My type

[Angel von Himmel]

I do not know what it is, but I have noticed a trend towards me being pissed off towards certain specific logical types when they try to manage socionics. I think it might just be people who are trying to be more logical then theoretical with it, and more than likely this probably has to do with my type as it is a trend.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...?p=68051#68051

[Angel von Himmel]

I think I might be an ethical type again, the ENFps seem to be the only ones who want to claim me, though ...

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Creepy-]

I think you're a logical type...

[Rick]

rmcnew, I think there is a chance you could be IEE, although I would lean towards ILE. Consider what it would mean being an IEE in a forum like this. You seem to get into a lot of logical arguments (not just discussions) and take the brunt of the logical arguments yourself. If you were an IEE, this would be really hard on you and would make you feel self-conscious. You would wonder things like, "do they all think I'm stupid now?" An IEE feels best either staying out of logical arguments or referring to authoritative sources of logic so that any criticism of it is actually directed towards the 'authoritative sources.' Do you feel good being dry in your reasoning and participating in logical debates? Or do you feel sort of clamped up, as if you're trying to squeeze out some Great Truth that only you can understand?

[Slacker]

rmcnew, I think there is a chance you could be IEE, although I would lean towards ILE. Consider what it would mean being an IEE in a forum like this. You seem to get into a lot of logical arguments (not just discussions) and take the brunt of the logical arguments yourself. If you were an IEE, this would be really hard on you and would make you feel self-conscious. You would wonder things like, "do they all think I'm stupid now?" An IEE feels best either staying out of logical arguments or referring to authoritative sources of logic so that any criticism of it is actually directed towards the 'authoritative sources.' Do you feel good being dry in your reasoning and participating in logical debates? Or do you feel sort of clamped up, as if you're trying to squeeze out some Great Truth that only you can understand?

I feel so understood! I need some little heart emoticon.

[Angel von Himmel]

rmcnew, I think there is a chance you could be IEE, although I would lean towards ILE. Consider what it would mean being an IEE in a forum like this. You seem to get into a lot of logical arguments (not just discussions) and take the brunt of the logical arguments yourself. If you were an IEE, this would be really hard on you and would make you feel self-conscious. You would wonder things like, "do they all think I'm stupid now?" An IEE feels best either staying out of logical arguments or referring to authoritative sources of logic so that any criticism of it is actually directed towards the 'authoritative sources.' Do you feel good being dry in your reasoning and participating in logical debates? Or do you feel sort of clamped up, as if you're trying to squeeze out some Great Truth that only you can understand?

Actually .... you have just raised an interesting point.

I remember in highschool that I had to participate in a debate class, and I totally hated that class because I was expected to let someone hammer away at what I was suppose to say in defense of my side of the debate. There were a few people who would get up and say something, and I would be totally pissed off at them because of the way they handled their side of the argument. There was one guy who I think I might have otherwise had been friends with if it was not for the fact that the teacher unfairly gave him a two day repreave to study for a rebuttal of an argument I had made, and I only had the length of his argument to prepare for a counter-argument and I ended up looking sort of stupid and unprepared. I have pretty much hated debate since that time.

And as far as when I am describing things ... if it came down to it I would rather let people throw tempertantrums at what they believe is an authority [though,personally I tend to not just respect anyone as an authority and may not even believe the same are actually authorities] and shut the hell up. Somethings I just do not want to hear about, and that is one of them.

And I am not sure about being clamped up, but for the most part I seem to be the only one that understands what I am trying to communicate half the time. Either I am too abstract, or too complex ... I am not sure which. A few people think they understand me, but usually time shows that they do not except for maybe indirectly.

[wym123]

Consider what it would mean being an IEE in a forum like this. You seem to get into a lot of logical arguments (not just discussions) and take the brunt of the logical arguments yourself. If you were an IEE, this would be really hard on you and would make you feel self-conscious. You would wonder things like, "do they all think I'm stupid now?"

Rick, could you please explain how it would work for ILE?

Thanks.

[Gilly]

Well...

Types of this quadra enjoy discussing people, internal motivation, and self-development. They believe in peaceful self-government without coercion and in the inherent potential of each human being for personal fulfillment.

Types from this quadra enjoy freely exchanging new ideas and theories as a form of intellectual leisure. They like to systematize knowledge and create new categories and speculative hypotheses without necessarily intending to see their theories tested or implemented.

Which one fits you better?

[Rick]

ILE's feel strong in debates and arguments. The only way to make them look and feel weak or self-conscious would be to somehow get to their . I can't think of any examples, but in this last argument rmcnew hinted that socionics can lead us to something... better or something like that. Was he implying a sort of ethical idyllia where ethical imperfections of society are removed? I don't know. An IEE would feel more comfortable talking about ethical implications outright, and would tend to idealize logical consequences of socionics ("that it can unite our understanding of people into one system" or something like that), while avoiding direct discussion of this ideal.

In debating and arguing ILE's can get carried away and don't see when they have offended someone until it's too obvious. IEE's tone down their language and make logical accommodations as soon as they see people might be offended.

[wym123]

I do not know what it is, but I have noticed a trend towards me being pissed off towards certain specific logical types when they try to manage socionics. I think it might just be people who are trying to be more logical then theoretical with it, and more than likely this probably has to do with my type as it is a trend.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...?p=68051#68051

I am well convinced that I am an INTj and it is not impossible for my emotions to blow up. Depending on how the argument proceeds and whether I am dissatisfied with the exchanges, I can blow up pretty easily. I think one of my biggest problems I lack patience in communication and can get fustrated, hence emotional, pretty easily from miscommunication, especially when I notice that the increased effort I expend does not correlate to any increased understanding in the other party. I heard that INTjs are one of the most logical types and given that we can still get pretty emotional, I don't think your demonstration on that thread is indicative of anything.

[Angel von Himmel]

I can't think of any examples, but in this last argument rmcnew hinted that socionics can lead us to something... better or something like that. Was he implying a sort of ethical idyllia where ethical imperfections of society are removed?

Essentially, I was implying that socionics does not work 100% entirely in the real world [except in theory] and that by putting it to scientific tests and applications there is a possibility of some discovery that could in a most absolute senerio rival the discovery of means to harness electricity. It is sort of like how Voltaire, Newton, and others helped lead the way to the eventual discovery of a means to harness and control the currents of electricity with experimentations of fire, heat, and conduction even though the theories apparently did not always work entirely in the real world at that time.

[Rick]

Okay, but let's please not renew the argument from the other thread, OK?

some discovery that could in a most absolute senerio rival the discovery of means to harness electricity.

Okay, this doesn't sound too ethical, but is mostly a 'feeling' that there might be some great potential in socionics that might change the world. Actually... there could be ethics in that, but that depends on rmcnew's feelings at the time he said this.

Whatever

[Angel von Himmel]

Rick, it may not show over the internet, but I can get very passionate about things that are important to me, and it is often accomponied by gut reactions that allow me to think clear, logically, and to act about things.

[Rick]

Maybe you would find this description of as a leading function interesting -- at http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...?p=68776#68776.

Actually, I just cleaned it up, added a few things, and posted it at http://www.socionics.us/theory/bi.shtml