Rubbish. You don't know what you're talking about and you don't understand me at all. But I could talk about it forever and it wouldn't change anything. This is what I mean with discussions that get pointless.Originally Posted by anndelise
With regard to decisions that affect chiefly myself - that is, when I decide whether to continue or to leave a particular discussion - of course I will continue to follow my own judgement. I see no reason to do otherwise.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Then that's totally irrelevant to her type, isn't it? Unless you are saying that everyone should be an ENTj (or your conception of one).
I don't see it.
The difference then is most likely what the word "winning" means to each person.YOU say winning wasn't YOUR focus.
My hope was that you'd reconsider your judment/understanding that winning might not be elena's focus either.
That perhaps, just perhaps, there's more going on than meets YOUR eye.
All of this only points only reinforces that she is not LIE. The pov described just seems... unfathomable... from a NiSeTeFi perspective.According to elena, I understand the situation from her pov. There IS more than meets your eye, expat.
The question now is....will you bother to at least try to see it? Or will you stick with your own judgment.
Of course, different people define Ni, Se, Te, and Fi differently, too. That is most likely the cause of the debate. (And I'm not talking about brief descriptions of each, I'm talking about their actual meanings and manifestations.)
lol, i honestly don't believe you are so stupid to think i've been talking about whether or not one can/should leave a "discussion"
but if you insist
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I think I see at least some of what snegledmaca is saying.How on earth is that Fe?
It's in the way you try to infiltrate a context of interpersonal interaction around the issue. You only seem to want face issues so long as they are dealt with solely according to your terms, which is why you extend the invitation to "feel free to discuss any questions you have in PM with me." Why not deal with things seriously out in the open and confront it? You also say you will discuss the issue only so long as it does not get "heated."
I might say more as it comes to me.
Yes. They're not like how I am for the 258928940th time.Elena, have you read any EIE descriptions?
ENTj ~*
From the sounds of it other people have a better grip on who you are than you do of yourself.
That's a scary thought.- of course I will continue to follow my own judgement. I see no reason to do otherwise.
ENTj ~*
But none of this is related to external information on ENTjs - it's related to your own understanding of what ENTjs are, in a circular way. If any of those people whom you see as ENTjs aren't ENTjs, your reasoning collapses - and if you have met an ENTj and not seen him/her as one because s/he did not fit that circular thinking, of course it just get re-confirmed.
Sorry - regardless of my type (I'm not interested if you've "convinced" of it or not, btw), I see that as generally a flawed approach.
But, what the heck --
Regarding "stable" -- I have changed countries - and different jobs - and fields - across continents - 7 times in the last 15 years. Also because I just wanted to go elsewhere. I was born in one country, started to work there, did my PhD in another continent, worked in yet another country in another continent - still in my early 30s by then. I had, briefly, my own one-man company back in another country. Oh, and moving between 4 languages (and a half). All of that on my own terms and under my own control (well, most of the time - sometimes you also get problems).
And all of that on my own, with my own money, earned through my own work. I have set up my own investment plan in yet a different country where I never even lived or worked in, for tax purposes.
This is reality, boy, not your, let alone Ashton's, deluded fantasies of accomplishment, nor "mellowing out". This bit has made you look particularly foolish in my opinion.
(for what is worth, Steve, despite my condescending language, I think you are a decent fellow and all right.).
LOL r u serious?
OK I'll clarify
When I said this:I was addressing someone's claim earlier in the thread that Elena was being rude or close-minded, and I wasn't making this a part of my argument for her type (I was done arguing that by the time I got to this paragraph).
Now earlier in that post, I mentioned that the WAY she goes about calling people out on stuff is done in an ENTj-ish way (very direct, no bullshit, not afraid to confront, etc) - again, take these qualities in their context of Elena's TYPE of directness, confronting, etc, (it has a piercing quality) and NOT that now therefore everyone is an ENTj who is "direct, confrontational, etc" (by popular standards).
Hope this helps
Yeah that's basically what I was getting at - about the actual evidence not being there to begin with and how some of these words people choose to read into are "cherry-picked", and can't really be substantiated. You said it better than I did.
Likewise, and yeah don't take any arguments as condescending either. I'll respond to the rest of the post in a minute.
If someone says "one time I tried to talk to you about your type", why wouldn't one assume that the person was referring to discussing your opinions or perspective on your type?
The only thing I can think of is actually a Ti vs. Fi thing, not Te vs. Fe.
Yes. I would expect everyone here to behave in this manner.You only seem to want face issues so long as they are dealt with solely according to your terms
It's a lot easier and enjoyable for me to discuss things one on one with people. It's simply a personal preference.which is why you extend the invitation to "feel free to discuss any questions you have in PM with me."
First of all, I think we have different ideas of what the word "seriously" means.Why not deal with things seriously out in the open and confront it?
Secondly, "confront" what?
Again, you should read a bit more about LIE/ESI duality and EIE/LSI duality.You also say you will discuss the issue only so long as it does not get "heated."
Or better yet, focus on ESI's and LSI's. Read Stratiyevskaya's description of Fe in LSI's. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=3001
Then read this.Yes. They're not like how I am for the 258928940th time.
Where did you post this? I'll take a look.
Right, and as I said, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it trivial.it strikes me as trivial because i have no idea, from what you said, if you know what you're talking about - underneath the hood of what you descibed as a "same reality". i think the same critique applies to the above quote of yours too. just saying it's so doesn't make it so.
What is incomprehensible to you that the activities of business and finance are related to and effect one another, and furthermore are related to and effect economic activity as a whole? This really should not be a stretch of understanding, but let us address that part first. Wow, I shouldn't even be having this conversation.
ENTj ~*
Expat,
By stable I meant it not as concretely as you're describing (changing jobs, locations, etc) - and if I may add, it seems that your approach is more of a sensing approach (very concrete interpretations of metaphors). When I say stable, I'm talking about in the sense of a second by second, constant way of living and breathing. It fits with Jung's description of "Introverted Sensing" - which I myself relate to as well. The feel I get from you is like a calm ocean, free of tempests. Yes this is a subjective perception, but I don't doubt that if you asked enough people you know, they'd pick up a similar feel.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
I can understand why you don't place credence in what you deem "circular thinking", because you don't seem to share the same perceptions. However it'd be nice if you could entertain the possibility that Socionics phenomenon exist on a far deeper level that many people think it is. For example many people relate things like morality, good values, etc to Fi, which is total bullshit. With an Fi PoLR, I am by no means an immoral person, and have very good values, and many people who have Fi as a strong function and know me would agree, (you yourself who are definitely capable of picking up Fi in people seem to think I'm ok too) so obviously this typical line of thinking by being overly concrete is inconsistent, and doesn't conform to reality. Which means that we have to look deeper. The functions represent HOW a person does what they do, not what they do. I am moral, but my morality may be expressed differently from someone of a different quadra (because of my NeTiSiFe), as opposed to say (TeNiSeFi). The functions are abstract bases. To think of them as anything other than abstract underpinnings will lead to inconsistent attribution, and of course mistypings.
Hopefully I will figure out a way to convey what I'm seeing in a way that's understandable
For whatever its worth to those who care, I think that Anndelise has brought up some very valid points/observations through the thread. I'm inclined to agree with her on most of what she's said. Having said that, I mentioned this a little on the wiki just now, but I believe Elena demonstrates some very classical ENTj characterstics, mostly the desire to discuss/debate/argue her points pretty strongly. Mostly a lot of her posts seem to generally speak in an Ni/Te fashion that is pretty recognizable. Most of the points so far to her not being ENTj seem debunk and falsely grounded for whatever miscommunication or ungrounded knowledge.
Well, maybe you should believe that I am so stupid then
If what you mean is related to about how all of that makes Elena feel etc. I don't see that as a legitimate concern of mine whatsoever. Like me, she is free to continue any discussion, or not, and to say what she wants to, or not.
That was not what I referring to.
No not really.Yes. I would expect everyone here to behave in this manner.
I prefer that too but it is very peculiar that you're resistant to discussing matters of logic/rationality (Te/Ti relevant matters) in a public way. You have no issue talking of personal matters publicly it appears. Yet you won't demonstrate your Te/Ti publicly in a way where it could be falsified and shown to be weak during an argument. You're too uncomfortable with it. Perhaps because you don't want your weakness in this regard publicly exposed.It's a lot easier and enjoyable for me to discuss things one on one with people. It's simply a personal preference.
Confront the issue of your type being questioned. I know you're stupid but don't be intentionally THAT stupid to try and evade.First of all, I think we have different ideas of what the word "seriously" means.
Secondly, "confront" what?
And yes of course we have highly dissimilar ideas about what that word would mean. You're an Alpha xSFx after all.
Why? I told you I read them before! Get to the point here.Again, you should read a bit more about LIE/ESI duality and EIE/LSI duality.
Or better yet, focus on ESI's and LSI's. Read Stratiyevskaya's description of Fe in LSI's. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=3001
No that doesn't sound like people I would prefer to hang out with. Next?Then read this.
ENTj ~*
I understand what you're saying, but I think it's totally wrong on many levels. For one thing, Jung's typology isn't socionics, and Jung's descriptions aren't the "true" functional descriptions. I don't agree with the definiton of Fi you said you disagreed with. I think that your view of socionics as to "how" people do things as entirely superficial, nor a deep at all as you make it seem. If we go for one-word definitions, it's about "why", not "how".Expat,
By stable I meant it not as concretely as you're describing (changing jobs, locations, etc) - and if I may add, it seems that your approach is more of a sensing approach (very concrete interpretations of metaphors). When I say stable, I'm talking about in the sense of a second by second, constant way of living and breathing. It fits with Jung's description of "Introverted Sensing" - which I myself relate to as well. The feel I get from you is like a calm ocean, free of tempests. Yes this is a subjective perception, but I don't doubt that if you asked enough people you know, they'd pick up a similar feel.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
I can understand why you don't place credence in what you deem "circular thinking", because you don't seem to share the same perceptions. However it'd be nice if you could entertain the possibility that Socionics phenomenon exist on a far deeper level that many people think it is. For example many people relate things like morality, good values, etc to Fi, which is total bullshit. With an Fi PoLR, I am by no means an immoral person, and have very good values, and many people who have Fi as a strong function and know me would agree, (you yourself who are definitely capable of picking up Fi in people seem to think I'm ok too
Hopefully I will figure out a way to convey what I'm seeing in a way that's understandable
As I have said many times, my own views on Socionics are in the "official" pages of the wiki, either because I wrote it myself, or because I agree with it (mostly). At least as far as I am concerned, your arguments become largely straw man arguments, since they don't address my own views, and the views of others here are not my responsibilty.
If you see something in the wiki that you understand but disagree with, then we can talk. But, for instance, since it's said that very clearly that Jung's descriptions aren't the "true" socionics ones, to me it's a non-starter.
(I am not Si even using Jung's description, but that's by the way).
what??? and EIEs don't??????????
without jung, there would be no socionics.
I will make a few general remarks on this - apart from Elena's type.
When I discuss Socionics, I discuss what I see as classical socionics, from this point of view I am boring and unimaginative.
And Russian socionists have typed Lenin as ESTp and Trotsky as ENFj. I will assume that Russians knew what they were doing when typing Russian historical figures of that magnitude. Since both Lenin and Trotsky were known for being devastating in debate, especially over idelogical matters - things they strongly believed in - I have to assume that Russians were aware of this (apart from the fact that they mention this characteristics in their descriptions).
So, even if ENTjs were also likely to do that, it is certainly not exclusive to ENTjs. It is the ENFj whom socionists assume to be the orator, or messiah type; not the ENTj.
Now there is the view that ENTjs should somehow also argue those ideas non-stop. Then I must ask -- to achieve what? To "prove" they are right, or to persuade others? But on matters of which importance? Is that really going to help ENTjs in their ultimate goals?
But even if you leave that aside, to say that ENTjs or Gammas are the types most likely to argue non-stop over their ideas is contrary to classical socionics, which for good reason types most revolutionaries, messiahs, and ideologues as Betas - generally not Gammas.
Now, if people want to invent a new version of socionics that reverses all that, fine; but let's be aware of what's going on.
*sigh*Well, maybe you should believe that I am so stupid then
If what you mean is related to about how all of that makes Elena feel etc. I don't see that as a legitimate concern of mine whatsoever. Like me, she is free to continue any discussion, or not, and to say what she wants to, or not.
My whole being tells me that it's not worth trying to continue because you'll just continue to be blind to other possibilities than what's in your own head. However, hope has always been a downfall of mine, particularly when it comes to trying to help others understand some of the problems they keep having with other people.
And here is where I entered.
I didn't initiate a communication attempt with you over whether "you should" continue nor or not. I merely attempted to provide you with insight as to what was happening on her end.
I provided you with an explanation for her "tone" which included an explanation for why she used the term "accusers". And try to point out to you that you make allowances for your own actions that you deny for her. ie claiming she's trying to "win" and you're merely trying to explain (I never said that this last part was deliberate on your part, but regardless of your intent or lack of intent, your actions are the same.)
I tried to point out an area you are blind to.
I hoped that you could at least glimpse.
But all I seem to get, sadly enough, is the thought that you're uncomfortable stepping out of your zone of comfort of your own perceptions. You say I'm wrong. But your actions speak louder than your words.
I cannot make the blind see (willfully blind or not).
At least not in THIS case
*skips away*
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Agreed. But that doesn't mean that the early socionists did not alter Jung's original functions, to different degrees. Which they did, as it is clear if you read his descriptions and then Augusta's, or those of other classical socionists.
This is NOT the way an LIE argues a point. Or criticizes.
Elena, I'm done. The exact same scenario that happened a year ago is in the process of happening again, and I have no interest in taking part in it this time. If you want to believe you're LIE, great. Have fun.
Oh yes that. I had read it, it just didn't seem worth remembering.
Good, glad we've now established this.it's comprehensible to me that they are related in a number of ways. i have enough "exposure to the field" to give Joy the explanation i mentioned above - i can imagine what "processes" and "details" you might have been referring to.
She apparently thought herself to have enough background to make a universal declaration like she did. She was wrong, I informed her of why that's not a realistic POV. Honestly, understanding why she was wrong doesn't even require a background in Economics. It should be intuitive enough to understand when pointed out, for anyone that hasn't lived in a hole all their life. The inductions required to make the inferences I made are not great leaps. If they are then I don't know what to tell you about yourself. Develop abstract thinking skills further?but just saying these fields are related isn't of much help to someone who doesn't have my or your background. why are they related? how do they effect each other?
I never even argued anything against her "integral" typings.without further information (which not everyone has), why should Joy buy your argument against her "integral" typings?
Go Go Captain Obvious!not all relatedness are relevant to integral types. a sales department and a research department in the same firm might be related through the overall health of the firm or its organizational values. doesn't mean those departments will share the same integral type, however.
Apparently you're under a misunderstanding that I said anything about this "integral" type stuff at all.so the way i see it - you generalized your response to Joy (and several responses thereafter) to the point of being scarcely more informative than just saying "you're wrong, i'm right". whether or not you want to call that trivial - i wouldn't call it a good example of Te.
ENTj ~*
So how it is? You can't take yourself as only idealized model of LIEs and discount anybody that does not perfectly fit the picture of yourself you have in your mind. Take a look at Rick's LIE gallery on socionics.us, you'll notice how different its components are. Then come back here crying.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
This thread saddens me on so very many levels.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Lol are you being serious?This thread saddens me on so very many levels.
ENTj ~*
I'm not merry, fo sho.
Can you suggest some alternative way of looking at it that would be luminously grand? I don't mean that sarcastically, it's just I flip through this thread/novel and I get the bad vibes.
You know, the I-wanna-punch-you-in-the-face kind. That might be worthwhile if something came out of it all, but I suspect more's been lost than gained. On the other hand, it's kinda in my nature to think this way. What more can I say?
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Strange. It doesn't feel personally that bad at all to me. I certainly had no urges to punch anybody in the face or anything of the like. Maybe other people wanted to punch me? Lol. I'm not sure.
I also think more has been gained than lost. Conflict in situations like this forum can be a very good+productive thing.
ENTj ~*
Maybe Elena is Brad Pitt.
@Elena: I pm-ed you. Thought it'll be better.
INTp
sx/sp
How is the Pope unethical?
Sorry, I completly forgot. The Catholic church is well renowned for that shit, as almost everyone knows.
And my signature is just showing an appreciation for earthy comedy.
@dee: you being delta ST, I suppose it's a joke. I can't imagine if it isn't.
INTp
sx/sp
Reply With Quote
