I am three types

[redbaron]

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

[discojoe]

No.

[Pa3s]

She's just horny again and wants lots of duals.

Well, more types = more duals, that's right. But there will also be more conflictors. I don't know if this will work. :wink:

[redbaron]

Well, more types = more duals, that's right. But there will also be more conflictors. I don't know if this will work. :wink:

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

[Creepy-male]

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

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.

[redbaron]

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.

[Pa3s]

Bam. So really only one in four of my potential duals is any good.

Only if all four DCNH types are distributed evenly among all ILEs.

[1981slater]

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

This reminds me (once again) of the famous Julio Iglesias song: "I am a rogue, I am a gentleman".

[Cyrano]

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

Why can't your be ENFp? :frown:

[Crispy]

I averaged your three types and it turns out you're IEI. Go figure.

[1981slater]

Red Baron: as creative function for sure

[redbaron]

Why can't your be ENFp? :frown:

because my mother is ENFp.

[Trevor]

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.

[Brilliand]

Model T

[redbaron]

Model T

I had no idea. I was thinking more along the lines of this:

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Pa3s]

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?

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.

[Aiss]

This is the typical correction made by a Ti-demonstrative. Quantitatively you're right, qualitatively you're not.

Fixed.

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?
---

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.

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.)

[Pa3s]

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.

Good answer.

[redbaron]

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.)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Pa3s]

Although I have written a lengthy answer to you, I decided at the last moment to not post it. I won't answer your posts, sorry, all that you need to know to understand my point is already written, IMO.

Okay, if you think it's better this way, no problem. I'll include it in my consideration.

[Aiss]

Aiss, MegaDoomer: Although I have written a lengthy answer to you, I decided at the last moment to not post it. I won't answer your posts, sorry, all that you need to know to understand my point is already written, IMO.

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.

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).

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.

[redbaron]

Model Z
:wink:

exactly!