Doubt my ILE-ness? Well come on in

[mu4]

Thanks a lot for this .

I'm just wondering now... what is then? I'm off to read several articles here, wikisocion and www.socionics.us to see if I misunderstood something... I'm going by the following definitions:

And:

And I'd cite socionics.us... but it's down .

Show, don't tell. You seem more comfortable dealing with your type thru marketing than thru showing your .

If someone's talking about something and not doing it, it's might just be a weak function. I talk a lot about relationships, yet I don't really do it.. probably ethics is not my strong function.

[mu4]

If you're not ILE then I can't be ILE.

I think you two are both subtypes.

[Phthalate]

Show, don't tell. You seem more comfortable dealing with your type thru marketing than thru showing your .

Damn it hkkmr this is what I'm trying to do in this fucking thread. I've already said that I will answer anything, and I said "I think this is why I relate to this" and so forth, and parts of what I relate. Did I ask to ask me only IM questions? No, I didn't. I said 'ask me anything'.

I'm considering IEE. I'm not voting against it just yet. I'm trying to find more information about which I can make sense of, because I still relate more to the definition in ILE than the in IEE (as far as wikisocion goes). Too bad socionics.us is down, and thus wikisocion is the only thing I can go for in this moment.

I just want people to tell me WHY. Not just say "Oh you are ", but I want to understand what is their reasoning. I want to learn. I want to see why do they think that. I want them to show me "oh you said this, this sounds very because..." blah blah blah. It's REALLY not that difficult.

It's just annoying to see you manipulate my words at this point. My posts REALLY seem to be flying WAY over your head at this point, considering I can't see how I can't be more clear than that.

[ashlesha]

blank spots should be te and ti typing on my phone dumb keyboard and cursor ugh sorry lol

I feel kind of antsy about bringing it up now because I don't have time atm to go into how I perceive and and what I saw but remind me tomorrow if you want me to get to it and I haven't yet (disclaimers about myself and socionics being subjective anyway)

[mu4]

Damn it hkkmr this is what I'm trying to do in this fucking thread. I've already said that I will answer anything, and I said "I think this is why I relate to this" and so forth, and parts of what I relate. Did I ask to ask me only IM questions? No, I didn't. I said 'ask me anything'.

I'm considering IEE. I'm not voting against it just yet. I'm trying to find more information about which I can make sense of, because I still relate more to the definition in ILE than the in IEE (as far as wikisocion goes). Too bad socionics.us is down, and thus wikisocion is the only thing I can go for in this moment.

I just want people to tell me WHY. Not just say "Oh you are ", but I want to understand what is their reasoning. I want to learn. I want to see why do they think that. I want them to show me "oh you said this, this sounds very because..." blah blah blah. It's REALLY not that difficult.

It's just annoying to see you manipulate my words at this point. My posts REALLY seem to be flying WAY over your head at this point, considering I can't see how I can't be more clear than that.

I don't think you really understand that there is no point in me proving my doubt of you to you, I don't want to persuade you or anything. It's up to you to figure this out yourself, which you seem to be avoiding. I only want to analyze you and state my opinions.

Yes, I've given no evidence, yes I'm not substantiating anything. All of this is true, but I'm not doing because I can't, I can but it might be wrong. Rather I don't want to persuade you and I want to see how you try to request information from me. Ultimately how you choose to express yourself, how you choose to request information from me is far more evidence of your type than anything I say about you.

If you want to figure out your type, try to understand what you mean, what you're trying to do, what information you're requesting from me. Ultimately socionics is about information exchange and there is information I'm withholding from you and information I'm giving you which make this interaction easy or difficult.

I've said 2 things basically. I see your , I don't see your . Unless I find conclusive evidence of your / then I can't give you any evidence because it would be irrelevant. I don't have conclusive evidence, I can't really substantiate this opinion yet which is why you're not going to get much of it from me until I can analyze you more.

I think there will be other individuals who are going to be more willing to give you this information.

But what I can do is give you a hypothesis, which I'm in the process of testing.

this is only a test.

[Creepy-male]

Don't you realize the act of observing collapses the wave function because you interfere with the particle when you measure it.

Anyways I don't know Phthalate's type but from what he said I don't see any reason why I should doubt ILE. I'd agree that there isn't really strong evidence for Ti though, Ne is very apparent, but the Ti is less apparent. Being NT or thinking dichotomy though does not seem unreasonable to me and seems somewhat apparent in comparison to being ethical, Fe value over Fi value isn't unreasonable either.

One thing that may be helpful to give your analytical abilities a whirl, just so people can judge Strong vs Weak and Te vs Ti, is maybe you could explain your case against enneagram tritypes, in an analytical way. I wouldn't worry too much about appearing Ti, but just try to write your argument in a way that is natural to you. I think it would be useful, although there is always the problem of bias, as in people may type you an xxFx type because they consider weak thinking to be the same thing as "I disagree with you on tritypes"... this is confirmation bias and is one of the problems of typing.

[mu4]

Don't you realize the act of observing collapses the wave function because you interfere with the particle when you measure it.

If a tree falls in a forest, there is always something to hear it. Every wave function is already collapsing, a sentient observer is a influence on a particle as much as a non-sentient "observer". I think it's a philosophical error to assume only a sentient observer collapses the wave function. This is of course difficult to prove, but the assumption that it requires a sentient observer is also flawed. It might be intuitive to assume something like that, but also absurd and obscurantist.

[strangeling]

hkkmr has an interesting point. There's a difference between what someone thinks about something and how someone thinks about something. A lot of people like to type based on the former. I prefer the latter because it doesn't have to rely on stereotypes or generalized thinking, but it's also a lot harder to discern because it's much more abstract.

What I think would be beneficial to the discussion is in seeing how you understand the difference, as well as everyone else. Do you know what I'm saying?

[Gilly]

If a tree falls in a forest, there is always something to hear it. Every wave function is already collapsing, a sentient observer is a influence on a particle as much as a non-sentient "observer". I think it's a philosophical error to assume only a sentient observer collapses the wave function. This is of course difficult to prove, but the assumption that it requires a sentient observer is also flawed. It might be intuitive to assume something like that, but also absurd and obscurantist.

How can a non-sentient being "observe" anything? Define "observe?" And it seems more a question of physics rather than one of philosophy; many people blur that line which I have come to see as a rather childish mistake, what with the numerous, ahhh, "belief systems," if you will, that claim to be based on quantum mechanics.

[mu4]

How can a non-sentient being "observe" anything? Define "observe?" And it seems more a question of physics rather than one of philosophy; many people blur that line which I have come to see as a rather childish mistake, what with the numerous, ahhh, "belief systems," if you will, that claim to be based on quantum mechanics.

How do you observe anything. Maybe observe is just a personification of material processes by bodies and brains which have such a desire to conceptualize and comprehend the environment around them.

[Creepy-male]

If a tree falls in a forest, there is always something to hear it. Every wave function is already collapsing, a sentient observer is a influence on a particle as much as a non-sentient "observer". I think it's a philosophical error to assume only a sentient observer collapses the wave function. This is of course difficult to prove, but the assumption that it requires a sentient observer is also flawed. It might be intuitive to assume something like that, but also absurd and obscurantist.

First let me preface by saying it was only a whimsical comment instead of some kind hard point I was trying to make.

In terms of quantum physics though the uncertainty principle based on heisenbergs interpretation is that you can't exactly measure the position of a particle and the momentum, because the act of measuring or "observing" interferes with the particle. Measuring a particle may impart momentum to it or alter its position. The product of these two uncertaintys are always greater than a fundamental constant derived from an analysis of the schrodinger equation, which models particles quantum mechanically.

Collapse of a wave function is what happens when one measures the state of a quantum mechanical system. Initially it's state is in a superposition of various possibilities. Whether this superposition is a function of our ignorance or inherent to the system is still a question, one which Einstein and Bohr debated, and still remains indefinite although bohrs answer is usually favored. Regardless measuring the system returns a definite result, which forces the system to be in a single specific state, from this it rescatters into a superposition of possible states.

My point is that observation is a form of interaction or participation, and effects the outcome of events. Me evoking quantum mechanics is just a clever way of making that point, I'm not actually arguing that you are effecting people on the forum through quantum mechanical processes. Although you are, this would be a ridiculously indirect method of making a point. I was just making an analogy. What I am saying is that observing a person can influence their behavior. Consider a practical example -- such as the self fulfilling prophecy.

[Gilly]

How do you observe anything. Maybe observe is just a personification of material processes by bodies and brains which have such a desire to conceptualize and comprehend the environment around them.

Well yes I believe it is. Observing seems to necessitate a sense or method of information apprehension somehow, which, well, trees and rocks and mountains just don't have. That's not grey-area pseudoscience; its just a fact.

[Creepy-male]

How can a non-sentient being "observe" anything? Define "observe?" And it seems more a question of physics rather than one of philosophy; many people blur that line which I have come to see as a rather childish mistake, what with the numerous, ahhh, "belief systems," if you will, that claim to be based on quantum mechanics.

Observe doesn't mean "look at with your eyes" in quantum mechanics it usually means "attempt to measure through scientific instruments". Read up on heisenbergs interpretation of the uncertainty principle. Many people assume observe to mean to look at with your eyes, which spawns all kinds of absurd philosophy's which border on magical fantasy, there is actually a lot of thought required to consider how quantum mechanics applies to certain practical things.

[mu4]

First let me preface by saying it was only a whimsical comment instead of some kind hard point I was trying to make.

In terms of quantum physics though the uncertainty principle based on heisenbergs interpretation is that you can't exactly measure the position of a particle and the momentum, because the act of measuring or "observing" interferes with the particle. Measuring a particle may impart momentum to it or alter its position. The product of these two uncertaintys are always greater than a fundamental constant derived from an analysis of the schrodinger equation, which models particles quantum mechanically.

Collapse of a wave function is what happens when one measures the state of a quantum mechanical system. Initially it's state is in a superposition of various possibilities. Whether this superposition is a function of our ignorance or inherent to the system is still a question, one which Einstein and Bohr debated, and still remains indefinite although bohrs answer is usually favored. Regardless measuring the system returns a definite result, which forces the system to be in a single specific state, from this it rescatters into a superposition of possible states.

My point is that observation is a form of interaction or participation, and effects the outcome of events. Me evoking quantum mechanics is just a clever way of making that point, I'm not actually arguing that you are effecting people on the forum through quantum mechanical processes. Although you are, this would be a ridiculously indirect method of making a point. I was just making an analogy. What I am saying is that observing a person can influence their behavior. Consider a practical example -- such as the self fulfilling prophecy.

IMO, most of scientific measurement is not "observation", although it's attempting to do this, but rather bring something into a state of isolation in order to make a less noisy measurement. But at a certain point you can no longer create any more isolation. I am taking a indirect means towards observation because of this. Most indirect measurement techniques are used in QM which are neither ridiculous and make very important points. Also modern physics depends heavily on indirect measurement techniques. My goal is to have him initiate activity but to not persuade him of something which could make his self-typing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Creepy-male]

IMO, most of scientific measurement is not "observation", although it's attempting to do this, but rather bring something into a state of isolation in order to make a less noisy measurement. But at a certain point you can no longer create any more isolation. I am taking a indirect means towards observation because of this. Most indirect measurement techniques are used in QM which are neither ridiculous and make very important points. Also modern physics depends heavily on indirect measurement techniques. My goal is to have him initiate activity but to not persuade him of something which could make his self-typing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On QM: Yes that's also part of the problem, you can never fully isolate what is being measured because measurement will require an interaction between the instrument used to measure and what is being measured. Also what do you mean by "indirect". Further I never said measurement techniques in QM where ridiculous, I was saying methodically using QM to make a case for his type is ridiculously indirect, as in it's a cumbersome tangent, to more practical ways of typing. I was just having a little fun making a QM analogy.

On Self-Fulfilling prophecy and Type: I'm not questioning your intent to not persuade him into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it seems like you're kind of asking him to perform to show off Ti. Especially when you say "show don't tell"... so he is supposed to put on a spectacle of Ti-ness??? I can see how someone would want to collect more information, but requesting this is kind of odd. The entire point of an identity is that you are constantly projecting it at all times whether you want to or not, so asking for him to project it, is kind of ostentatious I think, kind of phony. He's projecting his identity right now in the process of arguing, and if he weren't arguing he would still be projecting it. That's why I don't understand why the argument is necessary to extract the required information. I'm not saying you shouldn't argue, do whatever you want -- but having people make a case before the court for their type I don't think is a good method and brings on the sort of thing you are talking about. They become lawyers to their own trial and start to tell the jury how they are a certain way instead of just being themselves. Then the judge says "well you seem to be doing a great job of telling us the facts about yourself, but what about showing us?". Well isn't that what you are asking from them? Aren't you asking him in your argument implicitely to "tell you why" he is ENTp. Aren't you asking him to observe himself and report to you?

[Gilly]

Observe doesn't mean "look at with your eyes" in quantum mechanics it usually means "attempt to measure through scientific instruments". Read up on heisenbergs interpretation of the uncertainty principle. Many people assume observe to mean to look at with your eyes, which spawns all kinds of absurd philosophy's which border on magical fantasy, there is actually a lot of thought required to consider how quantum mechanics applies to certain practical things.

Ok...is the fungus in the Amazon using advanced scientific equipment these days?

[mu4]

On QM: Yes that's also part of the problem, you can never fully isolate what is being measured because measurement will require an interaction between the instrument used to measure and what is being measured. Also what do you mean by "indirect". Further I never said measurement techniques in QM where ridiculous, I was saying methodically using QM to make a case for his type is ridiculously indirect, as in it's a cumbersome tangent, to more practical ways of typing. I was just having a little fun making a QM analogy.

On Self-Fulfilling prophecy and Type: I'm not questioning your intent to not persuade him into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it seems like you're kind of asking him to perform to show off Ti. Especially when you say "show don't tell"... so he is supposed to put on a spectacle of Ti-ness??? I can see how someone would want to collect more information, but requesting this is kind of odd. The entire point of an identity is that you are constantly projecting it at all times whether you want to or not, so asking for him to project it, is kind of ostentatious I think, kind of phony. He's projecting his identity right now in the process of arguing, and if he weren't arguing he would still be projecting it. That's why I don't understand why the argument is necessary to extract the required information. I'm not saying you shouldn't argue, do whatever you want -- but having people make a case before the court for their type I don't think is a good method and brings on the sort of thing you are talking about. They become lawyers to their own trial and start to tell the jury how they are a certain way instead of just being themselves. Then the judge says "well you seem to be doing a great job of telling us the facts about yourself, but what about showing us?". Well isn't that what you are asking from them? Aren't you asking him in your argument implicitely to "tell you why" he is ENTp.

If he could "fake" creative, I wouldn't question whether he's ENTp or not, lol... You got a way to tell if he's a somehow a convincing fake?

Unfortunately, I can't tell if he's ENTp or not, thus doubt although I do think he's base.

I've found people have a very hard time faking their type or some function expression, especially the PoLR. When I say "show", it means explicitly not make a case for it, but simply be that type. I'm not asking him to explain what his type is or convince me, just be himself and don't worry about it.

Be yourself, don't worry about it, try to understand yourself and others. (Have a opinion if you want) That's really all you can do until a objective measurement is established. I type pthalate IEE or IXE when he first joined the forum, nothing he's done since then has made me change my mind. Am I supposed to change my mind somehow because he happens to self-type another way.

See here...

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post811438

[Phthalate]

Response to @HaveLucidDreamz about the enneagram tri-type.

[Creepy-male]

Ok...is the fungus in the Amazon using advanced scientific equipment these days?

What do you mean by this?

[Creepy-male]

If he could "fake" creative, I wouldn't question whether he's ENTp or not, lol... You got a way to tell if he's a somehow a convincing fake?

Unfortunately, I can tell if he's ENTp or not, thus doubt although I do think he's base.

I've found people have a very hard time faking their type or some function expression, especially the PoLR. When I say "show", it means explicitly not make a case for it, but simply be that type. I'm not asking him to explain what his type is or convince me, just be himself and don't worry about it.

Be yourself, don't worry about it, try to understand yourself and others. (Have a opinion if you want) That's really all you can do until a objective measurement is established. I type pthalate IEE or IXE when he first joined the forum, nothing he's done since then has made me change my mind. Am I supposed to change my mind somehow because he happens to self-type another way.

See here...

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post811438

No I think its fine that you type him that way, what would be interesting would be your case for this though.

[Gilly]

What do you mean by this?

I'm just confused about how your statement relates back to my refutation of what hkkmr said.

[Creepy-male]

I'm just confused about how your statement relates back to my refutation of what hkkmr said.

I'm just explaining what I know about quantum mechanics and observation, and talking about the way people form absurd philosophies based on what I see as sloppy misinterpretation of the physics.

[Gilly]

Ok, thank you.

[Creepy-male]

Lol I can't tell if that's serious or not, but fuck it, you're welcome regardless.

[mu4]

No I think its fine that you type him that way, what would be interesting would be your case for this though.

There is no case. There is only doubt.

[fen]

[Kogoro Akechi]

I've reading the ILE description, I match with that description too..i still don't understand socionic very well..

[Phthalate]

... So, when are you guys going to respond to Phthalate's video so I don't have to watch it?

Lol why are you interested then?

[ashlesha]

i don't get it. you're saying tritypes are invalid because people who use them don't understand their core type enough first before branching out. but thats misapplication, not a reason to "not believe" like it says in your sig.

[GuavaDrunk]

Thinking aloud, tritypes could end up describing a person's superficial qualities and apparent mechanisms. Giving you a blueprint of what to wade through or ignore before hitting gold, so to speak.

[mu4]

Thinking aloud, tritypes could end up describing a person's superficial qualities and apparent mechanisms. Giving you a blueprint of what to wade through or ignore before hitting gold, so to speak.

I would say this is a important part of tritypes, an individual is not just their inner soft chewy center, but also the superficial qualities and mask they have.

Note the article comment I wrote about binary, trinary systems as well as the formation of a Quaternary from a trinary system.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...e-and-the-Self.

IMO the observations being made in tri-types is similar to that of Ego/ID/Super-ego, remember in all studies outside of socionics, the idea of super-id is basically foreign.

So a tritype is a combo observation of the features of a individual which is a product of the individual. The strong functions and the weak but still conscious function.

The weak unknowns and unconscious functions which one desires and seeks is not described. Enneagram does not deal with this unknown portion of the individual's psyche, which is something of a novel construct in socionics. Enneagram is heavily influence by Freudian and Jungian psychology and I think the trinary nature of it is similar to that of the Ego/ID/Super-ego observation.

Even Riso correlates enneatypes to Ego/Id/Super-ego, but I believe it's wrong as do this other poster on the enneagram forum.

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/fo...TOPIC_ID=26211

Anyways, it took me about 3 seconds of typing in "enneagram, ego id super-ego" in a search engine to find this post, I'm sure more has been written.

So what I see tritypes as is a attempt to(in socionics terms) assign enneatypes to nominally the ego/id/super-ego of a individual to produce a fuller explanation of that individuals personality, however by it's nature it's unsystematic.

[mu4]

I have issues watching videos, I prefer to read the synopses. I'm a weirdo.

It's because he's not Justin Bieber isn't it....

[ashlesha]

synopsis:

he moves his hands around all ninja like when he talks. SWISH POW.

he talks really fast and sometimes trips over his words and i get the impression he's thinking five things at the same time.

he tends to say kind of the same thing in like 5 different repeated ways to illustrate the point heavily lol.

he is

[Phthalate]

i don't get it. you're saying tritypes are invalid because people who use them don't understand their core type enough first before branching out. but thats misapplication, not a reason to "not believe" like it says in your sig.

Haha I guess that's getting into semantics here. What I mean is that I basically don't give much merit to people that believe in enneagram tri-types because that speaks of their lack of understanding of the system. Analogy-wise, that's like hearing a justification on why aliens are monitoring us.

Yeah, it is extrapolating, and I don't think that 's wrong (I think that's awesome and necessary for development!). But I've yet to hear a single convincing stand on tritypes where I don't go "That's a misunderstanding", "That's not right", "That... can be any type", and so on and so forth.

If you want to know where the theory came from, go check out www.enneagram.net . That's the website of that couple who created it out of financial reasons. If you have a Facebook, I recommend 'liking' them ('Enneagram Explorations') so you can see the amount of idiocy they tend to comment on to justify the tritypes -_-.


Nevertheless, I am interested in seeing if that gave ANY information on my or . I am more than happy to create a thread about enneagram tritypes if needed.

[mu4]

Haha I guess that's getting into semantics here. What I mean is that I basically don't give much merit to people that believe in enneagram tri-types because that speaks of their lack of understanding of the system. Analogy-wise, that's like hearing a justification on why aliens are monitoring us.

Yeah, it is extrapolating, and I don't think that 's wrong (I think that's awesome and necessary for development!). But I've yet to hear a single convincing stand on tritypes where I don't go "That's a misunderstanding", "That's not right", "That... can be any type", and so on and so forth.

If you want to know where the theory came from, go check out www.enneagram.net . That's the website of that couple who created it out of financial reasons. If you have a Facebook, I recommend 'liking' them ('Enneagram Explorations') so you can see the amount of idiocy they tend to comment on to justify the tritypes -_-.


Nevertheless, I am interested in seeing if that gave ANY information on my or . I am more than happy to create a thread about enneagram tritypes if needed.

Enneagram itself is a money making venture, as is most psychological consulting services. It's not like socionics sites don't sell socionics books and consulting.

Let's make it clear, frauds selling you snake oil or a immortality potion, might get something else right. Let's get this clear, generally stuff like astrology, enneagram, alchemy, whatever is full of frauds and looneys, but occasionally they piece together fragments of knowledge which can make sense if looked at from another point of view, i.e explained differently.

It's not the observations that make something valid, but rather the explanation. I could say there are different types of people, because monkeys from outer space made them that way. That's not a adequate explanation.

But if I say, there are different types of people, because people's brain interpret things different and have diversified thru time to fill different social niches and roles, that might seem a more plausible explanation.

So what tritypes is essentially.

1. Ok people seem to display different type characteristics, which one are they.

This is plausible and seems pretty self-evident if you explore people enough.

2. The explanation, which I don't know from these individuals might be "monkeys from outer space".

3. However, it doesn't mean that 1 doesn't have an explanation which might be more plausible.

I view that Freudian typology explains tritypes pretty well, thru it's concepts of ego/id/super-ego. Socionics highlight it's deficiency which is the concept of the super-id.

Given adequate explanation, a tritype system of enneagram is neither absurd or fraudulent and no, I have no reason to give enneagram or socionics consulting and you can't buy my book!

I won't say whether or not you're a of :Te valuer but in many circumstances you display certain traits.

1. The character issues of these individuals seem to primary in your assessment of tri-types.
2. You seem to hold a level of credibility for the originators of Enneagram who I view as no less or more invested in the monetary gains the system offers.

Character issues seem to be big for you.
Such as "american public school brats", "sense of self-entitlement", etc

You have very little trouble using shame/guilt/emotional means of persuasion.

You're no fun.

This is the reason why I made it so open-ended. So you could literally ask me ANYTHING, and ANYBODY could've provided input about what they thought. I easily could have made a video saying why I'm appealing to a certain type, IM or so. I decided against it, because I'm trying not to force myself into a box, but rather see what attire fits me best.

But oh well. You're ego because I say so .

If you're uncertain, then don't make assertions/accusations. It's in bad-taste to declare something you aren't going to back up.

I tried to give you an open forum for you to make an argument I would read, but I guess that isn't enough for you then. Never mind the invitation.

Anyways I'm going to ask you show your and not tell me why you "relate" to it. Until then, doubt.

[Esaman]

Damn it hkkmr this is what I'm trying to do in this fucking thread. I've already said that I will answer anything, and I said "I think this is why I relate to this" and so forth, and parts of what I relate. Did I ask to ask me only IM questions? No, I didn't. I said 'ask me anything'.

I'm considering IEE. I'm not voting against it just yet. I'm trying to find more information about which I can make sense of, because I still relate more to the definition in ILE than the in IEE (as far as wikisocion goes). Too bad socionics.us is down, and thus wikisocion is the only thing I can go for in this moment.

I just want people to tell me WHY. Not just say "Oh you are ", but I want to understand what is their reasoning. I want to learn. I want to see why do they think that. I want them to show me "oh you said this, this sounds very because..." blah blah blah. It's REALLY not that difficult.

It's just annoying to see you manipulate my words at this point. My posts REALLY seem to be flying WAY over your head at this point, considering I can't see how I can't be more clear than that.

Stopped reading after this lovely rant. You cannot be Ti PoLR if you demand Ti so adamantly.

[ashlesha]

i could relate to the wanting to know why and i thought he was asking for Te. especially if he was getting so frustrated with hkkmr who is a Ti type.

edit: i don't really think anybody wants to hear "you're X" with no explanation. so it probably makes more sense to say its not either, idk. but i wouldn't call it Ti seeking. unless you think i'm Fe.

[mu4]

Stopped reading after this lovely rant. You cannot be Ti PoLR if you demand Ti so adamantly.

I was giving him .

I gave him the why of my typing of him.

It's simple. base, but does not show , there is only one type like that.

IEE

Simple logic, but there is something that I was withholding...

Hey wanted something more than the why I was giving him, which are personal conclusions and judgement and imo he wanted more empirical information outside of my personal conclusions and judgement. I.E (E information) and he likely wanted logical version of that information, which makes it seeking vs seeking.

[Phthalate]

Since now I don't think @hkkmr to be capable of giving an accurate typing, I'm too lazy to yield to his requests about "displaying " (wtf?). Sorry!

I will respond to a couple of things though:

1. The character issues of these individuals seem to primary in your assessment of tri-types.

Nope. That's why I didn't bring it up in what I said in that video, and why I relied on explaining how it's not consistent from what has already been said. I mentioned the individuals as a source for @lungs to check the triviality of where it originated, but I've already made my case on why they are contradictory.

2. You seem to hold a level of credibility for the originators of Enneagram who I view as no less or more invested in the monetary gains the system offers.

I hold credibility over people who make sense. As I said, I've yet to hear anybody make a reasonable argument about the tritypes, yourself included.

Character issues seem to be big for you.
Such as "american public school brats", "sense of self-entitlement", etc

You are talking about what I said about school systems? I said that I actually disliked how important those groups and cliques seem to be to the American culture. Again, what I said went over your head, apparently.

I'm beginning to think that this is just becoming personal with you, and you are just arguing against me as an emotional response to you not liking me... y/y?

EDIT: WAIT... asking for information is now v. seeking? hahahahaha. So then, I guess EVERYBODY in academia must be some sort of ethical type.

hkkmr, you need to create your own system. Your distortions are logically inconsistent, and do not agree with what has been said.

[Phthalate]

I view that Freudian typology explains tritypes pretty well, thru it's concepts of ego/id/super-ego. Socionics highlight it's deficiency which is the concept of the super-id.