What's not LIE about Adam? He seems kind of typical, the "scientist / teacher" version of LIEs.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
For those of you who type me as SEI, could you give me a detailed description of how I use and value Si?
I get the impression that my 9 fix, So/Sx nature, and lack of strong Se make me look more like SEI than I truly am; besides the fact that SEI is literally the Look-alike of IEI.
Hm, this is exactly what he seems to be doing. I need to understand this better. I've always viewed Te as being able to provide verifiable and trustworthy information. But I don't see him as using the facts to create a plan so much as making up the facts (and not field testing them enough before believing them and using them to advise others). I'm just really confused whenever people say that the bullshitting he does is creative Ni, and something about it goes over my head because it seems contrary to the nature of how I see Te. Maybe I do need my Te blocked with Si, because I don't just take random assertions at face value.
That's because it doesn't have anything to do with Ni, its wrong on multiple levels. Assuming that, even if it did, how would that override an LIE's base function? Because to go against evidence in this way would suggest weak or unvalued Te. Niffer's response shows a clear lack of understanding of how functions work in Model A and should be disregarded. LIE's are evidence based to a fault. If you assume that LIE's are this way, then a lot of other things cease to make sense as well.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
I don't understand why people think that Te-dom has to be this super 100% objectivity that never speculate about anything. I mean look at Director Abbie, she's quoting the bible as some trustworthy information (no offense). Everyone speculates... that's called being human. Anyway, Adam Strange does talk a lot about his own experiences, and base his own arguments on his own experience (whether you agree with his theories based on his experience or not) and that's what "Objectivist" in Socionics is all about.
The same way LIIs can have trouble seeing reality even though they have Ti as base.
LIEs may value evidence and experience and want to be as evidence-based as possible. But having weak sensing and sensing being one major source of evidence/information, especially what is considered empirical, it makes perfect sense that it might not always pan out all the time with always being able to rely on evidence purely, and that is where Ni creative steps in when it has to.Because to go against evidence in this way would suggest weak or unvalued Te. Niffer's response shows a clear lack of understanding of how functions work in Model A and should be disregarded. LIE's are evidence based to a fault. If you assume that LIE's are this way, then a lot of other things cease to make sense as well.
If you really think Adam's type is something other than LIE, and it being mentioned out of some reason other than just dual misunderstanding or interpersonal weirdness/beef, then you lack a clear understanding of Model A as well. I highly doubt that you have ever personally spoken to him even once.
Te is dynamic and mostly about business logic and pragmatic action, not just facts.
It should be made clear that the Typology domain strongly lacks in evidence (of the Te kind). It is all Ti territory for the most part. An LIE will mostly have to rely on their Ti Ignoring and their Creative Ni to navigate those waters. That is probably why Adam is such a fan of V.I – it lacks a logically structured model and relies mostly on intuitive impression. If you want to see what an ILE is like, check @echidna1000 and his work and personality. He's the guy behind WSS.
It's not about "100% objectivity," it's about having a point of reference in the outside world (as opposed to "just believe me, I'm smart.") Fi then gauges the reliability of that source. So in my view, Abbie quoting the Bible is more Te than what Adam does, even if I personally don't think it's accurate.
For reference: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...of-information
Well Ni is about speculating, since it has to speculate about the future. You think that Elon Musk don't speculate, or even talk bullshit sometimes? I mean he has said that there's 1 in a billion chance that we don't live inside of a computer simulation. There's no direct evidence in the outside world for that. I mean he's not wrong, he could be logically correct, but this is all based on speculation. A lot of NTs and probably N types in general talk about stuff based on theory.
Can you specify where in that thread it states that Te is about "having a point of reference in the outside world"?
Also, does this not sound exactly like Adam to you?:
It's from what you linked.Fi-Te:
Fi-Te quadra types - in a "pure", "unrealistic" situation - would prefer to communicate in ways that avoid any selection or interpretation of information - in a "robotic" way even. Which is why, by the way, at least the rational Gamma/Delta dual couples become increasingly "unemotional" with time, at least to outsiders -- they find comfort precisely in the reassurance that there is no need to select information with that particular person, no need to "read between the lines".
I've never typed musk, but "one in a billion chance" is talking in terms of probabilities and is clearly speculation, which I don't see as incompatible with a Te worldview.
"we totally live in a simulation, so go to the wafflehouse instead of church" would be more along the lines of what Adam does and people call it Te because it involves "doing things," which is the new standard he has created for Te.
It's not a direct quote, but I'm not sure how you could interpret it in a radically different way. Te/Fi deals with the veracity of sources which are by nature external input, makes sense with Te being an extroverted element. Maybe you can explain how you're seeing it differently.
It sure as hell doesn't, lol. It sounds the opposite of Adam. Saying something in a confident and "objective" fashion does not mean you are not being subjective and selective, which is the entire basis of my frustration.Also, does this not sound exactly like Adam to you?:
It's from what you linked.
In contrast, Adam does not make clear that he's speaking in terms of probabilities. He comes up with ideas and presents them as unassailable facts. It makes him an unreliable information source as far as Fi is concerned.
Te has always had an association with "how to do things" but this idea that anytime you're telling somebody what to do, no matter the basis or reasoning for it, you're using Te, is a new phenomenon.He created it all by his lonesome self? If that's what you now understand and believe Te is, that's your prerogative.
I mean no sane person is going to say, "Yes, we totally live in a computer simulation and there's 100% proof", but saying "1 in a billion chance" is a pretty confident way of saying "yes". Elon Musk has to convince people that we will live in an automated driverless world with electric cars, with hyperloop tunnels, and that we will be colonizing and living in Mars one day. So there is a lot of speculation that doesn't have a point of reference in the current world.
Anyway, I've never really noticed Adam speculating much, it's more that he's making a theory based on his own experiences. And since typing is subjective... it's not really going to align with "reality", especially with somebody else's, which is another way of saying that people type differently all the time. I mean that's really the core of the problem with Socionics...
Great, thanks for the information then.
Right. Find one person who agrees with you on these points, and especially that this is enough basis for typing him as something other than Te lead and LIE and I'll leave the thread. This response just sounds like a typical, subjective interpretation of a skeptical ESI first having to deal with an LIE before they've established enough trust with them. Textbook.It sure as hell doesn't, lol. It sounds the opposite of Adam.
I can't speak on this very well because I've never listened to musk, but "one in a billion chance" still has a bent toward remaining honest and accurate as opposed to stating it as fact, which might be petty but is an important distinction to Fi egos, who need information sources they can reliably depend on.
There are plenty of people who cite their sources and provide rational backing for their socionics views. I don't see making unsupportable claims as unavoidable.Anyway, I've never really noticed Adam speculating much, it's more that he's making a theory based on his own experiences. And since typing is subjective... it's not really going to align with "reality", especially with somebody else's, which is another way of saying that people type differently all the time. I mean that's really the core of the problem with Socionics...
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
At least get the basics right first before you try being creative. That's something that Cassandra at least tries to do. So much use that goes to being Te valuing and focused on thinking outside of the box if you are still wrong.
Being Ne polr though, I bet you'd shit your pants at being called creative for once. @lungs
It's that you don't seem (imo) to look at consequences, everything very much relates to the present time. The poetry that you linked to - none of it was drawing connection between past present and future, it wasn't stretched forward through time the way I see Ni people express themselves, it was all just now. You don't seem to see the patterns and ties of where things lead - projecting patterns into the future to any great degree, certainly not as a Ni lead does. Using figurative language as is done in poetry isn't Ni, it's just a device and technique, where a person's thoughts are and the depth to which they explore something says more about their type. None of this is an insult btw, because I'm also quite present-focused. I also have imagination and thoughts and so forth - none of that is intuition or Ni. Since you like poetry - think of Robert Burn's poem about the mouse - you know the best laid plans of mice and men, and how he says the mouse is better off than he is because he doesn't worry about the future, or the past, everything that happens to him is now, and then it is over. (Although I disagree that makes a mouse, or person better off, as things can tumble down on you rather suddenly) the way you express yourself says you are closer to the way the mouse views things than Burns. You don't seem to see things coming any better than I do.
First of all, everyone needs to relax.
Second of all, can we admit that nobody knows what they are talking about on here?
Third of all:
- @Adam Strange isn't LIE
- @Cassandra isn't IEI
- @niffer isn't SLE
- Nobody knows what they are talking about and @Singularity needs to shut up with this new age Socionics bullshit.
*Case Closed*
Some people in here are ruining their dignity for a typology system...
There's no such thing as "new age Socionics"...