Originally Posted by
Jonathan
Where things get tricky is perhaps that while in the classic theory, these should be far apart (e.g., one is either Te/Fi or Fe/Ti focused), there may be individuals that blur the line a bit....for example, a professional in the psychology field who appears to use Te methods, but is also clearly interested in what appear to be Fe questions (what causes people to mutiny? what factors lead to cooperation? what policy decisions will tend to lead to fewer personnel problems, etc.). For these individuals, it can become harder to type them.
Sure. But I'd say that the difference appears when the people shift from studying Te evidence (as in reports on the mutiny) to attributing Fe motivations to people directly from their own judgements.
Originally Posted by
Phaedrus
If they don't think that I am an INTp, why do they have to repeat it openly over and over again? Why not keep their opinion to themselves? Why make it public all the time?
The reason is simple and it should be obvious.
By comparison, look at Jonathan. Discussions with him/by him seldom have anything to do with the issue of his type. There are also other people whose attributed type I am skeptical of, but I don't go out of my way to raise that issue, and that doesn't prevent me from discussing Socionics with those people.
Your type becomes an issue because
you make it an issue. One of your favorite techniques for typing others - or at least for discussing their types - is to refer to your own typing of yourself as INTp. If you will recall, the issue of your type was most recently brought into the open during the discussion of XoX's type.
That happened because most of your case for XoX being possibly INTp was around "I identify with what he says, and I am INTp, hence he may well be INTp". It was all about that or variations thereof.
So, if you "invoke" your typing as INTp in order to argue for INTp as a type for XoX - or anyone else for that matter - that inevitably brings your own type into the discussion.