look in the eyes, cause that's pretty much consistent. I don't want to get into some subjective stream of associations, but comparing you to other Ni-ENFjs, it doesn't seem to fit. Not to mention the more internally controlled demeanor they exhibit, which you clearly don't.

And by the way, my reference to "intelligence fixation" is less about my actually being intelligent, and more about my self-image of being an intelligent person, the kind of person it has led me to become, the things it has led me to do, what it causes me to emphasize in my self-presentation and personal development, etc.

I knew what you meant, cause I related to it And I have wondered how much relation that kind of thing has to Ti agenda types, but that seems miniscule overall. Again, this way of going about such a fixation is much more easily chalked up to being a 3/4 variant, possibly with so in the stacking.

@ the paradigm argument: if you understood the theory behind Model A, or my real rationale for what I was saying to Ashton in those debates, you'd see that it has less to do with me being a Ti type and more to do with disclarity resulting from incompatible frames of reference. Expat makes similar arguments with regards to Ashton's approach, so I hardly see how that makes me any more a Ti type than Expat.

I understand the theory, and also that Ashton likes to debate in an often circuitous manner, consistently referencing the same "self-explanatory" things, whilst remaining obstinate to others' opinions. But, I was referring more to the way you were explaining the concept (last time I was in stickam): it literally seemed like you were outlining the explicit context of a structure, not simply explaining its predications or whatever. Like, "these are the rules and how the variables manifest, so how can you make this correlation?"

Actually I think my interpersonal intelligence would probably rank below both of those on my personal scale, at lease in relation to what I observe in other people.

Same.

[Gilly]

lol, no functional correlation to multiple intelligences.

Undeniably interesting nonetheless

Yeah, but I guess it just comes down to the fact that we still harbor different conceptions about how the types work. You seem to attribute a lot of your behavioral stuff to the quadra values, which I see as being more correlated with your enneagram type and general life experience.

And therein lies the problem. See, you can't just divide people into chunks and say, "Ok, enneagram explains this part of me, and Socionics explains this part." They are both meant to describe people as "wholes," not their individual parts. You can't just pick and choose; the whole picture has to fit for each one; if you're using one to rationalize the other, you're missing half the point. They aren't part of the same system; while they often describe different things, and as such can be used in a complimentary fashion, you can't just divvy people up and say "Well if this is attributable to the enneagram, then it must not be relevant to Socionics," or vice versa. You have to look at the big picture instead of using them to compartmentalize.

Granted, neither of them are going to be able to describe EVERYTHING about a person. But if you are going to take one character trait or tendency in isolation and analyze it, well, it's not like Socionics is just incapable of analyzing that particular character trait; indeed, projecting a particular consistent "image" is a pretty common manifestation and partial interpretation of Fe+Ni. There's a reason that EIEs are often 3s, and IEIs are commonly 4s, and it's not just because it just happens that way It's because the phenomena they are describing have a significant overlap in this particular area.

EJ temperament makes no sense whatsoever to me, based on your energy levels and demeanor; IP is only more plausible because it's irrational. But whatever.

Yeah, I will admit that temperament is the hardest part for me to make sense of. But, between being Ni/"IP" sub, and looking more specifically at what Fe means and how it is an "EJ function," in terms of constantly adapting to fluctuating emotional states in both myself and others, it makes sense.

Well, I was thinking about the look in the eyes, cause that's pretty much consistent. I don't want to get into some subjective stream of associations, but comparing you to other Ni-ENFjs, it doesn't seem to fit. Not to mention the more internally controlled demeanor they exhibit, which you clearly don't.

I can't believe that whatever you are seeing in the eyes is both totally consistent with approximately 1/32 of the world's population and is also perfectly correlated to Ni sub EIEs. That's just preposterous. If that is one of your criteria for typing anyone, throw it out; there is never one type related thing that is "consistent" in all examples of a type, because the reasons that they are that "type" aren't always the same. Type is not a concrete phenomena, but a categorical one; you need to wrap your head around that.

I knew what you meant, cause I related to it And I have wondered how much relation that kind of thing has to Ti agenda types, but that seems miniscule overall. Again, this way of going about such a fixation is much more easily chalked up to being a 3/4 variant, possibly with so in the stacking.

Ok, in enneagram terms it makes sense with being a 4/3. But how would you interpret it in terms of Socionics? Needing to be seen as something and valued for it? That doesn't sound like an Fe+Ni behavioral phenomena to you, producing a consistent self-image and projecting it?

I understand the theory, and also that Ashton likes to debate in an often circuitous manner, consistently referencing the same "self-explanatory" things, whilst remaining obstinate to others' opinions. But, I was referring more to the way you were explaining the concept (last time I was in stickam): it literally seemed like you were outlining the explicit context of a structure, not simply explaining its predications or whatever. Like, "these are the rules and how the variables manifest, so how can you make this correlation?"

Maybe I was, but couldn't that simply be related to valuing Ti>Te?

[JuJu]

Undeniably interesting nonetheless



And therein lies the problem. See, you can't just divide people into chunks and say, "Ok, enneagram explains this part of me, and Socionics explains this part." They are both meant to describe people as "wholes," not their individual parts. You can't just pick and choose; the whole picture has to fit for each one; if you're using one to rationalize the other, you're missing half the point. They aren't part of the same system; while they often describe different things, and as such can be used in a complimentary fashion, you can't just divvy people up and say "Well if this is attributable to the enneagram, then it must not be relevant to Socionics," or vice versa. You have to look at the big picture instead of using them to compartmentalize.

Granted, neither of them are going to be able to describe EVERYTHING about a person. But if you are going to take one character trait or tendency in isolation and analyze it, well, it's not like Socionics is just incapable of analyzing that particular character trait; indeed, projecting a particular consistent "image" is a pretty common manifestation and partial interpretation of Fe+Ni. There's a reason that EIEs are often 3s, and IEIs are commonly 4s, and it's not just because it just happens that way It's because the phenomena they are describing have a significant overlap in this particular area.

Yeah, I will admit that temperament is the hardest part for me to make sense of. But, between being Ni/"IP" sub, and looking more specifically at what Fe means and how it is an "EJ function," in terms of constantly adapting to fluctuating emotional states in both myself and others, it makes sense.

I can't believe that whatever you are seeing in the eyes is both totally consistent with approximately 1/32 of the world's population and is also perfectly correlated to Ni sub EIEs. That's just preposterous. If that is one of your criteria for typing anyone, throw it out; there is never one type related thing that is "consistent" in all examples of a type, because the reasons that they are that "type" aren't always the same. Type is not a concrete phenomena, but a categorical one; you need to wrap your head around that.


Ok, in enneagram terms it makes sense with being a 4/3. But how would you interpret it in terms of Socionics? Needing to be seen as something and valued for it? That doesn't sound like an Fe+Ni behavioral phenomena to you, producing a consistent self-image and projecting it?

Maybe I was, but couldn't that simply be related to valuing Ti>Te?

---

Well-said, Gilly... Esp. re: Socionics/enneagram describing ppl as wholes.

This is where Nick missed a lot in the past three or so months... (Nick, these were the biggest months for the forum's understanding of Model A in years... I am excited to show you some stuff when you come up and chill.)

---

An addendum re: temperament... That temperament is as influential as it is in English-speaking Socionics (bc of MBTI's popularity in English-speaking countries, its emphasis on temperament, and Cartrette's old 16types info page,) is unfortunate...

I wasted years, mistyping myself in Socionics b/c Ej temperamnet seemed a bit too stiff, too mobile, etc. (e.g. I was comparing myself to a lot of the blabber-mouths I know, running around doing 300 things at once, and thinking, "that's not me.")

temperament can be influenced by a shitload of non-Socionics factors, e.g. depression, medication, motivation, disabilities, ADD, etc. It's also the easiest thing to fake. (my friend goes quiet at parties just to get hos.)

For this reason, temperament is an unreliable indicator of Socionics type.

Subtypes do not explain temperament well either... E.g. one could be relatively quiet and still be a Fe-ENFj, (see: above Non-socionics factors,) or loud and still be a INTj. (I met a very communicative Ti-INTj just the other day... He is a famous artists... He has lots of self-confidence and is quite talkative.)

Temperament is still useful--albeit only slightly... The functions are where it's at... And this becomes more clear as one meets more and more ppl of various types/energy levels, etc.

An addendum re: Fe emanated from the eyes... There are always exceptions--and the eyes/Fe emanated from them look different in males, females, etc--but many would be shocked at how similar the Fe emanated from each of the subtypes is... (To continue your example Gilly, it's more like 1/64 of the world's population, bc guys and girls give off quite different Fe energies... and then there are the subtypes.)

Nick man, I can't wait to see you... We'll discuss this shit... Gilly, hopefully we'll chill soon too and shoot this documentary... Should be fun.

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't think the forum "understands" Model A any better than they did.

I think stricter forum policies were put in place on what could be posted where and this does not at all reflect "the forum" as in the people who post here unless you are referring to the actual lifeless programming and binary information that is "the forum"

Also, DeAnte was banned, Strrrng went on a rough vacation, the forum changed hands to a zealous model A-er, etc.

None of this points to anyone other than you, the old guard, and a few mods giving one single shit about "model-fucking-A"

[Creepy-bg]

ENFj jibber jabber

[strrrng]

Undeniably interesting nonetheless



And therein lies the problem. See, you can't just divide people into chunks and say, "Ok, enneagram explains this part of me, and Socionics explains this part." They are both meant to describe people as "wholes," not their individual parts.

It's not about demarcating peoples' personalities to accord with various theories; it's about understanding the context which respective theories attempt to describe personality under, and interpreting peoples' personalities accordingly. So, if "enneagram describes this part of me and socionics describes this other part" it's because the "parts" being referenced are actual differential facets of the person that find a singular interpretation in the most appropriate context, not simply traits that can be filtered different ways. Enneagram describes what it does and claims nothing more; as socionics should. I think the real issue is taking peoples' ostensible traits and assuming that there is some general phenomena backing them which can be described differently in each system, and thus, conflation occurs.

You can't just pick and choose; the whole picture has to fit for each one; if you're using one to rationalize the other, you're missing half the point.

But they describe different things, so trying to correlate traits to one or the other doesn't always work. Your fixation on image isn't written off and loopholed through enneagram; it's a direct result of your enneagram fixation, and has no fundamental explanation through socionics. It's the essential features, not the correlations and permutations, that are important.

They aren't part of the same system; while they often describe different things, and as such can be used in a complimentary fashion, you can't just divvy people up and say "Well if this is attributable to the enneagram, then it must not be relevant to Socionics," or vice versa. You have to look at the big picture instead of using them to compartmentalize.

Or you can not conflate them, under some pretense of "seeing the big picture."

Granted, neither of them are going to be able to describe EVERYTHING about a person. But if you are going to take one character trait or tendency in isolation and analyze it, well, it's not like Socionics is just incapable of analyzing that particular character trait;

See, you don't just take traits and contextualize them under a system. This is why you're TiNe lol. You don't start from the bottom; you look at this paramaterized context, and assume that the "bits and pieces" (abstract variables) can somehow be deconstructed and interpreted across multiple contexts (hallmark of alpha NT thinking style). This in direct contrast to my Ni focus on whatever base process is underlying the given thing, hence how I seem to take a more "this is what it is, simply" attitude. You must first and foremost understand what the system describes; then you'll know which traits to actually look at when filtering things through that system. Otherwise it's bullshit.

ndeed, projecting a particular consistent "image" is a pretty common manifestation and partial interpretation of Fe+Ni. There's a reason that EIEs are often 3s, and IEIs are commonly 4s, and it's not just because it just happens that way It's because the phenomena they are describing have a significant overlap in this particular area.

All those correlations are, are manifestations. FeNi can implement images with a facility that, say, TeSi may not have; but the act itself is in no way directly related to those functions. The phenomena aren't the things overlapping; the subjective interpretations are, however.

Yeah, I will admit that temperament is the hardest part for me to make sense of. But, between being Ni/"IP" sub, and looking more specifically at what Fe means and how it is an "EJ function," in terms of constantly adapting to fluctuating emotional states in both myself and others, it makes sense.

Fluctuating emotional states is somehow correlated with Fe? Not in my opinion, no. Sounds like you're just using another loophole to write off what is clearly EP temperament characteristics, in order to rationalize your type. Who's missing the big picture now?

I can't believe that whatever you are seeing in the eyes is both totally consistent with approximately 1/32 of the world's population and is also perfectly correlated to Ni sub EIEs. That's just preposterous. If that is one of your criteria for typing anyone, throw it out; there is never one type related thing that is "consistent" in all examples of a type, because the reasons that they are that "type" aren't always the same. Type is not a concrete phenomena, but a categorical one; you need to wrap your head around that.

Holy shit. It's a general pattern of facial expression, not an absolute typing criteria. And it was simply one thing I mentioned, in regards to how you VI.

Ok, in enneagram terms it makes sense with being a 4/3. But how would you interpret it in terms of Socionics? Needing to be seen as something and valued for it? That doesn't sound like an Fe+Ni behavioral phenomena to you, producing a consistent self-image and projecting it?

It's not a matter of interpretation! That's what I've been saying this whole time. The trait is not the starting point; it's the manifestation of a more fundamental phenomena, which in this case is described by enneagram. Socionics on an essential level should/does not describe such traits.

Maybe I was, but couldn't that simply be related to valuing Ti>Te?

Who knows. I don't remember all the specifics.

[strrrng]

Nick man, I can't wait to see you... We'll discuss this shit... Gilly, hopefully we'll chill soon too and shoot this documentary... Should be fun.

The three of us...lol

I don't think the forum "understands" Model A any better than they did.

I think stricter forum policies were put in place on what could be posted where and this does not at all reflect "the forum" as in the people who post here unless you are referring to the actual lifeless programming and binary information that is "the forum"

Also, DeAnte was banned, Strrrng went on a rough vacation, the forum changed hands to a zealous model A-er, etc.

None of this points to anyone other than you, the old guard, and a few mods giving one single shit about "model-fucking-A"

lol! Very informative and comical.

[Gilly]

It's not about demarcating peoples' personalities to accord with various theories; it's about understanding the context which respective theories attempt to describe personality under, and interpreting peoples' personalities accordingly. So, if "enneagram describes this part of me and socionics describes this other part" it's because the "parts" being referenced are actual differential facets of the person that find a singular interpretation in the most appropriate context, not simply traits that can be filtered different ways. Enneagram describes what it does and claims nothing more; as socionics should. I think the real issue is taking peoples' ostensible traits and assuming that there is some general phenomena backing them which can be described differently in each system, and thus, conflation occurs.

You think enneagram explains one particular trait better; I think it can be accounted for by both systems. While I agree that the Enneagram is more specific on this particular topic, to me, it's undeniable that Socionics "has a say" in the matter.

But they describe different things, so trying to correlate traits to one or the other doesn't always work. Your fixation on image isn't written off and loopholed through enneagram; it's a direct result of your enneagram fixation, and has no fundamental explanation through socionics. It's the essential features, not the correlations and permutations, that are important.

But see, enneagram isn't "real life." It's a framework that attempts to explain real life; it is not an encapsulation of what actually happens in the brain, some precise model that perfectly captures how the human mind works.

"In the most advanced sciences, such as mathematical physics, nobody talks about what anything is anymore. They talk about what model (or map) can best be used to understand whatever we are investigating."
-Robert Anton Wilson

It's not "my enneagram 4 fixation causes this behavior," but rather "my behavior is best explained in the Enneagram model by type 4."

Or you can not conflate them, under some pretense of "seeing the big picture."

You're welcome to think it's pretense...but it's not

See, you don't just take traits and contextualize them under a system. This is why you're TiNe lol. You don't start from the bottom; you look at this paramaterized context, and assume that the "bits and pieces" (abstract variables) can somehow be deconstructed and interpreted across multiple contexts (hallmark of alpha NT thinking style). This in direct contrast to my Ni focus on whatever base process is underlying the given thing, hence how I seem to take a more "this is what it is, simply" attitude. You must first and foremost understand what the system describes; then you'll know which traits to actually look at when filtering things through that system. Otherwise it's bullshit.

This has nothing to do with Ne and Ni; this has to do with you dogmatically adhering to an interpretation of Socionics that is faulty, which you have clearly demonstrated here. Your vague intuitions are wrong, so just press the fucking reset button already and stop being so afraid to start from scratch. The shit you learned from Ashton doesn't mean anything

All those correlations are, are manifestations. FeNi can implement images with a facility that, say, TeSi may not have; but the act itself is in no way directly related to those functions. The phenomena aren't the things overlapping; the subjective interpretations are, however.

So you submit that Socionics and Enneagram have some overlap?

Could you not then consider that, from a Socionics perspective, the combination of Fe+Ni might encapsulate the idea of projecting a self-image that, in Enneagram, is most closely linked with type 4?

I suppose this is probably fruitless, because your understanding of the functions is inherently flawed (more points for your 4 fix), but whatever, I have to try.

Fluctuating emotional states is somehow correlated with Fe? Not in my opinion, no. Sounds like you're just using another loophole to write off what is clearly EP temperament characteristics, in order to rationalize your type. Who's missing the big picture now?

Did I say that fluctuating emotional states is correlated with Fe? No. But emphasis on them and close observation of them in oneself and others, that is related to Fe.

Holy shit. It's a general pattern of facial expression, not an absolute typing criteria. And it was simply one thing I mentioned, in regards to how you VI.

Ok, so you admit that it's not a solid criteria. That's what I was asking for, because you seemed to think that it was one.

It's not a matter of interpretation! That's what I've been saying this whole time. The trait is not the starting point; it's the manifestation of a more fundamental phenomena, which in this case is described by enneagram. Socionics on an essential level should/does not describe such traits.

But see, Socionics doesn't describe the same vague "underlying psychic growth phenomena" that the enneagram attempts to; it describes patterns of perception and the behaviors that are typically correlated to these patterns of perception.

So, let me ask you: if a person's most active perceptual "wavelength," so to speak, is that of observing cause and effect relationships in human behavioral phenomena, including things like people's reactions to different situations, does it not make sense that one partial manifestation of a focus on these behaviors might be the tendency to project an image? "How do people react to me?" Think about it.

Who knows. I don't remember all the specifics.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Creepy-bg]

who else has noticed that the people who never shut up about Ashton are the ones accusing others of having fixations on him and "his" theories?

[Gilly]

who else has noticed that the people who never shut up about Ashton are the ones accusing others of having fixations on him and "his" theories?

See, if you watched closely, you'd notice that I only even mention Ashton to certain people who he has very obviously influenced in some way (Archon, strrrng, etc). It's not like I'm trying to start some huge anti-Ashton crusade, or purge him from the face of this planet; it's just annoying when people who I want to have interesting discussions with have absorbed his ideas and can't let go of them; to me, his ideas are stupid, vague, and baseless, and Socionics is an interesting theory, so I'd like to separate the two.

Honestly, it's not like I start threads flaming Ashton, or start a whole new forum to debunk his ideas or something; I opened a new section of the forum so I wouldn't have to put up with his followers and would have some place to shelve them, but I'm not going around making threads disproving what he says. I don't have a fixation on him, and it's kind of annoying and presumptuous when people go "OH THE ONLY ONES WHO TALK ABOUT ASHTON ARE THE ONES WHO SAY HES STUPID SO THEY MUST JUST BE JEALOUS OR THINK HES SIGNIFICANT IN SOME WAY OR SOMETHING." He's not significant. He's a manipulative, partially psychotic asshole who confuses people and appeals to their individuality as a ploy to make them his pawns while pandering to other people to make himself look ok and maintain the fragile balance in his ego.

Really all I want is for everyone on this forum to just forget about him and study actual Socionics so that the discussions here can actually be productive.

sigh...

[strrrng]

You think enneagram explains one particular trait better; I think it can be accounted for by both systems. While I agree that the Enneagram is more specific on this particular topic, to me, it's undeniable that Socionics "has a say" in the matter.

Sure, there are -some generalized traits- that can be interpreted through both systems, in different ways (which is subjective, not inherent to the phenomena or system's descriptors). But not fundamental things like a fixation on adhering to image-based ideals generated from self-imposed standards. That is the type of stuff I was thinking of when I spoke of the systems describing different things inherently.

But see, enneagram isn't "real life." It's a framework that attempts to explain real life; it is not an encapsulation of what actually happens in the brain, some precise model that perfectly captures how the human mind works.

I tend to think it's a dynamic model of natural processes which are intrinsic to human experience. Not every theory is a framework, for christ's sake -- and even if it takes the form of a 'model', it could so easily be a perfectly commensurate projection of the actual phenomena. So, stop using that word to separate it from that.

"In the most advanced sciences, such as mathematical physics, nobody talks about what anything is anymore. They talk about what model (or map) can best be used to understand whatever we are investigating."
-Robert Anton Wilson

And? I didn't claim they were all-encapsulating phenomenological axims.

It's not "my enneagram 4 fixation causes this behavior," but rather "my behavior is best explained in the Enneagram model by type 4."

Ah, so the phenomena is just some thing, floating there, and we can only find the best abstract descriptor to account for it. Wonder where those "models" came from. Stop looking from the outside in on this shit.

This has nothing to do with Ne and Ni; this has to do with you dogmatically adhering to an interpretation of Socionics that is faulty, which you have clearly demonstrated here. Your vague intuitions are wrong, so just press the fucking reset button already and stop being so afraid to start from scratch. The shit you learned from Ashton doesn't mean anything

I haven't "demonstrated" any faulty understanding, outside of what you have categorized based on disagreement. And once again, you attempt to contextualize it as "Ashtonian learning" to make it seem as if the actual content has no validity. Address me; this has nothing to do with Ashton or his "thoughts," and you clearly don't understand that dynamic well enough to comment anyway. Even I can clearly see that your interpretations of his conceptions are flawed, not to mention incredibly biased, thus rendering any assessment negative and opinion of someone who happens to "agree" in certain ways condemning. Get your head out of your ass. There's a reason why I've shown the most consistent ability to VI random people correctly on this forum, and why I'm asked for opinions on types more than anyone else.

So you submit that Socionics and Enneagram have some overlap?

No. They don't describe the same thing inherently. People are free, however, to take generalized traits and interpret them through each system; doesn't mean it's right.

Could you not then consider that, from a Socionics perspective, the combination of Fe+Ni might encapsulate the idea of projecting a self-image that, in Enneagram, is most closely linked with type 4?

Socionics has nothing to do with the motivation or the trait; all it can describe is the psychic modulation that underpins the interpretation and expression of said things. Stop conflating.

I suppose this is probably fruitless, because your understanding of the functions is inherently flawed (more points for your 4 fix), but whatever, I have to try.

How noble of you

Did I say that fluctuating emotional states is correlated with Fe? No. But emphasis on them and close observation of them in oneself and others, that is related to Fe.

Fe isn't solely about observing "emotional states" and their variations in self and others; it's a cognitive lens independent of such labels. The fact that, due to its causal nature, said things can be traced readily through the lens, doesn't mean there is a direct correlation. And this has nothing to do with what I criticized you for anyway, so stop splitting hairs.

Ok, so you admit that it's not a solid criteria. That's what I was asking for, because you seemed to think that it was one.

It, in and of itself, isn't conclusive criteria always; but, when viewed along with other subtle visual aspects of a person, a solid criteria is very much formed. And you don't meet it for Ni-ENFj.

But see, Socionics doesn't describe the same vague "underlying psychic growth phenomena" that the enneagram attempts to; it describes patterns of perception and the behaviors that are typically correlated to these patterns of perception.

Then stop talking about Fe and emotional states, or FeNi and implementing images; you just said it's about patterns of perception. Take a hint.

So, let me ask you: if a person's most active perceptual "wavelength," so to speak, is that of observing cause and effect relationships in human behavioral phenomena, including things like people's reactions to different situations, does it not make sense that one partial manifestation of a focus on these behaviors might be the tendency to project an image? "How do people react to me?" Think about it.

Not an image focus inherently. As I said in the previous post, if the person had that underlying motivation to implement an image (3/4 fix), such a functional combination could filter it with a stronger clarity than another (TeSi), only by means of interpersonal analysis, manipulation, etc.; but that doesn't mean it has a direct correlation with the actual motivation.

[Creepy-bg]

See, if you watched closely, you'd notice that I only even mention Ashton to certain people who he has very obviously influenced in some way (Archon, strrrng, etc). It's not like I'm trying to start some huge anti-Ashton crusade, or purge him from the face of this planet; it's just annoying when people who I want to have interesting discussions with have absorbed his ideas and can't let go of them; to me, his ideas are stupid, vague, and baseless, and Socionics is an interesting theory, so I'd like to separate the two.

Honestly, it's not like I start threads flaming Ashton, or start a whole new forum to debunk his ideas or something; I opened a new section of the forum so I wouldn't have to put up with his followers and would have some place to shelve them, but I'm not going around making threads disproving what he says. I don't have a fixation on him, and it's kind of annoying and presumptuous when people go "OH THE ONLY ONES WHO TALK ABOUT ASHTON ARE THE ONES WHO SAY HES STUPID SO THEY MUST JUST BE JEALOUS OR THINK HES SIGNIFICANT IN SOME WAY OR SOMETHING." He's not significant. He's a manipulative, partially psychotic asshole who confuses people and appeals to their individuality as a ploy to make them his pawns while pandering to other people to make himself look ok and maintain the fragile balance in his ego.

Really all I want is for everyone on this forum to just forget about him and study actual Socionics so that the discussions here can actually be productive.

sigh...

I'm just pointing out that the people who keep bringing him up and ranting about "his" model vs "actual" socionics on this forum are the ones who appear to be fixated. If he isn't significant, and you want everyone to just forget about him, then stop bringing him up at every opportunity that pops up to rant about him and his "manipulative psychosis" or whatever.

I mean, dude, you renamed half of the subforums, etc... etc... just because one or two people happen to subscribe to the same ideas and way of looking at things as Ashton. You're reacting to some figure that you just said is minor and insignificant as if he was the communist empire subverting your entire society. That doesn't seem a bit obsessive to you?

[Not A Communist Shill]

erm? I know that Archon sees himself as fighting a crusade for Model X and sees himself as some sort of martyr for the cause. It may hurt him to have his bubble punctured and to untie him from the stake he has tied himself to, but he is currently free to post here...and there is even now a dedicated subforum for fringe Socionics views now.

[strrrng]

See, if you watched closely, you'd notice that I only even mention Ashton to certain people who he has very obviously influenced in some way (Archon, strrrng, etc). It's not like I'm trying to start some huge anti-Ashton crusade, or purge him from the face of this planet; it's just annoying when people who I want to have interesting discussions with have absorbed his ideas and can't let go of them; to me, his ideas are stupid, vague, and baseless, and Socionics is an interesting theory, so I'd like to separate the two.

No. You use some shitty, post-hoc disparaging tone to write people off when they disagree with you, because it's an easy pretense to guise hollow criticisms through. It's not black and white; people don't speak to Ashton and lose their souls. I haven't spoken to him in months; I'm sure there are still a solid amount of things we both disagree and agree on. So pray tell, oh savior, what have I learned from him? What is so skewed, that I simply can't see out of the "Ashtonian" lens, into the vast landscape of clarity that you so strongly perceive?

[Creepy-bg]

for the record, I hardly talk to Ashton either anymore (not for any particular reason besides we just haven't been around at the same times). Also, I'm not defending him. He isn't a saint, he isn't some tragic figure who's being misunderstood. He's got his issues just like alot of us do. I'm just trying to get you (and others) to take an honest look at how you're behaving and creating this situation 10X more than Ashton is.

[Not A Communist Shill]

for the record, I hardly talk to Ashton either anymore (not for any particular reason besides we just haven't been around at the same times). Also, I'm not defending him. He isn't a saint, he isn't some tragic figure who's being misunderstood. He's got his issues just like alot of us do. I'm just trying to get you (and others) to take an honest look at how you're behaving and creating this situation 10X more than Ashton is.

stfu re: Ashton!

[Gilly]

Sure, there are -some generalized traits- that can be interpreted through both systems, in different ways (which is subjective, not inherent to the phenomena or system's descriptors). But not fundamental things like a fixation on adhering to image-based ideals generated from self-imposed standards. That is the type of stuff I was thinking of when I spoke of the systems describing different things inherently.

Whatever, shades of gray; I don't think this aspect of our dispute is going anywhere.

I tend to think it's a dynamic model of natural processes which are intrinsic to human experience. Not every theory is a framework, for christ's sake -- and even if it takes the form of a 'model', it could so easily be a perfectly commensurate projection of the actual phenomena. So, stop using that word to separate it from that.

Actually, yes, every theory is a framework. You think that the enneagram perfectly describes aspects of human psychology? Please, tell me you're not that simple.

And? I didn't claim they were all-encapsulating phenomenological axims.

But you claim that they describe certain phenomena in a way that is nearly "perfect," that it is "intrinsic to human experience," to quote you. But it's not. It's just a model. Sure, maybe it resonates with your experience, but it's not perfect; if it describes part of you "perfectly," it's probably just because it resonated with you to begin with and you've come to identify with it. The enneagram does not accurately describe "intrinsic human experiences," even in isolation; at best, it's a functional approximation.

Ah, so the phenomena is just some thing, floating there, and we can only find the best abstract descriptor to account for it. Wonder where those "models" came from. Stop looking from the outside in on this shit.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Those models came from human perception, attempting to make sense of something that they don't fully understand. That's what models and theories are.

I haven't "demonstrated" any faulty understanding, outside of what you have categorized based on disagreement.

Yes, I have categorized it as incompatible with Model A Socionics. That's correct.

And once again, you attempt to contextualize it as "Ashtonian learning" to make it seem as if the actual content has no validity.

I didn't say it was totally invalid; just that it's not relevant to Socionics.

Address me; this has nothing to do with Ashton or his "thoughts," and you clearly don't understand that dynamic well enough to comment anyway.

Heh, you've said otherwise in the past.

Even I can clearly see that your interpretations of his conceptions are flawed, not to mention incredibly biased, thus rendering any assessment negative and opinion of someone who happens to "agree" in certain ways condemning. Get your head out of your ass. There's a reason why I've shown the most consistent ability to VI random people correctly on this forum, and why I'm asked for opinions on types more than anyone else.

Oooooohh, so all of a sudden strrrng is the most widely consulted sage? Negro please, and you were talking about MY inflated ego? Pffff. There are people who AIM me every day asking for opinions on people's types. Get YOUR head out of your ass, buckaroo.

No. They don't describe the same thing inherently. People are free, however, to take generalized traits and interpret them through each system; doesn't mean it's right.

What do you mean it's "right?" They are fucking systems! None of the fits are perfect; sure, some are better than others, but it's just a matter of degree.

Socionics has nothing to do with the motivation or the trait; all it can describe is the psychic modulation that underpins the interpretation and expression of said things. Stop conflating.

I don't see how this is conflation.

How noble of you

Noble? Au contraire, I'd say it's rather stupid of me; I just want to do it.

Fe isn't solely about observing "emotional states" and their variations in self and others; it's a cognitive lens independent of such labels. The fact that, due to its causal nature, said things can be traced readily through the lens, doesn't mean there is a direct correlation. And this has nothing to do with what I criticized you for anyway, so stop splitting hairs.

You're missing the point. I said it was one aspect of Fe. And it is relevant: observing the emotional reactions of others to certain things, particularly our own behavior, can lead to modifying our own behavior to produce a certain reaction. It's a pretty basic idea.

It, in and of itself, isn't conclusive criteria always; but, when viewed along with other subtle visual aspects of a person, a solid criteria is very much formed. And you don't meet it for Ni-ENFj.

Whatever, you're entitled to your own opinion.

Then stop talking about Fe and emotional states, or FeNi and implementing images; you just said it's about patterns of perception. Take a hint.

You don't think our perceptions affect our motivations? Are you insane? Sure, the baseline is a pattern of perception, but our perception affects the way we behave. Remember in Fight Club, when he talks about how, after he started fighting, he caught himself sizing everyone up, wherever he went? When we observe things, we don't just observe them and leave them at that; we impliment them, and that's where perception turns into, or at least affects, motivation.

Not an image focus inherently. As I said in the previous post, if the person had that underlying motivation to implement an image (3/4 fix), such a functional combination could filter it with a stronger clarity than another (TeSi), only by means of interpersonal analysis, manipulation, etc.; but that doesn't mean it has a direct correlation with the actual motivation.

Do you drive in nails with a screwdriver? If you have a core motivation, you are going to develop the psychological tools that are commensurate with fulfilling your fixation; if you care about how people perceive you, you will pay attention to how you are perceived, and you do this by measuring people's reactions to you, certain behaviors, etc, and you adapt and learn to manipulate these reactions. Even the idea that the core motivation of being accutely aware of people's perceptions of you suggests that you were attuned to these perceptions to begin with, at least on some level.

So, where's the problem?

[Gilly]

I'm just pointing out that the people who keep bringing him up and ranting about "his" model vs "actual" socionics on this forum are the ones who appear to be fixated. If he isn't significant, and you want everyone to just forget about him, then stop bringing him up at every opportunity that pops up to rant about him and his "manipulative psychosis" or whatever.

I mean, dude, you renamed half of the subforums, etc... etc... just because one or two people happen to subscribe to the same ideas and way of looking at things as Ashton. You're reacting to some figure that you just said is minor and insignificant as if he was the communist empire subverting your entire society. That doesn't seem a bit obsessive to you?

More than wanting people to forget about Ashton as a person, I want his faulty ideas about Socionics to stop polluting this forum. And, in large part, that problem is solved. But it still pisses me off that I can't have a realistic discussion about Socionics concepts with strrrng because we don't agree on the basics of the theory.

And I didn't rename the subforums...I just made it clear what they were actually for. He is minor in terms of his importance as a person to me; unfortunately the effect he has had on some people is undeniable. Do you see the difference?

[Creepy-bg]

Do you see the difference?

will you kiss me with tongue if I do?

I'm getting tired man, it's the end of my day. I'll make a real response to you after I've gotten some sleep half of what I said was for dramatic effect, you can see the point that I'm trying to make under it all, right? I'm as sick of hearing about Ashton on this forum as you are of hearing about his model. You're addressing the ones who are talking about the model, I'm addressing the ones who are talking about Ashton.

basically we agree that everybody needs to STFU. :tongue:

his "idea pollution" is only coming from one or two people. I just don't see it being bad enough to merit any sort of real response. Let them talk about what they think, and whoever disagrees can disagree with them. Take a deep breath, count to 10, jack off... whatever you gotta do. Find a center. OMmmmmmmmmmmm!

[Creepy-bg]

and dude, you're blaming Ashton for Nick's understanding of the theory? that's fucked up. Nick is a big boy. His understanding is his own. Maybe if you argued with him on those terms, instead of taking the "Ashton ruined ur mind" approach you could actually make some progress towards mutual understanding. I mean can't you see how shitty your approach there is for reaching some sort of consensus? You're basically shitting in his mouth and expecting him to tell you it tastes great before you'll move on to any sort of good faith discussion on your part. (or something like that lol like i said I'm tired )

[Gilly]

First of all, I mentioned it once, now you're dragging it out into a debate...hypocrisy much?

Second of all, you seem to be under the illusion that I'm "pissed" about this or something. It's annoying that I can't converse with Nick on the level that I'd like to be able to, but I'm not losing any sleep, heh. I continue to talk about it with you because I have an ego and I like arguing

Third of all, if you don't like it, ignore it...it's not that hard. It's not like mentioning his name is going to have the kind of impact that people touting his ideas as legitimate forms of Socionics does, unless, again, you make a big deal about it in this exact manner.

Fourth, I know that my approach might seem counter-productive, but tough-talk is the only kind that Nick understands And yeah, Nick's understanding is his own, but even he has admitted in the past that he was adversely influenced by Ashton.

[Gilly]

No. You use some shitty, post-hoc disparaging tone to write people off when they disagree with you, because it's an easy pretense to guise hollow criticisms through. It's not black and white; people don't speak to Ashton and lose their souls. I haven't spoken to him in months; I'm sure there are still a solid amount of things we both disagree and agree on. So pray tell, oh savior, what have I learned from him? What is so skewed, that I simply can't see out of the "Ashtonian" lens, into the vast landscape of clarity that you so strongly perceive?

First of all, you seem to think that my brand of categorical thinking is a textbook example of Ti+Ne, when in reality, the way in which I insist on rigid boundaries between the theories is more Ti+Se than anything.

Second of all, you harbor the illusion that Socionics Ne and Ni are reduceable to something like "the parts" and "the whole," and use these vague notions to deconstruct my arguments and attribute my analysis to the functions that you would like to see me as, when in reality I'm just explaining the fucking theory and how it is actually designed to interpret things. You simply don't seem capable of coming to terms with the fact that you take the names and some highly generalized concepts from Socionics, and attribute a whole set of subjectivized meanings to its component parts while ignoring the methods, like the cubic model, that are the ACTUAL tenants of the theory designed to explain what you feel content to make up as you go along.

[strrrng]

Whatever, shades of gray; I don't think this aspect of our dispute is going anywhere.





Actually, yes, every theory is a framework. You think that the enneagram perfectly describes aspects of human psychology? Please, tell me you're not that simple.

I think it describes aspects of human psychological experience with an unusually strong acuity; no one said anything about perfection.

But you claim that they describe certain phenomena in a way that is nearly "perfect," that it is "intrinsic to human experience," to quote you. But it's not. It's just a model. Sure, maybe it resonates with your experience, but it's not perfect; if it describes part of you "perfectly," it's probably just because it resonated with you to begin with and you've come to identify with it. The enneagram does not accurately describe "intrinsic human experiences," even in isolation; at best, it's a functional approximation.

I never said shit about perfection, so stop throwing that in there as if I did. The connotations of that word serve merely to discredit someone who apparently alludes to it. It's not about it "resonating" with me on some personal level; it's about seeing the patterns manifest lucidly in front of my eyes again and again, relating these perceptions to other peoples', and naturally concluding the heightened accuracy of this "system." If it's a functional approximation, the intrinsic experience it describes is being honed on in very closely.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Those models came from human perception, attempting to make sense of something that they don't fully understand. That's what models and theories are.

But I wasn't alluding to human perception -- rather, the more fundamental phenomena that generated the thing to perceive and "approximate."

Yes, I have categorized it as incompatible with Model A Socionics. That's correct.

And thus, the crux: stop categorizing as this model or that, and just work with what's right. Using a term like "Model A" socionics more often than not just serves as some delineation for a person to subjectively utilize with an array of information. You aren't the arbiter of that shit, Augusta isn't, no one is; "Model A Socionics" is a general predication referencing a more fundamental thing. And *since* it's simply an approximation, there are always other ideas out there which can better hone that approximation, regardless of whether or not they initially fall under that category neatly enough for people like you to accept. Get it?

I didn't say it was totally invalid; just that it's not relevant to Socionics.

See above. Throwing around that label as if you actually know what it is, in full. Er, wait, you're just referencing *a theory* so whatever doesn't fit into the already-defined context can be discarded. Nice.

Heh, you've said otherwise in the past.

I was saying that you don't understand our intellectual dynamic enough to comment on what "teaching" or "learning" occurred; you just have some cursory impression that you use for ad hominem purposes.

Oooooohh, so all of a sudden strrrng is the most widely consulted sage? Negro please, and you were talking about MY inflated ego? Pffff. There are people who AIM me every day asking for opinions on people's types. Get YOUR head out of your ass, buckaroo.

I don't care who asks you for typings; I was making a point. My "faulty" socionics conceptions frequently lead to correct typings -- these being verified by the person asking irl. So, what accounts for that discrepancy?

You're missing the point. I said it was one aspect of Fe. And it is relevant: observing the emotional reactions of others to certain things, particularly our own behavior, can lead to modifying our own behavior to produce a certain reaction. It's a pretty basic idea.

But observing emotional reactions doesn't always correlate back to Fe; Fe is just a modulator for how said things are registered. Someone "weak" in Fe could commonly observe peoples' nuances and emotions, perhaps out of some entirely different motivation, and still be adept at acting on them. Yet, if you tried to categorize this person, you would label them Fe-valuing, incorrectly of course. It is a filter.

You don't think our perceptions affect our motivations? Are you insane? Sure, the baseline is a pattern of perception, but our perception affects the way we behave. Remember in Fight Club, when he talks about how, after he started fighting, he caught himself sizing everyone up, wherever he went? When we observe things, we don't just observe them and leave them at that; we impliment them, and that's where perception turns into, or at least affects, motivation.

Never said perception doesn't affect motivation. Functions don't generate the same kind of perceptions that natural human experience does. The Fight Club example isn't the same, because it pertains more to psychological training. You're making functions out to be actual psychological drives, when they're simply lenses of information processing -- not that deep rooted. And like I said, if someone is observing something like emotional reactions or pragmatic efficiency or idea structure, that in no way means they're using a specific function.

Do you drive in nails with a screwdriver? If you have a core motivation, you are going to develop the psychological tools that are commensurate with fulfilling your fixation; if you care about how people perceive you, you will pay attention to how you are perceived, and you do this by measuring people's reactions to you, certain behaviors, etc, and you adapt and learn to manipulate these reactions.

And core motivations aren't function-related; nor are certain functions necessary to implement core motivations. Duh. They're just there.

Even the idea that the core motivation of being accutely aware of people's perceptions of you suggests that you were attuned to these perceptions to begin with, at least on some level.

It's called perspicacity, not Fe.

So, where's the problem?

With your idea of what constitutes a function.

[strrrng]

and dude, you're blaming Ashton for Nick's understanding of the theory? that's fucked up. Nick is a big boy. His understanding is his own. Maybe if you argued with him on those terms, instead of taking the "Ashton ruined ur mind" approach you could actually make some progress towards mutual understanding. I mean can't you see how shitty your approach there is for reaching some sort of consensus? You're basically shitting in his mouth and expecting him to tell you it tastes great before you'll move on to any sort of good faith discussion on your part. (or something like that lol like i said I'm tired )

Pretty much. He seems to apply that judgment liberally, whenever we come to a disagreement on socionics.

Fourth, I know that my approach might seem counter-productive, but tough-talk is the only kind that Nick understands And yeah, Nick's understanding is his own, but even he has admitted in the past that he was adversely influenced by Ashton.

Being adversely influenced in ways, sure. Brainwashed, no. Get your shit straight.

[JuJu]

I have an idea:

why don't ppl who subscribe to some other form of Socionics post on a forum about that, or in the alternative typologies section here??

my only problem w Steve etc (I can't include Nick in this) is you can't argue/discuss Model A Socionics w em, (what this forum's about,) bc they're arguing from a different theoretical framework... the arguments never get anywhere... and usually end up degenerating quickly...

[Steve]

I have an idea:

why don't ppl who subscribe to some other form of Socionics post on a forum about that, or in the alternative typologies section here??

my only problem w Steve etc (I can't include Nick in this) is you can't argue/discuss Model A Socionics w em, (what this forum's about,) bc they're arguing from a different theoretical framework... the arguments never get anywhere... and usually end up degenerating quickly...

Because the basic concepts of socionics (functions, information elements, duality, intertype relations,etc) (as developed by Aushra) DO touch on something extremely legitimate, however I and some others think that the particular model developed from it, and how the functional manifestations are characterized does not do reality justice. We have moved in a direction that, in our view, carries with it a more pervasive consistency.

You can discuss Model A socionics with me - Model A itself isn't terrible, it's more the characterization of the functions by people who use it that I find off the mark.

My main point of departure from Model A is the idea of subtypes, and I believe that non-quadra functions are not valued and not used. Also, the functions in the super-id bloc are instead strong and valued and not weak the way Model A portrays it - the only difference between the "strength" of the superid functions vs the strength of the ego functions is that the ego functions are "honed, precise, and focused" while the super-id functions are looser, more raw, and, in the case of the agenda, generalized.

I view duality as the dual's ego functions "reign in" and "focus" the other dual's superid, and NOT that the dual provides some functional awareness that is lacking in the other dual (as in ISFps somehow providing comfort and making ENTps take care of their health)

[Gilly]

Being adversely influenced in ways, sure. Brainwashed, no. Get your shit straight.

You were mildly brainwashed; you still show signs of bad influence.

[strrrng]

You were mildly brainwashed; you still show signs of bad influence.

Whatever. Deigning to correct your misconceptions (again) isn't worth the energy, unfortunately.