The fraudulent type

[Korpsy Knievel]

Originally Posted by k0rpsey

Ti+/Te-

Quote:
Originally Posted by k0rpsey

Te-/Ti+

Declared twice. So you agree with Te-/Ti+?

ILI is Te-/Ti+
LII is Te+/Ti-

I'm glad we could settle this. So I am ILI and Jung is ILI. Excellent.

Ah, mea culpa. That was declared twice in error. I should have said Ti > Te for LII and Te > Ti for ILI. None of my other comments require retraction.

Actually I'm glad to see you took the cheap avenue of escape and locked the thread after I painted you into a corner. That confirms your dishonesty and cowardice.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Adding to your thread after closing it is further confirmation of your cowardice.

[Jinxi]

He challenged me to a fight.

If he won't give me his address, I'll give him mine.

[silke]

Since last thread got locked before I had time to reply to it I'll add this here:

I haven't opened up to this forum yet. It's too damn hostile. However, I have voiced some of my rants, and you must have never seen any of the quoting I do from the Bible around here.

Quoting the Bible i.e. referencing an outside source to see what is acceptable ethical practice would be the work of extraverted ethics actually - Fe. Introverted ethics is formulating your own ethical stand point as it is a Ji funcion. This is what I meant to say that I have never seen a discussion where you would be defending your own individual ethical judgments as types would do. Taking on what is collectively considered to be ethical such, as what the Bible says, is expression of Fe.

[Absurd]

Since last thread got locked

That's terrible, didn't know that.

Quoting the Bible i.e. referencing an outside source to see what is acceptable ethical practice would be the work of extraverted ethics actually - Fe. Introverted ethics is formulating your own ethical stand point as it is a Ji funcion.

If this is correct and you stand to what you have said I think some people on here who self-type particular type are not those types they think they are, then you have a case for people who helped to solidify such typing, which is quite funny.

***
EDIT: Hey EyeSeeCold, what's the point in locking your thread, you're outnumbered here. Is this you saying "I give up, I am LII ?" Yes or no ? I think yes.

[DividedsGhost]

Quoting the Bible i.e. referencing an outside source to see what is acceptable ethical practice would be the work of extraverted ethics actually - Fe. Introverted ethics is formulating your own ethical stand point as it is a Ji funcion.

This is an interesting observation. I think you might have a very good point.

This is what I meant to say that I have never seen a discussion where you would be defending your own individual ethical judgments as types would do. Taking on what is collectively considered to be ethical such, as what the Bible says, is expression of Fe.

Hmm...I don't know if it's that simple in this case though. If you grew up with an ingrained belief of certain ethics that the bible teaches, it becomes your Fi with an appearance of Fe. I don't agree that Fi is only limited to concern of relationships as that would make this seem, it leaves too much variance in behavior uninstantiated.

The way you define it here is that Fi would have little appreciation for 'getting along with people' and instead have a propensity for being as selfish as possible. But it is often Fi that considers what they think is best for everyone else or humanity as a whole rather than only them-self or the relationships that benefit them.

[DividedsGhost]

Our buddy Jung says re:

"But, when it becomes falsified by an egocentric attitude, it at once grows unsympathetic, since then its major concern is still with the ego. Such a case never fails to create an impression of sentimental self-love, with its constant effort to arouse interest and even morbid self-admiration just as the subjectified consciousness of the introverted thinker, striving after an abstraction of abstractions, only attains a supreme intensity of a thought-process in itself quite empty, so the intensification of egocentric feeling only leads to a contentless passionateness, which merely feels itself."

Oh, interesting. Okay then, very well. I recant my argument.

Huh, I think I'm still confused though...wouldn't we then be making a correlation between narcissism and Fi, suggesting that those with weak Fi are essentially less narcissistic? Perhaps there's another interpretation for this then? It seems the other extreme would be that Fi is also a measurement of bonding with another human being, which I suppose is what I prefer to understand as love.

Okay, nevermind, I think I understand your point. That would explain why Fi-PoLR and Fi-DS can be seen as narcissistic.

Perhaps, with very little Fi bonds a person ends up on the narcissistic spectrum, whereas with a high amount of Fi bonds a person ends up on the 'self-sacrificing for-their-love' martyr spectrum (like Jesus).

So if Fe is the sense of an emotional connection to the surroundings, then I guess weak Fe would be seen as someone disconnected from their surroundings, whereas strong Fe would be all about creating an emotional connection to everything.

Seems to make sense when I frame it that way. And clarifies the big differences between Te and Fe creative.

Thanks for posting that.

[Exodus]

Since last thread got locked before I had time to reply to it I'll add this here:


Quoting the Bible i.e. referencing an outside source to see what is acceptable ethical practice would be the work of extraverted ethics actually - Fe. Introverted ethics is formulating your own ethical stand point as it is a Ji funcion. This is what I meant to say that I have never seen a discussion where you would be defending your own individual ethical judgments as types would do. Taking on what is collectively considered to be ethical such, as what the Bible says, is expression of Fe.

I said this in the other thread, but this is total bullshit.

[silke]

Hmm...I don't know if it's that simple in this case though. If you grew up with an ingrained belief of certain ethics that the bible teaches, it becomes your Fi with an appearance of Fe. I don't agree that Fi is only limited to concern of relationships as that would make this seem, it leaves too much variance in behavior uninstantiated.

Yes it is more complicated than that and of course what information you are 'fed' by the world outside will influence your inner world. What I posted wasn't meant to be interpreted in a way that Fe = following what the Bible says on ethics. ESC has given his Bible quotes example as demonstration that he uses Fi as counter argment to my observations that I haven't seen any Fi discussions from him on this forum. I've retorted that if you analyze this single event of using the Bible as a reference point of ethics and think under jurisdiction of which function such behavior falls, then it clearly falls in the realm of Fe rather than Fi, objective common ethics rather than subjective personal ethics.

The way you define it here is that Fi would have little appreciation for 'getting along with people' and instead have a propensity for being as selfish as possible. But it is often Fi that considers what they think is best for everyone else or humanity as a whole rather than only them-self or the relationships that benefit them.

Fi is indeed a selfish function by virtue of being introverted. All introverted functions, Si, Ni, Ti, Fi are subjective and can be described as selfish because they represent your inner world, your individual "I", the self, hence the inherent selfishness in them.

Huh, I think I'm still confused though...wouldn't we then be making a correlation between narcissism and Fi, suggesting that those with weak Fi are essentially less narcissistic?

I am not sure how you have made that connection. Though introverted functions do correspond to your inner world and introverts do spend more time attending to it rather than the world outside, this doesn't automatically make them narcissistic.

From real life observations of meeting a couple of narcissists it seems to have something to do with having Fe as mobilizing function aka the hidden agenda "to be loved", which in case of NPD I suppose gets distorted into expectations of continuous admiration from others. My small sample of narcissist consisted entirely of ENTps. I am not sure how NPD unfolds for other types but these ENTps seemed to have a classic case of it - always requesting Fe from others. They do have Fi as PoLR

Perhaps there's another interpretation for this then? It seems the other extreme would be that Fi is also a measurement of bonding with another human being, which I suppose is what I prefer to understand as love.

Okay, nevermind, I think I understand your point. That would explain why Fi-PoLR and Fi-DS can be seen as narcissistic.

Perhaps, with very little Fi bonds a person ends up on the narcissistic spectrum, whereas with a high amount of Fi bonds a person ends up on the 'self-sacrificing for-their-love' martyr spectrum (like Jesus).

I wouldn't tie narcissism to any one function. In the few cases I encountered narcissists it had to do with Ti creative and Fe HA. Though I have heard of accounts of ENTj and INTp and ISFj labeled as being narcissistic I wouldn't know if those accounts are accurate. There are many selfish people out there but that doesn't mean they all have NPD. It is a disorder with very specific set of symptoms. If other personalities do develop NPD I bet it is of some different 'flavor' than that of ExTps. It just happens to be that all the ones I have met where ENTps so I can't comment on others.

So if Fe is the sense of an emotional connection to the surroundings, then I guess weak Fe would be seen as someone disconnected from their surroundings, whereas strong Fe would be all about creating an emotional connection to everything.

Seems to make sense when I frame it that way. And clarifies the big differences between Te and Fe creative.

I wouldn't say that Fe creates emotional connections to everything. Strong Fe makes you interested in tracking relationships of people in your environment by measuring instances of acceptance/rejection with acceptance being judged as 'good' and rejection being judged as 'bad'. It gives one a keen perception of how much other people value each other. With weak Fe you will simply not find this as interesting or important an activity in favor of your stronger functions. This doesn't necessarily mean that people with weak Fe are disconnected from their environment as any other extraverted function is able to provide that connection besides Fe. It simply means that they are not not responsive or sensitive to this specific part of the environment, thus they are not able to see it clearly.

If you're supposed to use Fe as one of your main functions, say creative for example, and for some reason it's just very weak, may be as a child you had very high fever one time and portion of the brain responsible for processing Fe got damaged as a result, that I believe can indeed lead to higher introversion, greater dissociation from environment and even some personality disorder.

[silke]

Quoting the Bible or having religious attitudes isn't a measure of nor , and I gather he shouldn't have brought it up in the 1st place.

but he did bring it up and was interpreting it via socionics, I really don't care if it was Bible or a instruction manual on Facebook etiquette, point is that allowing outside source rule over your judgements is Je nor Ji

Lol. We have a few borderline narcissists on the board. An INTj or two, an ENTp I think, and a possible ESTp.

I wonder what PD is assigned to people who keep fooling themselves.

[EyeSeeCold]

but he did bring it up and was interpreting it via socionics, I really don't care if it was Bible or a instruction manual on Facebook etiquette, point is that allowing outside source rule over your judgements is Je nor Ji

True, and I agree, but we should be asking: "what was the motivation behind the action and was it type-related"?

[silke]

True, and I agree, but we should be asking: "what was the motivation behind the action and was it type-related"?

You were trying to demonstrate that you use Fi as an ILI would as a reply to my comment that I haven't seen you use Fi. The motivation behind that post was indeed related to proving your type.

[EyeSeeCold]

You were trying to demonstrate that you use Fi as an ILI would as a reply to my comment that I haven't seen you use Fi. The motivation behind that post was indeed related to proving your type.

That's circular reasoning.

I'll clarify:
What was my motivation behind posting Bible quotes? Or if I had more than one, what were they?

[silke]

That's circular reasoning.

I'll clarify:
What was my motivation behind posting Bible quotes? Or if I had more than one, what were they?

That one you can clarify for us here. Why did you re-post Bible quotes as a demonstration of your use of Fi? What was your original motivation behind posting them and how is it related to Fi and being an ILI?

[EyeSeeCold]

That one you can clarify for us here. Why did you re-post Bible quotes as a demonstration of your use of Fi? What was your original motivation behind posting them and how is it related to Fi and being an ILI?

1. - Response to Typhon's Stupid Police proposition
2. - Response to THA's feigned offence at the disillusion of a real Santa
3. - Response to Absurd's "And there was light" quote.
4. - Response to Ryene Astraelis' call for a bitchslapping
5. - Response to Ashton's skepticism.

1.) I thought it wasn't conscientious of people who make innocent mistakes and who are naturally less capable in intellectualism.
2.) A joke response, I just found the Bible interesting to quote in such a situation. The quote was in my queue actually, I was waiting to use it.
3.) Philosophy; to stir mental contemplation.

MLK Jr.
4.) A joke response, but still, violence justifies(can cause) more violence.

5.) A joke response, Ashton was of little faith of my ILIness. (+?)

I thought I posted more than that.