I am INFp, ENFj and ISFp. All three. Which is cool because now I have so many more duals!
Now I need to hire an LII to write up a new theory. Model T (no wait, that was a car) Model Z
I am three types
I am INFp, ENFj and ISFp. All three. Which is cool because now I have so many more duals!
Now I need to hire an LII to write up a new theory. Model T (no wait, that was a car) Model Z
No.
Well, more types = more duals, that's right. But there will also be more conflictors. I don't know if this will work. :wink:Originally Posted by Ashton
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
This reminds me (once again) of the famous Julio Iglesias song: "I am a rogue, I am a gentleman".I am INFp, ENFj and ISFp. All three. Which is cool because now I have so many more duals!
Now I need to hire an LII to write up a new theory. Model T (no wait, that was a car) Model Z
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Why can't your be ENFp? :frown:I am INFp, ENFj and ISFp. All three. Which is cool because now I have so many more duals!
Now I need to hire an LII to write up a new theory. Model T (no wait, that was a car) Model Z
ISTp
SLI
Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.
I averaged your three types and it turns out you're IEI. Go figure.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
x
Red Baron:
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Now matter how much we laugh about it the fact remains that subtype theories revolving around multiple types, IM EM DNCH DNA blah blah whatever, do nothing but flourish. Actually I am quite surprised by the amount of people participating. You know what they say: where there is smoke you are likely to find fire as well. Some IM EM DNCH DNA blah blah whatever breakthrough in Socionics is to be expected, that's for sure.
it would be interesting, wouldn't it. if you had more people you were super compatible with but also more people you clashed with. ha
because my mother is ENFp.
I had no idea. I was thinking more along the lines of this:
exactly!Model Z
:wink:
I think DCNH adds enough complexity in that department.
I: maintain respectful distance from C-ILEs, fucking LOVE H-ILEs, have an extremely poor opinion of D-ILEs, and have on/off clashes with H-ILEs.
Bam. So really only one in four of my potential duals is any good.
Why aerent you ESE? Because they resemble IEI least, so you are really just IEI
I mean to be honest I don't really have a huge sample of representatives of each ILE subtype.
The general nature of superficial interactions with each subtype tends to work like that. The only subtype I can't seem to deal with is Dominant. They're universally bad people for me, but I see lots of other people having difficulty with D-subs. C and N are "basically OK", just with problems.
Then again, H subs have their own issues. They're too damn distant
Only if all four DCNH types are distributed evenly among all ILEs.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
right. that's an interesting question too!
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 09-04-2010 at 07:35 AM.
That's quite interesting. But I think I would have wrote the explanation of what Ti and Te does after your thought experiment was finished.
Nevertheless, I can tell you that I'd say the same in both situations: I tell the machine she has got three duals, otherwise it would have to kill me. The fact that there are no SLEs left is no reason to abolish the 'class' of SLE. Even if it's purely hypothetical, the system of socionics would not work without it. It's not impossible that new SLEs will be born and even if it was impossible, the hypothetical type is still a part of the system.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Fixed.
You're making the same mistake here I argued against in chatbox the other day. You're comparing Xe and Xi, and while you stumble on some shreds of truth - Ti-qualitative, Te-quantitative for one, which by the way follows directly from Xi-subjective, Xe-objective - you try to force Te-egos' thinking patterns into your own rational fields, irrational objects framework. It obviously doesn't work. The problem is, with dynamic types, it's not Te or Fe that is responsible for this sort of reasoning; this is the area introverted functions cover.I'll hopefully write more about the differences in classifications between Ti and Te, but on short:
- Te classifies based on empirical evidence, the number of objects in each category; Te types tend to (and if Te could be used exclusively it *would*) eliminate categories that contain no members - as long as they don't manifest, they don't exist.
- Ti classifies based on properties and connections. The categories are not created through being represented but by respecting the emergent principles, through objective reasons, nevertheless (1). Its tendency is to assume that there are representatives of a class in reality even when they're not.
---
A thought experiment, let's assume that:
- redbaron is all these three types, IEI, EIE and SEI at the same time, let's call this "type X";
- a virus appears on Earth and eradicates all SLEs, and it's 100% certain that no SLE exists on earth;
- a machine asks you to correctly answer the question "how many dual types this woman has?" otherwise it will kill you.
What would you answer, two or three?
---
Oh, and my answer would be 'one'. Duality itself implies one-to-one relation of types, so type X's dual would be type Y, who was SLE, LSI and ILE at the same time. Whether they still exists or not - being 'partly' SLE - doesn't matter. (Although if it were a real situation and a question just as foggy, I could try entering incorrect data hoping someone was too lazy to check for it and prevent errors being thrown.)
Good answer.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Removed at User Request
Okay, if you think it's better this way, no problem. I'll include it in my consideration.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
And that's another difference where Ti and Te are concerned - Ti is sure it knows best and won't hear otherwise, Te wants to hear as much as it can but it will never reach being sure it knows.
I meant the fact that you were comparing the same function with different attitudes to begin with. It was a separate point from Ti-demonstrative comment earlier, if you didn't notice. So I meant Pi and not any Id function or whatever else you seem to have read into it.Edit: Aiss, FYI, you don't make the difference between Ego and Id, the same thing between Irrational and Rational functions, therefore it's nearly impossible to discuss with you. I was not writing about Xi vs Xe but Ji vs Je, unless specified. You may also read my blog to find out my further thoughts on F and P if you like (that entry is not totally on topic, but helps in understanding the big picture).
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 09-05-2010 at 04:09 AM.
You have been spending too much time with tcaud.
That's actually worth investigating.
Of course, but I guess it's difficult enough to find your base type. If you got that right, it's maybe easier to get your accepting/producing subtype, but these DCNH types... Russian roulette.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Fixed.
I mean it.
Your understanding of dynamic IEs is close to zero if you can't see what it implies for them and why it works.
So why are Ti-egos so easily convinced of someone "changing colors" in comparison to Te-egos?Let's take (yet another) an example: the politicians who jump parties. A politician in the Liberal (let's say) party, is he a real Liberal or a Socialist? Based on Te he is indeed a Liberal, he follows the agenda, holds correct speeches, and so on. All the evidence proves that he is a Liberal, even if he, as a personality, mentality an principles, is not. Based on Ti one may understand that he is not a true Liberal but he's pretending to be one - it impossible to tell that - the truth, in our case - without Ti. Only through Ti you can understand when the principles of someone are consistent with the agenda of his party, because they have to follow some rules, to make sense. The reason why the guy still stays in this party is beyond the scope of the issue, asking "why doesn't he move to Socialists then?" is a nonsense, it of course has an explanation but it's totally irrelevant, and any Ti type won't give a shit about such thing. This is a typical fallacious argument that an Te type might consider, while Ti would not.
You will come then and tell the one who made such observation that he's wrong, that he's stubborn into believing that that politician is not genuine and based on the evidence he will find himself in the impossibility to publicly prove you wrong, but he is in reality right.
Te: "the thief who's not caught is a honest person"
Ti: "the thief who's not caught is still a thief"
---
Now you probably understand why Ti people, from Stalin, through the Chinese government (against Google) up to jxrtes are rather resolute and allegedly not diplomatic, they can explain things to you, but they can do nothing if you don't (or don't want to) understand, regardless of who's right and who's wrong. The same way you can understand the admiration towards dictators and sometimes extremism of some Ti people, especially Irrationals (eg. Airborne).
This difference is the cause of this futile little debate of ours, tooMight it be because our experiences differ in regard to observing correlation between type and behaviour? Wait, that would mean everything isn't type related, after all. My bad.
You're making the same mistake over and over again. You presume Te would be involved with the same kind of reasoning as Ti. It is not. You can't compare the two in these terms, because Te doesn't even attempt to answer this question. When will you get it? Just because it concerns thinking doesn't mean Thinking is involved. Think of it as Logic and understand the difference. Any conclusions you imagine it would reach are impossible, because it doesn't happen in the first place. Te wouldn't even try.
These ridiculous (contradicting reality, wrong, false, choose whichever you like best) examples lead nowhere, because you totally miss the point of the element they're meant to illustrate. You ask questions it wouldn't answer, and so your made-up answers are useless and misleading.
Last edited by Aiss; 09-05-2010 at 04:23 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
