Taking this one step further, if Expat is a Te subtype, then my model would predict Si > Te > Ni, which would explain his heavy emphasis on limiting what kind of evidence may be considered (i.e., distrusting "fuzzy" Ni stuff), whereas an ENTj Ni subtype would be Te > Ni > Fe, and would enthusiastically sell people on Te-related agendas that nevertheless would seem to some like sandcastles built in the air.
XoX, please comment on Rick's"Extraverted and introverted ethics on the group level".
I started a new thread about it.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=198952#198952
To use an example everyone is tired of, ****** is most often typed as ENFj by the mainstream Socionics crowd - an ethical type. Yet he did "stand against many people who disagreed with him". The same applies to other ethical leaders persuaded of their "vision".
So, being persuaded of their ideas is not enough to make one a logical type.
It is when attempting to be scientific, which Phaedrus thinks he is but he isn't, that the lack of confidence in evaluating critically the evidence becomes clear.
With regard to XoX's case, I can't be bothered. Any skimming of my posts in XoX's threads shows very clearly what I mean, not only in his type thread but that's where it was most clear. If you have read what I have said in that regard but still haven't got it, then I think that explaining it all over again would just be a huge waste of time.Also, could you show us some examples of Fe in XoX, Phaedrus, (and me?).
With regard to your case, I don't recall clear-cut examples that would clearly indicate the Fe>Fi preference. I see glimpses here and there, but that's not enough imo.
In Phaedrus's case I'd say that things taking discussions to the Fe realm, as in (paraphrasing from memory):
"look at your emotional state"
"everyone is hunting me"
"it is so difficult for anyone to be accepted as INTp here"
Etc etc.
These are all Fe-realm arguments.
Why should a Te subtype have Si>Te>Ni?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
No. They are not Fe-realm arguments in themselves. They belong to the Fe-realm if, and only if, they are the result of using thefunction. In my case they are not. And neither they are that in XoX's case, at least not most of the time. That you insist on interpreting the information elements in this superficial, shallow way shows very clearly that you haven't understood what they are about. You totally dismiss the meaning dimension in language uses.
So what function do you think you were using, and what was the "non-shallow meaning", in these?
"everyone is hunting me"
"it is so difficult for anyone to be accepted as INTp here"
I observe a pattern, which I try to describe. I am not trying to influence people emotionally by saying those things. I analyze the pattern from a distant position. I am an observer of a somewhat (but not very) fascinating phenomenon. And in doing that I am not even analyzing the pattern very much, I just recognize its existence. What does that have to do with the
Your answer above, especially the highlighted bit, suggests that you seeI observe a pattern, which I try to describe. I am not trying to influence people emotionally by saying those things. I analyze the pattern from a distant position. I am an observer of a somewhat (but not very) fascinating phenomenon. And in doing that I am not even analyzing the pattern very much, I just recognize its existence. What does that have to do with the
So, even from the point of view of "influencing people emotionally", before you do that you have, yes, to "recognize the pattern" in people's external emotional expressions and how they supposedly relate to you emotionally.
Therefore, the examples above are, yes, focusing on
Now, those isolated examples, in themselves, say little about your type because everyone uses all functions; I was answering Jonathan's question.
In this particular case:
"it is so difficult for anyone to be accepted as INTp here"
This is simply, verifiably, factually incorrect: others have been "accepted" as INTp easier than you have, so it's a perfect example of focusing on
Still on this --
Just like cre-Te in INTps will generally be more about collecting data than actually doing something about it, cre-Fe in INFps will be more about being aware of people's emotional states than actually doing something abouit.
And that is precisely what I described in my Ni "boat on the river" metaphor. Both the INTp and the INFp are sitting up there, not doing much, absorbing information that tells them that the trip is proceeding as a flow agreeable to them.
(a)The information that the INTp focuses on is Te-related: are there obstacles? Will there be fuel? Etc
(b) The information that the INFp focuses on is Fe-related: are the people down there on the deck "on board"? Wil they mutiny? Are they cooperative? Etc
And what you did, in the examples above, was very obviously like (b) rather than (a).
And please don't argue with "INTps can also act as (a)" etc. I am explaining why those reactions of yours were INFp-like rather than INTp-like. On their own, they do not "prove" that you are INFp, although this is my view.
If you can argue why what I have outlined is incorrect, and why that isn't Fe, fine, but I can't be bothered with the "I act like this and I am INTp therefore you are wrong" line of argumentation.
We agree on that. And I use cre-Te a lot.
We agree on that too. I may use
Do you mean that whenever I try to make sense of something that has to do with people or emotions, I automatically useSo, even from the point of view of "influencing people emotionally", before you do that you have, yes, to "recognize the pattern" in people's external emotional expressions and how they supposedly relate to you emotionally.
Therefore, the examples above are, yes, focusing on
I am very seldom aware of people's emotional states. There is maybe a 50 % chance that I have at least a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome. Probably because the issue has come up in some threads and I have mentioned the possibility, some people (like FDG) seem to have focused most of their energy on stating that as an obvious fact. Well, it isn't an obvious fact, but it is obvious to me, and probably to them too, that one likely reason why I come across as "aggressive", "impolite" etc. in their eyes is that I use very little
If so, that is a mere coincidence. That is not a general pattern in my posts. And it is certainly not a general pattern in my overall behaviour in real life situations. I am clearly on the Te side here.
I know for a fact that I am an INTp, so if you believe that I am an INFp, your view is incorrect. If you looked at all my posts, that would most likely be obvious to you too.
.
*high fives diana*Why does it matter whether or not people agree with you? It seems to me that the vast majority of your time here is spent trying to convince everyone that you're INTp. Being "accepted" as an INTp seems to be somewhat of a hang-up of yours. Why?
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Why does it matter whether or not people agree with you? It seems to me that the vast majority of your time here is spent trying to convince everyone that you're INTp. Being "accepted" as an INTp seems to be somewhat of a hang-up of yours. Why?
exactly.
I think this is a really good characterization of typical Gamma N vs. Beta N concerns.
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. If you accept Tcaud's "dual-type theory," (sorry Tcaud, I have to mention your name, otherwise it wouldn't be clear what I'm referring to), then perhaps you might say these people are INTp-INFp, or something like that. Anyhow, on some level, you can probably tell if such a person is "at the root" INFp or INTp, but the appearance of valuing both Fe things and Te things may make that decision harder.
It doesn't matter much.
Yeah, I would very much prefer if that time could be spent discussing more interesting questions than my type. But for some obscure reason people seem to bring it up very often when I try to focus on other issues. 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?
There are some persons on this forum, whose type I am slightly skeptical of, but if they don't want to discuss their type I try to respect that. And there is no person on this forum whom I am totally convinced is wrong about his or her own type. And I never base my opinion on someone's type on my own subjective impressions only. I always try to base my opinion on as much personal information they can provide as possible. What they say about themselves and what test results they get is very important to consider, and I always do that. But people have the nerve to ignore such information in my case, and I find that very irritating.
If someone asks for some help in determining his or her correct type, I might try to help as well as I can. But I don't need any help in determining my type, so why should I be treated differently? Why don't I deserve the same respect as others?
I don't care what people think of my type as long as they keep their mouths shut about it. But if they insist on stating in public that I am a deluded idiot who is wrong about his own type, then I feel an urgent need to correct them. It don't like to keep silent every time someone makes a false statement. That is contrary to being an INTp. We are natural born critics.
R-O-T-F-L!!!!
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Very interesting...I think this may well be the key to why people misunderstand... Most people naturally judge other people's behavior based on why they would do what they see someone doing; and most people act based on certain things they would want to achieve. I think you're right that INTps in particular may allow themselves to get caught in clarifying things, correcting falsehoods, etc., without thinking "what do I hope to achieve here?" But, in the interest of balance, it's probably something we should all try to avoid. I think one can learn from Se people in this regard, as Se people wouldn't generally do something if they weren't trying to achieve something.
There are lots of good reasons to post...testing the strength of one's own arguments, trying to learn from points other people make, kindly directing newbies to good sources of relevant information, etc. However, we can all fall into the "trap" of being led by what others say into posting when we're not really thinking about what we hope to accomplish. And this not only burns a lot of time, but also can cause others to misinterpret one's motives.
I find myself getting "drawn in" a lot, but I try to catch myself (or should) if posting doesn't serve any useful purpose or doesn't go in the direction I would like to go.
I think you have a lot of interesting and useful ideas about, for example, typology and philosophy, etc. Maybe by ignoring posts that get in the way of exploring those ideas, you can shake off these patterns of misunderstanding that have developed.
I have ignored many, many posts from people who have insisted on focusing on my type, but there is a limit to that. My main point is this one:
Very often I have to refer to my own type and my own experinces and my own impressions as an INTp, because that's the way we INTps function. We make a lot of personal observations. If people didn't question my INTp-ness every time I do that, they might actually learn something from me. If they don't want to participate in the discussion, they could stay out of it. But everyone else is referring to their own type now and then, and I will do the same when I find it approprate. Otherwise it would be impossible for us to make certain points.
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.
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.
False. Most of my case for XoX being possibly INTp is based on what he has said about himself. I have analyzed the information he has provided us with. And most of it clearly suggest INTp as the most likely type. That I also can identify with a lot of things he says, and the fact that I have a sense of similarity, is only a "bonus". I do not base my typing of XoX on that sense of similarity, and I do not base it on the fact that I can identify with what he says. As always, such subjective impressions are only to be used as indications, but in this case they point in the same direction as the other pieces of evidence, which makes the case for INTp even stronger.
This is perhaps a good example in theory but in practice any intelligent (and far-sighted) person would likely consider all the aspects that might cause them problems. E.g. I would most likely consider both the "objective obstacles" and "subjective obstacles" defined there. Why would I decide that I dismiss one of them if I at the same time acknowledge that it is something which might cause problems? Running out of fuel or mutiny...either one can destroy my trip so I need to try to avoid them.I think this is a really good characterization of typical Gamma N vs. Beta N concerns.
It would be weird to assume that people only focus on one particular aspect which their type "dictates" and neglect all other relevant aspects. However I can see how, despite their being aware of that there might be a problem, a Beta N would be more likely to fail in something related to option a) (despite trying not to) and Gamma N would be more likely to fail something related to option b) (despite trying not to).
So imho an INFp can try to focus on Te-issues if they see it necessary but they are more likely to fail than e.g. INTp. Similarly INTp can try to focus on Fe-issues if they see it necessary but they are more likely to fail than INFp.
I'm not sure if this is what was meant? I don't buy the idea that you never try to focus on issues related to your "weak" functions even if you see how they are clearly important to take care of. Thus it seems it is not that important whether e.g. Phaedrus seems to use Fe or Te but how successful and skilled he is in using them. Is Fe really his "strength". Te can be evaluated in the same spirit. And same logic of course applies to me and others.
@Phaedrus: I see you will really "force" me to quote a lot of your posts.
@XoX: your post was a very good example of a straw man argument. When have I or anyone said that you "never" focus on weaker functions?
I haven't been following this discussion at all, but I totally agree with Expat here. I think most forum members (me included) couldn't care less about Phaedrus' type, or would prefer to think about it on our own, if at all. But this habit of bringing up one's own type all the time in the context of typing someone else is somewhat irritating to forum members who otherwise would not be interested in discussing or disputing your type.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.
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.
The only reason forum members would be irritated is because they dispute my INTp-ness, and you have contributed in installing that ridiculous misconception in them by disputing it yourself -- on completely invalid grounds. If someone, like Expat for example, would occasionally bring up his own type when discussing someone else's type no one would have any reason to bother, because everyone accepts the fact that he is an ENTj. If you prefer to dismiss some kind of information beforehand, that can of course be done in most cases, but I find it rather "funny" that people are not able to weigh the relevant evidence and come to a qualified guess in XoX's case. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thread about his type and related threads where he provides us with information about himself must come to the conclusion that the most likely type for him is INTp. It is not yet a proven fact that he is an INTp, but based on the evidence so far, we are almost there. To think that XoX is most likely an INFp is stupid, even if he turns out to be one, because the evidence does not support such a claim.
Reading this makes me want to jab something sharp in my eyes. We MUST come to that conclusion? And YOU are the determiner of what evidence is relevant, and which guesses are qualified? BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.but I find it rather "funny" that people are not able to weigh the relevant evidence and come to a qualified guess in XoX's case. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thread about his type and related threads where he provides us with information about himself must come to the conclusion that the most likely type for him is INTp.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Okay, let's turn down the heat here.
@XoX:
Considering my whole post, I was suggesting the possibility of a "gray area."
In addition, I think it may be interesting to consider yet another possibility, something that TCaud used to talk about a lot, which is (I will add here..."degrees of") undifferentiation.
Judging from Expat's posts, he has been attacking your Te credentials. I don't know whether his attacks are justified or not (haven't read all the posts), but what seems to be missing is whether you clearly show confidence/strength on the Fe side.
If not, and if things are so much open to interpretation, perhaps we really should focus on what you yourself value (your self report view, and leave it at that)...or, if we want to consider other possibilities, perhaps we should consider INxp...or maybe even better...INxox.
read thisFeel free to critique as I'm no expert, but please don't just say "You're an idiot." Please EDUCATE me and give me information if you disagree with something. Thank you
start at section 6
hit control-f and type the logic of attributes
p.s.
please no one assume i am in any way connecting any particular logical format with any function. i don't give a shit about the functions.
Yes = you SHOULD come to that concusion, IF you are competent in objectively evaluating the evidence for each possible type.
Yes. It is ALWAYS YOU (whoever that YOU person happens to be, and in this case that YOU happens to be me) that are the determiner of what evidence is relevant, and which guesses are qualified. It is NEVER someone else that should determine that instead of YOU -- no authority, no leader, no one except YOURSELF.
WHO is making this value statement? WHO is determining whether it is bullshit? WHO is the arbiter here? Is it me? Is it someone else? Is is some elected socionist judge? No, Slacker Mom, it is always YOU who are the judge -- whoever you are.
Exactly my point too. And if we do that the conclusion is clear: INTp is the most likely type. There is no gray area here. Based on XoX's self reports, what he identifies with, his test results, what other real life persons tell him, etc. the evidence most clearly support INTp, not INXp or some other type. But the case is not yet closed, because XoX hasn't been doing everything we should expect him to be doing in order for us to be completely sure. Some pieces of evidence point in other directions, and we should try to explain them. Until XoX has evaluated all the sources of information, we can't be sure that he is an INTp. Two other types are still possible -- INFp and ENTp -- but the case is much weaker for those two types. Other types than those three are only possible if we (including XoX himself) have been totally mislead by XoX's faulty self reports. If he is another type completely, everything has to start from scratch.
Phaedrus, 90% of what you write is related to the issue of your own type. It's simply not interesting to read anymore. I don't think the issue is going to settle down on its own, so the best thing is for people to just stop reacting to it, and Phaedrus to stop bringing it up. Most people don't care enough really to drop everything and spend all their time studying your arguments until they arrive at a conclusion. There are plenty of people here who never talk about their type, and it's perfectly fine to participate in discussions without having everyone accept your type. There is always someone who will doubt your type, anyways, no matter what you do. Plus, your vicious attacks and accusations of people are offensive. For the most part, these are people who have proven themselves to be reasonable, mature forum members. I think, if you don't like the constant arguments, a little ignoring on both sides would do a lot of good.
How's that for asolution to the problem?
Indeed, but are you?Yes = you SHOULD come to that concusion, IF you are competent in objectively evaluating the evidence for each possible type.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I do occasionally bring up my own type into the discussion, but I think over 90% of my posts make points which do not address that type at all. For instance, very seldom do I use my type as an argument to type someone else. For instance, I haven't argued against XoX's type as INTp by saying "no way we are of the same quadra" or whatever. If I did, he or anyone else could (rightly imo) bring my own type in the discussion.
During the XoX type discussion, you have said, more than once, things like "how can [insert functional analysis argument here] be a good argument against INTp for XoX if I identify with it?" so, yes, using your own typing as an argument. If you didn't do that - very often - your own type would not be raised so often by those who disagree with it.
On the contrary, anyone who bothers to read not only that thread but anything else he wrote since he first showed up here must conclude that INTp is a very unlikely type for him - at least as far as an INTp according to Socionics theory, the one that explains functions, quadras and relationships and why and how that all fits together.
According to Phaedrusian Socionics, where an identification with that James INTP description is weighty evidence, sure, there he might be an "INTp".
On the contrary, the evidence given by XoX's own words and threads points more towards INFp than INTp - however, personally, I am arguing far more strongly against INTp than for INFp.
You, Jonathan, specifically asked me for examples of Phaedrus using
As for "Te credentials" and "attack" -- that's not a very helpful way of putting it. What I "attack" is what I see as idiocy. One of the biggest idiocies on this forum is the notion that XoX is an INTp (yes Phaedrus, based on the available evidence) and that's what I have decided to "attack".
But I will say what I see as a common lack of
Neither have I. And most of the time I state general truths about the types, but often when I state general truths about the INTp type that are nothing but common knowledge in Socionics, people show up and say that others shouldn't listen to what I say about INTps, because I don't know anything about that type. Such bullshit is hard to put up with.
It is still a perfectly legitimate use of modus tollens, since you have claimed that I too would be an INFp if I identify with XoX's reasoning. The fact that I am an INTp proves that there is something wrong with your argument for INFp in XoX's case. Period.
No. You are wrong. Your argument is faulty. It is as simple as that. The only problem is to find out exactly where you go wrong. But we know that you have gone wrong somewhere, since your conclusion does not follow from the premises.
If you really believe that, and it seems as though you do, then you are incompetent and unobjective.
You assume that, yes. You fool. You think that you understand the INTp type better than the INTps themselves. Such an arrogant attitude is disgusting in this context. You should keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you are talking about, and you don't know this about the INTp type.You, Jonathan, specifically asked me for examples of Phaedrus using
Me too. The biggest idiocy by far on this forum is your insistence that it is impossible for XoX to be an INTp. It is your fault that the level of the disussion has decreased so much when it comes to typing XoX.
I do believe that. I may be wrong, but I have good reasons to think I'm right.If you really believe that, and it seems as though you do, then you are incompetent and unobjective.
As for my being "incompetent and unobjective", you're entitled to that opinion, of course
I think I understand the INTp type better than you, not better than the INTps themselves.
And I will not "keep my mouth shut" -- it is your choice to read what I write or not. Please note that I never told you or XoX to "shut up" about his being INTp -- it is your right to have that opinion and, yes, to express it. I just think that I should make it very clear the objections I have to that opinion.
Ok, it is not "impossible". It is extremely unlikely in my opinion.
As for typing XoX - tell you what. I think anyone who's interested should be able to know by now what my objections to his typing as INTp are. I have no inclination to repeat myself all the time anyway.
So, if you want to make the case for XoX as INTp again, I won't interfere
A not unlikely explanation is that some of them are brainwashed by you. There are also other possible explanations of course.As for my being "incompetent and unobjective", you're entitled to that opinion, of course
And you are wrong. But you will probably never admit it.
Yes, but there is a big problem with your opinion. You state it with such phrenesy that people become afraid to argue against you. I am one of few who dares to do that. But I am not the only one who thinks that you are wrong about this.
That's a very clear general pattern. There are always people who suffer in silence instead of speaking up for what they believe is true, especiallly when they belong to the minoity. And most of them are glad that someone else is willing to take the shit instead of themselves. You started a thread about that phenomenon, remember? At that time I didn't realize as clearly as I do now, why those who you criticized for sending you PMs instead of debating with you in public choose to behave like that. Now, I understand better why they don't criticize you in an open debate. Just like you, I would prefer that they didn't hide as much as they do, but it takes a lot of courage to speak up against a mighty opposition. Not everyone is suited to do that, but some people are unnecessarily afraid of doing it.
Good. You have repeated yourself enough already. We know what your objections are.
If you have any new arguments I would prefer that you stated them instead of keeping your mouth shut. But I don't think we will get any further in that heated "team spirit" debate, at least not until we have found a new angle, a new perspective from which to look at it.So, if you want to make the case for XoX as INTp again, I won't interfere
But why can't I brainwash my customers and bosses?That's not fair. I'd much rather be able to brainwash them than the people here.
Well that's the kind of statement that can be thrown back at you.
Without their saying why they think so, it becomes difficult.
For your information, the main person I was referring to in that thread was an ESTp who doesn't post anymore, apparently. I don't think that "lack of courage" was the problem.
It's incredibleyou and XoX keep coming back to that "team spirit" story, as if that had been the only argument for his Fe>Fi preference, which is clearly not true for anyone who reads, yes, the evidence, that is, what I said in that thread and in others.
I have no idea ...But why can't I brainwash my customers and bosses?Though of course I haven't said that I actually believe that you are a brainwasher, only that it is a not unlikely explanation.
Of course you can, if you want to. I can't stop you from doing that. It probably won't achieve much though.Well that's the kind of statement that can be thrown back at you.
I agree.Without their saying why they think so, it becomes difficult.
I don't remember the details of that thread. I have noticed this pattern in real life situations, and a lot of anonymous polls confirm its existence.For your information, the main person I was referring to in that thread was an ESTp who doesn't post anymore, apparently. I don't think that "lack of courage" was the problem.
Okay, I gave the wrong name for it. What I had in mind was the general Fe>Fi argument. That argument should be discarded for a while, if we are going to make any progress.It's incredible
The issue with authority Phaedrus is this:
NO ONE here is an authority. We all have our opinions, but that's all any of us have. Your opinions are not better than anyone else's, and the "evidence" you use isn't more valid than everyone else's evidence.
Generally, people say something like, "It is my impression that . . ." or "He seems to be (X type) to me" - but you say, "He is THIS and anyone who disagrees is stupid." Or involved in some kind of Socionics conspiracy or something. The only one trying to establish some kind of authority is you. I've seen Expat say, "I'm very sure he isn't XXXX type" but not "I am 100% sure he is this type and if you disagree with me you're stupid."
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
An occasional brainwash keeps your mind clean and bright.
Intuition
Hmm, I'm afraid I have said things very close to it. I have said that some people were clueless about Socionics generally, or functions. However, when I do say such things, I make a point of saying precisely why I am saying it, with what I think is verifiable evidence.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote