Your typing of forum members

[The Reality Denialist]

To have a LAUGH.

I see and under what kind of prescription are you?

[Volcana]

This is a really helpful post because online communication can greatly distort our perceptions of others and our own behaviors.

Thank you

I use a lot of learned and conscious strategies to communicate online, because I usually want to tamp down the endless unresolvable conflicts and prevent ppl from getting hurt if possible.

There’s simply less of that irl so I occupy a different position there and use different approaches.

My life reached an ultimate low in 2012 (I was 32), and I spent a good deal of time working on myself through the use of a typology forum. Part of my work was just learning to use words more effectively in general, as well as exploring typology, because I have a very important fiction series in mind but I was a terrible writer. My writing improved tremendously and I am about to publish now but... aside from that, I gleaned benefits I never imagined I could experience when it came to dealing with people. Through investing myself in typology and the forum, I improved my understanding of where I went wrong with key people in my life and reached out to some (including my IEI ex best friend) to mend things that I had been incapable of mending for over a decade. I don't think I can possibly explain how hard I worked on this and how loud the difference is. People from my past were absolutely shocked that I got married as I was always hugely dedicated to my work and had no time for such considerations. Even more shocking was the fact that I managed any kind of remotely healthy relationship at such a close distance. (To be fair, at least half of this achievement can be credited to my husband. )
I explored typology for the sake of my work but then ended up realizing it could help me tap into parts of my own rhythm that were silenced by my ego for too long.

[Myst]

Thanks

Calling out "Ti" because someone gets provoked by people on a personal level, and thus asks, "Who the fuck are you?" is extremely lazy typing. Thinkers generally address the concept rather than the person's ethics, because they don't have much nuance with ethics. Now I know they were suggesting IEI, just as they do for everyone, but see, IEI is a positivist in a merry quadra. The real IEIs I know will use any chance as a way to get on top of the group dynamic and advance their place in the social hierarchy, manipulating people to like them. (This is not a negative connotation on 'manipulate,' as all types manipulate.) They are socially suave, and good at interpersonal dynamics. Fi is more intrapersonal and ignores Fe. Fe is geared toward group harmony. Relations for Fi is more about how close to get to someone and whether or not the relationship (note the word RELATIONS) will be fruitful. Being polite to strangers who are rude, actually has nothing to do with relations. And 'keeping positive relations' with strangers is not their primary concern, since that is about group harmony, which is Fe. That said, Fi doms are still feelers who have nuance with relations, so @Samson is more likely to be suitably and appropriately polite to the waiter than I. I just figure the waiter wants to be left alone because that's what I want. Or if I decide to talk I end up saying something socially unacceptable by accident. @Samson always starts with a polite smile and conducts himself with dignity, but then turns his primary attention to the person he has a CLOSE relationship with; the person he arrived with. An actual IEI will make a back and forth with strangers and exercise their Fe creative through joking, banter etc, in a merry manner. Samson is too serious for this, and that shows on this thread, so I don't see how they can miss this.

OK now this is not about the type of yours or Samson's, but let me say that in general I don't find quite some IEI-Ni's and not even all IEI-Fe's as "socially suave". People within a type are a bit more variable than that, can't just call a type socially suave as it is. My IEI-Fe ex actually complained that he doesn't find Fe natural in groups, it's something he learned or something... I wondered if it was the Se side of socializing he (and other IEIs) felt he had a problem with. Not all IEIs will exercise their Fe creative with every stranger so readily. I think there are way more factors at play here than simply the Ni and Fe preferences in the ego.

Oh I know. I know IEIs can present in a socially acceptable, 'normal' way, but there will always be an abstract mind palace. I definitely have this kind of mind palace, but my husband ( @Samson ) doesn't .

Yeah, the Ni lol.

Thank you this post made me smile. I definitely express my soul in my art.

Also, you caught me as a Ni ego - and at this point I am certain I'm Ni dom. I'm leaning ILI heavily, but the only other type I'd consider is IEI; problem is, I am (and have always been) concrete goal-oriented and pragmatic, but not nearly as nuanced with interpersonal things as IEIs. My art expresses my underbelly and my shadow (there is apparently some Se in it too; an animalism); I have danced with my shadow all my life, which I'm sure is influenced by me being a 4.
Jung himself describes a process of incorporating and facing the shadow. I'm pretty sure he is IEI, what do you think? ... and some of what he says bears an uncanny similarity to my own writings and discoveries about the unconscious, though I am not convinced it is enough to justify Fe ego for me. I've been pragmatic and on point with getting things done and concrete goals all my life, and terrible, I mean *terrible* with people. I've worked hard on it; my work shows. And as far as I can tell, ILI, LIE, etc can express deep passion in their art. Trent Reznor (ILI) for example.

That's where I'm at now with my typing. And I really appreciate the compliment and that you see this in me
My exes, to be fair, were talking about how I handle interpersonal things. My feelings themselves are intense and nothing like a robot, but many thinker egos would relate to this.

Np Glad if I helped with showing the Ni. I see Jung as LII-Ne but he does have a lot of the Ni demo going on. Just systematizing it more than any IEI I've ever seen. My IEI-Fe ex bf was in the creative arts too and was very goal oriented so pragmatic in that sense - I don't know if you meant goals for the arts with what you said. He mostly had the goals there. But definitely concrete goals, and I very much respected that in him btw. He was good with people tho' esp compared to me

Yes Logical types can express their feelings in art btw.

[Myst]

Thank you


My life reached an ultimate low in 2012 (I was 32), and I spent a good deal of time working on myself through the use of a typology forum. Part of my work was just learning to use words more effectively in general, as well as exploring typology, because I have a very important fiction series in mind but I was a terrible writer. My writing improved tremendously and I am about to publish now but... aside from that, I gleaned benefits I never imagined I could experience when it came to dealing with people. Through investing myself in typology and the forum, I improved my understanding of where I went wrong with key people in my life and reached out to some (including my IEI ex best friend) to mend things that I had been incapable of mending for over a decade. I don't think I can possibly explain how hard I worked on this and how loud the difference is. People from my past were absolutely shocked that I got married as I was always hugely dedicated to my work and had no time for such considerations. Even more shocking was the fact that I managed any kind of remotely healthy relationship at such a close distance. (To be fair, at least half of this achievement can be credited to my husband. )
I explored typology for the sake of my work but then ended up realizing it could help me tap into parts of my own rhythm that were silenced by my ego for too long.

That's really cool that typology helped you this much. It helped me too to start investigating things about people and myself too.

It's not random, but it's not revealed by Socionics. Also, not completely predictable, unless you can say *how* there's a predictable pattern.

Sorry to disappoint you but some of it is definitely shown by Socionics ideas... Otoh obviously I don't expect any human being to be completely literally predictable lol

There are patterns, but humans are pattern-seeking animals and can find patterns and connections where they may not exist. I think that’s one of the things that a friend of mine who has psychosis has contended with. She is inundated with patterns and connections. If I postulate that people move along a continuum re pattern perception, and someone like her is at an extreme, then I don’t know at what point I could someone is finding too many.

Now, it’s also possible that ppl viewed as having decent reality testing have only learned to block out a slew of patterns that actually do exist. But this strikes me as unlikely.

Yes I know people like the person you mention. Otoh I'm quite resistant to that tendency of apophenia, I think this is a difference in cognition between people, I just have this kind of cognition that's not very compatible with it. I actually had to go to great pains to utilize certain systematic rules from Socionics to be able to even notice some patterns but my registering these patterns has proven immensely useful to me. (And those patterns are not apophenia. )

[golden]

@Myst, I didn’t know the word apophenia, so I’m stoked.

Wow, that’s a dumb smiley.

[Volcana]

ok @Myst
You will probably feel very happy to hear this - it finally clicked for me why I'm INFJ/ IEI.
I am Social last and I think that was throwing me off.

It all came together for me. Thanks for catalyzing me again.

I'll answer more precisely a bit later once I've processed this a bit.

I've been typing tentatively at ILI for months, but with IEI creeping up on me, but I had a few points that were blocking me from the typing..then one by one all the signs started showing.. and now I can't unsee it...

[Number 9 large]

ok @Myst
You will probably feel very happy to hear this - it finally clicked for me why I'm INFJ/ IEI.
I am Social last and I think that was throwing me off.

It all came together for me. Thanks for catalyzing me again.

I'll answer more precisely a bit later once I've processed this a bit.

I've been typing tentatively at ILI for months, but with IEI creeping up on me, but I had a few points that were blocking me from the typing..then one by one all the signs started showing.. and now I can't unsee it...

She types everybody IEI its all a lie

[Myst]

ok @Myst
You will probably feel very happy to hear this - it finally clicked for me why I'm INFJ/ IEI.
I am Social last and I think that was throwing me off.

It all came together for me. Thanks for catalyzing me again.

I'll answer more precisely a bit later once I've processed this a bit.

I've been typing tentatively at ILI for months, but with IEI creeping up on me, but I had a few points that were blocking me from the typing..then one by one all the signs started showing.. and now I can't unsee it...

Glad to hear if I was able to help some.

And yeah, the instincts are part of the factors that can be at play for behaviour. And sure take your time with the response.

[Myst]

She types everybody IEI its all a lie

Yeah it's all a lie - your words are.

[Number 9 large]

Yeah it's all a lie - your words are.

Omg dont hurt my feelings bae

[Myst]

Omg dont hurt my feelings bae

So fragile

[wasp]

ooo - sometimes I consider IEE-Ne

[Adam Strange]

She (@Myst) types everybody IEI its all a lie

Lol. I type everyone as an IEI, too.

However, yesterday I looked at @Volcana's tumblr, and it did look pretty IEI to me.

[Sol]

it finally clicked for me why I'm INFJ/ IEI

IEI = INFP

> Jung himself describes a process of incorporating and facing the shadow. I'm pretty sure he is IEI

ILI

I suspect EIE in you.

> Calling out "Ti" because someone gets provoked by people on a personal level, and thus asks, "Who the fuck are you?" is extremely lazy typing.

If to look at what was said, that was not a typing (assured opinion) but a pointing on the fact to the side of Ti value.
While the lazy typing is when you after years doubt in own type still. What also aproximates on the "high" value of your opinion about typing.

Besides you have ignored the real situation about what was done and hence have shown the weak respect to the reason and objectivity what points on your possible F type, and the behavior the farthest from Te type which think by the most objective way.

I'm glad that you somehow managed to get the positive use from the typology, as you claimed this, even without clear understanding of own type. But more possibly the reasons were others and hence the situation may point too on your weak T. While your sentence about the positive usage of the typology mb leaded by ethical reasons to show how you value the typology (despite unable to use it without own type understanding) and such to be better accepted by the local people. Seems you wanted the attention and communication (F), but are extemelay lazy in managing the logics as said incompatible and not appropriate things (weak T).

> In real life, Samson is kind and polite

It's part of the real life too, Neo, and he was ethically weird for base Fi standard for that context. Also I saw how Fi types talk on forums for the comparision. Besides other factors to doubt in ESI, which were pointed.
He shaw the behavior giving strong suspicion for him to have not base Fi type. And it's "extremely lazy typing" to ignore these significant contradictions like not meaningful.

[Cosmic Teapot]

ooo - sometimes I consider IEE-Ne

I consider IEE for you sometimes
Prob need to find more EIIs irl
...

[Sol]

I'd give it a 34% probability. It's only 2% below average though.

Good to see you are not sure in ESI too.
If you want the help in the typing - you may create a typing theme with your video.

As for % about how often people type themselves correctly - there are no clear numbers. Your usage of such ones, even without remarks about the sources - is another argument for your valued Ti, but not more objective Te.

As minimum level mb taken (17%)^(1/2) = 41%, by ~17% real typing matches gotten in a couple of experiments. This is the approximation _from_ how often you'd agree with the typing of other typer, in average with the assumption of equal accuracy. As this is the opinion about own type we may to assume a little higher chance to be correct - ~50%.
This number has a base to think as close to reality - after getting the basic knowledge of the theory people mb correct about own types in the half of the cases. It's some higher than 35%, though is close.

I consider IEE for you sometimes
Prob need to find more EIIs irl

After the video of wasp, I have excluded base Fi types.

[Bertrand]

Sol you're right, its all real, but you're still typing the words on the internet and not the person, I think that was the point--that the two can diverge and what you're labeling is a statement not a person. a better way to put it is "I think this statement is an indication of Ti valuing" and then discuss it instead of trying to argue that "no this person is definitely x irl and you're all in the matrix if you disagree." the statement isn't even a hard and fast indicator of Ti valuing because its a common turn of phrase, at least in english speaking society. its like making someone who says "God bless you" to someone who sneezes out to be definitely religious or something. its just something anyone can say, so if a person comes in and is like "I've known my friend for x years and they're definitely an atheist" and you say "no way the phrase proves it and this only proves how out of touch both of you are" is way too much. in the final analysis Samson could even turn out to be Ti valuing, but this is a ridiculous way to go about demonstrating it

[maniac]

statements come from people and he's saying he's not just going off of one statement
i definitely agree that people can and usually do have an online persona that is different to how they act irl. but it is still a part of them, otherwise this online persona wouldn't exist. a persona they repress in 'real life' and express online instead.

[Sol]

Sol you're right, its all real, but you're still typing the words on the internet and not the person

It needs more of the experience of the communication with and watching people of different types to understand better what I do.

[Myst]

I don't get why @Sol types more and more people F lately (niffer and Adam Strange for example...) and why he criticizes F types along the lines of "weak respect to the reason and objectivity what points on your possible F type".

[Chthonic Daydream]

People on here go waaaaay too much by stereotypes, that's the problem.
While some cognition can be translated into behaviour, behaviour can't be translated into cognition.


POOF
I'm back.
For now.

[Sol]

I don't get why Sol types more and more people F lately

niffer I said as F type (said with assurance = typed her such)
about Adam I said that not sure in his T. and also in LIE among T types

About your T type I'm not sure too Besides your strange from logical side arguing before and now, here you also shift the situation of logical opposing to personal relations.

> why he criticizes F types along the lines of "weak respect to the reason and objectivity what points on your possible F type"

because this relates to them and hence is useful for the typing

With my type it's easier for me to notice logical issues, that's why I may talk about this more often. Also I may pay more attention about how pleasant and appropriate for my suggestive someone behaves - how much is he alien there or fits there - as it's the region of my primary interests.

People on here go waaaaay too much by stereotypes, that's the problem.

The problem is in incorrect usage of the common for the types (stereotypes). This is fixed after better types understanding with the experience. And the usage of more factors, the weight of which though you better understand with the mentioned experience.

[Myst]

niffer I said as F type (said with assurance = typed her such)
about Adam I said that not sure in his T. and also in LIE among T types

About your T type I'm not sure too Besides your strange from logical side arguing before and now, here you also shift the situation of logical opposing to personal relations.

I wondered if I was going to be next. BTW, no, I was not referring to any kind of personal relations here, IDK what made you think so. Good luck pointing to any such thing in my post! I was simply wondering what's causing your recent bias.

And, I hope you don't think T types have perfect objectivity all the time... you yourself are no exception from this as I've pointed this out before.

> why he criticizes F types along the lines of "weak respect to the reason and objectivity what points on your possible F type"

because this relates to them and hence is useful for the typing

With my type it's easier for me to notice logical issues, that's why I may talk about this more often. Also I may pay more attention about how pleasant and appropriate for my suggestive someone behaves - how much is he alien there or fits there - as it's the region of my primary interests.

It's just that the way you do it, is noticeably weird. I get it that you use technical language and you are trying to think in purely technical terms but the fact that you focus on these aspects and not other just as relevant aspects is what seems like the weird bias to me.

[Sol]

@Myst
It's the conspiracy to type everyone to F types, so I stood the only T type and all you agreed only with me in T regions!
It's evident. As there can be no other reasons to think niffer as F when you think her as T. Or to doubt in Adam's type when he claims it as LIE. This explains everything!

[Volcana]

@Sol
I am not an EIE. Ni dominance in any system is clear. But I'm not going to get into a long debate about it here. I have known for quite a while that I'm Ni dominant in both MBTI and Socionics, and according to Jung, NiF. I had to reconcile even having Fe in my ego at all; it is not nearly pervasive enough to be dominant. And my speech patterns and other cues are Pi lead.

[Volcana]

It's part of the real life too, Neo, and he was ethically weird for base Fi standard for that context. Also I saw how Fi types talk on forums for the comparision. Besides other factors to doubt in ESI, which were pointed.
He shaw the behavior giving strong suspicion for him to have not base Fi type. And it's "extremely lazy typing" to ignore these significant contradictions like not meaningful.

Actually, I take back my argument. I did feel there was more to him than the narrow scope people have here, but I agree with you that this is part of reality too. We actually had huge revelations yesterday about what Ti and Fi actually mean (how they show up in real people), and he is not typing at ESI now.

Don't take this to mean we're some kind of noobs though. I've been studying for quite some time and I was considering either NiT or NiF, IEI or ILI, etc. It takes me a while to synthesize information in order to form a complete perspective on how types manifest in real people, self included. IEI is actually a perfect fit as per descriptions and function set up, but I had some ideas about it probably due to being social last. I'm Soc last four and also technically 'disabled' and I was comparing myself to a So/Sx 6 friend who is perfectly healthy and not traumatized like me, but happens to be IEI. He seemed much more Sociable, likable, more groups around him, etc.

In my and my husbands' combined revelations yesterday (which were a long time coming), we realized neither of us fit Fi valuing.

[Samson]

Good to see you are not sure in ESI too.
If you want the help in the typing - you may create a typing theme with your video.

As for % about how often people type themselves correctly - there are no clear numbers. Your usage of such ones, even without remarks about the sources - is another argument for your valued Ti, but not more objective Te.

As minimum level mb taken (17%)^(1/2) = 41%, by ~17% real typing matches gotten in a couple of experiments. This is the approximation _from_ how often you'd agree with the typing of other typer, in average with the assumption of equal accuracy. As this is the opinion about own type we may to assume a little higher chance to be correct - ~50%.
This number has a base to think as close to reality - after getting the basic knowledge of the theory people mb correct about own types in the half of the cases. It's some higher than 35%, though is close.

Hah. You do realize I was joking, right?

[Volcana]

Sol you're right, its all real, but you're still typing the words on the internet and not the person, I think that was the point--that the two can diverge and what you're labeling is a statement not a person. a better way to put it is "I think this statement is an indication of Ti valuing" and then discuss it instead of trying to argue that "no this person is definitely x irl and you're all in the matrix if you disagree." the statement isn't even a hard and fast indicator of Ti valuing because its a common turn of phrase, at least in english speaking society. its like making someone who says "God bless you" to someone who sneezes out to be definitely religious or something. its just something anyone can say, so if a person comes in and is like "I've known my friend for x years and they're definitely an atheist" and you say "no way the phrase proves it and this only proves how out of touch both of you are" is way too much. in the final analysis Samson could even turn out to be Ti valuing, but this is a ridiculous way to go about demonstrating it

Well said; exactly.

statements come from people and he's saying he's not just going off of one statement
i definitely agree that people can and usually do have an online persona that is different to how they act irl. but it is still a part of them, otherwise this online persona wouldn't exist. a persona they repress in 'real life' and express online instead.

Yeah. I didn't see it as a persona. I just saw it as communication that was hindered by a lack of eye contact, which caused him to overreact. It isn't Fi, they were right (we had already been on the fence with that, so this helped us "click" some of the many problems with it), but I still stand by what I said; people perceive him as polite in real life. In real life, he is able to read body language and so is the other person, so communication is smoother. None of this is about a repressed persona in our case, but I do see that online as well.

[Myst]

@Myst
It's the conspiracy to type everyone to F types, so I stood the only T type and all you agreed only with me in T regions!
It's evident. As there can be no other reasons to think niffer as F when you think her as T. Or to doubt in Adam's type when he claims it as LIE. This explains everything!

And what explains everything is that everyone is only 10% or 30% accurate at typing or whatever numbers you used before and selftypings are at 50% or whatever number, but you are 100% correct. Sure.

Do not put words into my mouth if I did not say them.

[Myst]

I mean, this thing with "weak respect to the reason and objectivity what points on your possible F type", how do you separate it from simple disagreement with your opinions, because you do not seem to be doing that well at all @Sol

[Myst]

Lol overall anyone typing Adam a Feeling type........... is forgetting everything about how Adam isn't good at all that feely stuff. (I'm not saying that as some criticism about him)

[Sol]

I agree that Adam is strangely weak in Ti for an LIE

He mb good in T as abbility and be some T type. Generally, when he expresses the logical thinking about something - he does this ok. I doubt in his base Te type as can't match it with his conformism in what types people think themselves. He avoids the opposing in this, while he knows how often people mistake in typings.

> but I haven't found a good alternative for him

Mostly I think about T-I possibilities. ILI, LII, ... mb sometimes he'll do typing video to allow understand him better

> He assumes the motivations of other people a lot in his stories, and I'm not sure what that might be related to yet

to suspect strong Ne or Fi

> I wonder about SEE and ESE

he behaves quietly for F-E
said about much supressed emotionality. this also makes doubtful role Fe

> I've also wondered if an overfocus on Fe role would cause the weak Ti in a Te type

both E/I variants of the same functions should be developed together. they are used together as figure/background

[Singu]

People on here go waaaaay too much by stereotypes, that's the problem.
While some cognition can be translated into behaviour, behaviour can't be translated into cognition.


POOF
I'm back.
For now.

That's actually kind of interesting... but I don't think that it's a matter of impossibility, but it's just very difficult to do so.

The fact is that there are going to be too many different possible explanations for people's behaviors and why they act the way that they do. While it's relatively easy to predict how cognition will lead to a certain behavior (provided, though, that the cognition is going to be self-reports, etc). And yet people's behaviors are 100% caused by something. We just haven't found out that cause yet.

So what if there was a robot that 100% mimics a person's behavior, and we can't tell the difference from a real person? And yet the explanation for the robot's behavior is going to be "because it's robot, and that's what its been programmed to do". So why would a robot have a different explanation than a human's, even though their behaviors are indistinguishable from one another?

If their behaviors are literally 100% the same, then the only difference must be that one has silicon chips as a brain, while another has organic matter as the brain. The physical differences of what goes on inside their brains must be identical.

So what is Socionics doing? We're just saying that "the human's behavior and the robot's behavior is identical, and so we're going to call them SLEs". And yet "the reason why they're behaving that way, is because they're SLEs" isn't going to be a proper explanation. They're not "SLEs", one is a human, and another is a robot. We just gave them a label for their certain behavior. An "SLE" is not a "being", so to speak. It's just a label.

[0i0]

Lol overall anyone typing Adam a Feeling type........... is forgetting everything about how Adam isn't good at all that feely stuff. (I'm not saying that as some criticism about him)

I hope no one gets offended by this, it's just a thought, but I have read some of @Adam Strange 's posts before. Is LSE very far from a good guess? It just interests me, really.

(I understand that it can be counterproductive, when you are trying to live your life and learn in the perspective of one archetype of these 16, and you don't want people to bombard it, even though I believe in staying open, and shifting between things as easily as one can to learn more.) Not sure if he was okay with getting retyped by people, I just had to ask @Myst and others.

[wasp]

I consider IEE for you sometimes
Prob need to find more EIIs irl
...

you know every time I get a response to one of my posts I'm tempted to share a random anecdote from everyday life, like I have to stop myself from oversharing about stuff that I know nobody cares about, and sometimes it's a story from years ago that for some unknown reason I've remembered, even weirder is when it's just a random factoid about myself, not even a story. it's hard to explain what I mean by this exactly, but imagine the topic is tacos (because who doesn't love tacos?) and someone is talking to me about tacos, I might respond with something related to tacos, but I'm thinking about something else entirely, and it's like there's this disconnect between what I think and what I say, which I imagine is the case for most (if not all) people, and I feel like if this problem persists long enough in a single environment, then it can even start to feel like other people aren't talking to me when they talk to me, they're just talking to an idea they have of me based on what I've said (cliche much?) which isn't entirely true to who I am because it's not like they're mind-readers. I wasn't lying when I said I like tacos because I do, but it's like, you're talking to me as if I'm someone who likes tacos but nothing more? I think a better example is when someone talks to me about a topic with enthusiasm, which might be a topic I know a lot about myself, but I let them talk my ears off anyway because I don't want to deprive anyone of the opportunity to be enthusiastic (I don't know if "enthusiastic" is the right word) but then it creates this skewed perspective of me, like next time we breach the topic, they'll continue talking to me as if I don't know anything about it, but it's not as simple as me joining in when they initially introduce the topic. like I said earlier, it's a matter of finding opportunities in dialogue as it's happening, but sometimes there are no visible opportunities because they're talking too much, or they're talking too fast, and I'm wary of being too forward in interaction because sometimes it can make me seem almost bipolar in how I can swing from not saying anything, to saying almost everything, but of course I don't actually say everything, it's just that it can seem that way if I've gone long enough without saying anything, and sometimes it's just strange if it's someone I'm not yet familiar with, and I only say it makes me seem bipolar because one of my old coworkers asked me if I was bipolar for this exact reason. I had to explain to her that my mood wasn't changing, I just had nothing to say because I was bored, but now that I'm not bored (or alternatively, now that I've realized there's only an hour left before work's over) well now I have something to say, so I receive mixed evaluations.

[Sol]

Really? I see frequent logical errors, but errors in Ti, rather than Te

Besides the relation to opinions about own types, I did not noticed strong contradictions with T type in him. Mb those were noticed in his texts that I missed. His talking reminded T type, mostly. But some places gave me doubts to be sure in T.

[niffer]

Really? I see frequent logical errors, but errors in Ti, rather than Te.

Can you give an example?

Honestly even if you can support this opinion, it’s still so obviously biased and rooted in childish upset feelings that only the other people who are butthurt about Adam too for unknown childish reasons will agree with this. I don’t really see why he triggers some people so much. What does he represent for you? Lol. Of course, you will probably call me SEE as well as a cop-out. But if you just call people ethical types or find loopholes to use typology to underhandedly criticize them at any opportunity just because they trigger you for some reason then it starts to become obvious like it has with @Sol . It’s very transparent, you know.

[squark]

Can you give an example?

Yes, here's an easy one, most people should be able to see why this is an error: "1. Needing power (Se-seeking)" used as evidence for IEI and against ILI as a typing for someone. Obviously, both types share Se-seeking. Could be an oversight, sure, but there's lots more like that. He doesn't use reasoning for typings, but instead relies on physical characteristics and his own experience with types. Avoids the Ti approach, and sticks with Se, Si, Te for the most part. How much is ignoring truly ignored is a good question, and I have argued in the past that because he does use Te that it's the greater focus on Fe role that makes his Ti comparatively weaker than other LIEs (Expat, FDG, Azeroffs, etc all have quite good Ti imo) but I'm not sure that's a satisfactory answer. So, in my opinion it's not settled nor sure.

Honestly even if you can support this opinion, it’s still so obviously biased and rooted in childish upset feelings that only the other people who are butthurt about Adam too for unknown childish reasons will agree with this.

Eh? I don't know what you mean. I don't hold his weak Ti against him at all. It's not an insult, because I see most people as having weak Ti and not being all that good at making logical connections. It's normal. It'd be pretty weird to be upset about it and impossible to communicate with a large number of people if someone wasn't able to ignore those errors.

[niffer]

Yes, here's an easy one, most people should be able to see why this is an error: "1. Needing power (Se-seeking)" used as evidence for IEI and against ILI as a typing for someone. Obviously, both types share Se-seeking. Could be an oversight, sure, but there's lots more like that. He doesn't use reasoning for typings, but instead relies on physical characteristics and his own experience with types. Avoids the Ti approach, and sticks with Se, Si, Te for the most part. How much is ignoring truly ignored is a good question, and I have argued in the past that because he does use Te that it's the greater focus on Fe role that makes his Ti comparatively weaker than other LIEs (Expat, FDG, Azeroffs, etc all have quite good Ti imo) but I'm not sure that's a satisfactory answer. So, in my opinion it's not settled nor sure.



Eh? I don't know what you mean. I don't hold his weak Ti against him at all. It's not an insult, because I see most people as having weak Ti and not being all that good at making logical connections. It's normal. It'd be pretty weird to be upset about it and impossible to communicate with a large number of people if someone wasn't able to ignore those errors.

It is an example of not focusing on Ti yes, it doesn’t make sense to call his Ti weak over that however. A better example would be an overt misuse of logic or miscalculation on something.

Re: the second part of your post: Just because you have an inherently insulting worldview towards other people does not make your comments any less obviously insulting towards this individual.

[Adam Strange]

@niffer and @squark, I completely agree with the fact that I don't use Ti very much. I'm not insulted at all. My favorite sister is a very intelligent LII, and she covered all the Ti issues that I ever needed when we were growing up, and she still does. I have a tendency to find people who do things well and employ them to do those things without trying to second-guess them.

I can do Ti to some extent, but I find it provides too little bang for the buck in my life. I had two years of very Ti Chemistry classes in HS (plus two years of Calculus, one of Physics), more of the same in college, and while I got good grades in Chem, it was really, really boring. I didn't really come alive until I was put in charge of a company's production line. (But truthfully, even that was somewhat frustrating, because there was too much focus on the day-to-day emergencies. Where I truly excel is planning how a company will make money this year and in the many years to come.)

My approach is to get opinions from people whom I consider to be better experts than I am, assemble a plan, and execute it with the full expectation that 5% of the plan will go seriously wrong, so I have alternate, branching sub-plans ready to put into place when that 5% invariably happens. They advise, but I'm the one responsible for making it work.

I work with two LII's. They are reliably brilliant at nailing down details but sometimes completely miss certain things. It's like they are so involved with making the equations come out right that they can't see some other solutions. This doesn't matter as long as we discuss things before we actually do something.

To be candid, I envy Ti-doms who are so familiar with the theory that they can analyze people quite thoroughly and certainly. I haven't taken the time to learn the theory very well, and I know that puts me at a disadvantage, but there you are.