Knowledge and conclusions

[jughead]

When your knowledge and conclusions allow you to realize you are ahead of other people and that you can't use this knowledge because they won't understand or even treat you as a wierdo or outcast because of such.
Is it type related?

[Khola aka Bee]

Nope, it's not even knowledge

If you understand, but you're misunderstood in the eyes of others, chances are you're not understanding the social context you're trying to get along within, rejecting common goals and then being outcast or feeling once removed for it.

The next things to figure out would be:

- Do I dislike the social group/situation I find myself in?
- Should I look for another group/situation that suits me better?
- Is the problem internal or external - am I missing something that I could learn from?
- Is it worth my time in the first place if no change can be illicited and I'm finding it frustrating?
- Can the group/situation exist happily and without harm without utilising my input, even if it doesn't fit my ideals/is dumb/misses the point?

Sometimes things are just retarded and people are stuck in their ways of viewing things. The thing I like to marvel over is whether or not something is stupid because I think it is based on my own view of acceptable culture, or if I'm the one that's missing the point and has, as a result, become stuck in my ways.

If someone doesn't understand me, the first thing I try to figure out is whether or not I really understand them. From there, it's a question of whether can I reach them and should I in the first place.

[Aiss]

It falls into "practically everyone feels that way, it's normal" category, I'm afraid.

[Khola aka Bee]

That too

[The Exception]

When your knowledge and conclusions allow you to realize you are ahead of other people and that you can't use this knowledge because they won't understand or even treat you as a wierdo or outcast because of such.
Is it type related?

I suspect its more of a relationship thing. It's worse with those who are weak in the functions I'm strong in and worse yet if they don't value those functions.

It falls into "practically everyone feels that way, it's normal" category, I'm afraid.

You're probably right. I think most people have experienced this at one time or another.

[krieger]

It seems to me, though, that there are some types for which it is generally easier to "prove" it when they really are ahead in this way. External (S & T) functions have the advantage over Internal (N & F) ones there, imo.

Also, arguably, F functions aren't trying to get ahead of others.

Other than that, the description slightly favors N > S, because it stresses weirdness and being an outcast/misunderstood person.

Certainly not entirely unrelated to type, imo.

[jughead]

ugh I wrote this when a bit drunk....
"everybody else is so naive"

[silverchris9]

It seems to me, though, that there are some types for which it is generally easier to "prove" it when they really are ahead in this way. External (S & T) functions have the advantage over Internal (N & F) ones there, imo.

Also, arguably, F functions aren't trying to get ahead of others.

Other than that, the description slightly favors N > S, because it stresses weirdness and being an outcast/misunderstood person.

Certainly not entirely unrelated to type, imo.

I would say, rather, that one is more likely to prove one's "out there"-ness to people of one's own quadra. For instance, Shakespeare is clearly NF, and he has completely proved his out-there-ness. So, while type does tend to influence the type of "proof" you expect or can accept, I don't think really that any IM is any better or worse at proving how "out there" ahead of people you are. Sometimes all you have to do is say it: "I stop somewhere waiting for you."

Now, that said, I do think society atm is more weighted (at least externally) towards proof in the Ti and Te forms. But you can also convince people of your out thereness by the strength of an Fi conviction, Fe emotional persuasion, etc.

[redbaron]

When your knowledge and conclusions allow you to realize you are ahead of other people and that you can't use this knowledge because they won't understand or even treat you as a wierdo or outcast because of such.
Is it type related?

I do sometimes feel like I know or can see what will probably happen, while other people around me haven't a clue. It seems so obvious that it's hard to believe others can't see it. But I don't worry about being misunderstood, I just keep it to myself and take the "wait and see" approach.

[krieger]

For instance, Shakespeare is clearly NF, and he has completely proved his out-there-ness.

Yes, but you needed to pick an extreme example to make that work. Try to prove that Shakespeare was a better playwriter than Christopher Marlow, to name a random person, and you already run into a problem. You can make some kind of poll on the topic, but that turns the whole thing into a Te approach again.

But you can also convince people of your out thereness by the strength of an Fi conviction, Fe emotional persuasion, etc.

Key word is "can". The question is whether its ever as easy as proving something via T or S functions. The answer to that question is overwhelmingly "no".

[Blaze]

When your knowledge and conclusions allow you to realize you are ahead of other people and that you can't use this knowledge because they won't understand or even treat you as a wierdo or outcast because of such.
Is it type related?

worry about this, and then being prudent and with holding the knowledge and conclusions: this would be intj.

not worrying about it and going ahead anyway and not caring what everybody thinks and getting ostracized: this would be entp.

[silverchris9]

Yes, but you needed to pick an extreme example to make that work. Try to prove that Shakespeare was a better playwriter than Christopher Marlow, to name a random person, and you already run into a problem. You can make some kind of poll on the topic, but that turns the whole thing into a Te approach again.

If you can't tell that Shakespeare is a better playwright than Christopher Marlow, I would argue that the fault is with you rather than with Shakespeare (or Marlow for that matter). I feel like you're still expecting objective standard. But that's the point: is there an objective standard for what emotional response is best in a given situation (i.e., Fe)? No, of course not. But there is a way of determining what emotional response is best (at least in one sense), or at least socionics says that there's an information element that helps us determine it.

One problem, I will say, with proving that one writer is farther out there than another is that often, you have to be a good enough reader to discern the value of different writers, and that does take time. But it also takes time to understand physics, and which physicists claim is better than another. Or to give another Ti example, it takes time to be able to understand why Plato is a better philosopher than Democritus (or more "out there").

But when we're informed that, say, Einstein is farther out than Hubble, the amount of people who can genuinely understand, from primary texts, that Einstein is farther out than Hubble, at any given time, is probably roughly equal to the amount of people who can genuinely understand, from primary texts, that W.B. Yeats is better than, say, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, or that John Ashbery is better than [insert random unimportant mediocre 20th century poet here]. I was going to say that science submits to paraphrase better than poetry, but that's not even true; it depends on what science and what poetry.

Key word is "can". The question is whether its ever as easy as proving something via T or S functions. The answer to that question is overwhelmingly "no".

It depends on the kind of information you're expecting. It's actually a hell of a lot easier for a politician to convince the public to vote for a stimulus bill through Fe or Fi than for an economist to convince the public to vote for a stimulus bill through Ti or Te. Is it "proven"? Well, that depends on what you mean by the word proven---I personally don't put much stock in proof and prefer persuasion. But sure, if you narrowly define "prove" as "demonstrate through physical evidence and/or formal logic," well, yes, obviously S and T functions will prove it much more easily (or... Ti, Te, and Se. It's pretty darn difficult to prove your own subjective physical experience is true), but that's begging the question. If you broaden it out to "convince," well, you can see how each function would go about convincing that it is "farther out": Ni would be all mystic and quote Walt Whitman, Se would demonstrate superior power, superior results, Te would demonstrate with charts and graphs or whatever, Fi would show its commitment to a value (i.e., what's normally called an ethical appeal, as in pathos, logos, ethos), Fe would make a passionate appeal (pathos), Ti would make a logical appeal (logos), etc.

[krieger]

if you narrowly define "prove" as "demonstrate through physical evidence and/or formal logic,"

That is what "prove" means in English. You can't make up your own fantasy language and expect people to adapt to it.

obviously S and T functions will prove it much more easily

Well, then. What took you so long?

[silverchris9]

That is what "prove" means in English. You can't make up your own fantasy language and expect people to adapt to it.

Well, then. What took you so long?

Did you read the next part where it says "that begs the question." And... actually... "make up your own fantasy language and expect people to adapt to it" is kinda how language works. Do we need to go over how a "word" is a grapheme designed to represent what is essentially just a sound, with no necessary tie to any meaning whatsoever, and so in effect a word is given meaning by an implicit contract between people, a highly malleable contract, about as malleable as human beings.

Also (god I have this argument every day on the forum. Which I don't mind; I rather enjoy it), if "physical evidence and/or formal logic" is the only way to prove something, how do you "prove" that you love someone? That test (and, I believe, every test, but that's another story) will finally boil down to a series of untestable and unproven assumptions, and so proof finally rests on things besides "physical evidence and/or formal logic" after all.

EDIT: also, it makes me really happy that I did end up getting to talk about knowledge and conclusions and how they are reached after all.

[Aiss]

It seems to me, though, that there are some types for which it is generally easier to "prove" it when they really are ahead in this way. External (S & T) functions have the advantage over Internal (N & F) ones there, imo.

Also, arguably, F functions aren't trying to get ahead of others.

When it comes to "proof", T has an advantage, but when it comes to actually convincing people, I find they're more often swayed by F than T (both flavours). It's enough to see people protesting because they're emotional about something even though their victory would be against their own interests. It happens all the time. Or at least those people shout the loudest. (Not to mention how many people will disregard proof, or at least strong evidence, when these emotions come into play. T loses the battle every time.)

[krieger]

Did you read the next part where it says "that begs the question."

The question was "begged" not by some ideosyncratic choice of definitions on my part, but by the set of agreements we both adhere to by virtue of the fact we speak English.

And... actually... "make up your own fantasy language and expect people to adapt to it" is kinda how language works.

Only in Te-PoLR types' heads it does.

if "physical evidence and/or formal logic" is the only way to prove something, how do you "prove" that you love someone?

You don't. What's with the assumption this should be possible at all?

[silverchris9]

When it comes to "proof", T has an advantage, but when it comes to actually convincing people, I find they're more often swayed by F than T (both flavours). It's enough to see people protesting because they're emotional about something even though their victory would be against their own interests. It happens all the time. Or at least those people shout the loudest. (Not to mention how many people will disregard proof, or at least strong evidence, when these emotions come into play. T loses the battle every time.)

No it doesn't. Every type feels like their valued elements lose the battle every time. In reality, all of the valued elements "win" in different spheres and at different times.

The question was "begged" not by some ideosyncratic choice of definitions on my part, but by the set of agreements we both adhere to by virtue of the fact we speak English.

That proof requires "formal logic and/or physical evidence?" That's not even true. When you look something up in a reference book to "prove" that the fact is true, you use neither formal logic, nor physical evidence. You're relying upon the report of the editors of the reference work because they have convinced you, usually via marketing, unless you've bothered to look up accuracy statistics (which would still require believing someone else's report), that they are reliable, i.e., an ethical argument, if we go back to the pathos, logos, ethos bit.

If by the word "prove" you explicitly intended to convey "demonstrate using formal logic and/or physical evidence," I apologize, and I need to modify my argument: there are ways to convince people besides "proof," which are inherently neither superior nor inferior to this strange meaning of the word "proof" which limits all proof to formal logic and physical evidence, which reduces, essentially, to empiricism (because formal logic requires at least some assumptions that are not proven using formal logic, thereby ruling out the use of formal logic and leaving you only with physical evidence). These alternative methods, which can by generally categorized by or related to the 4 "internal" IMs, are often as effective in convincing people of one's superior knowledge (knowledge which, according to the OP, they will not understand) as Ti, Te, Se, and Si.

But seriously, if we change the word to "convince," my point still stands: it is just as easy to persuade that one is "way out there" by internal functions as by external ones. What about the Einstein and Yeats (they were rough contemporaries anyway) example? Do you disagree? (that's a genuine question. I feel like it works, but I'm not sure). I don't think any IM is inherently superior in proving, demonstrating, or convincing others that an individual has superior, but inaccessible knowledge.

Only in Te-PoLR types' heads it does.

Language changes only because people use different sounds to mean different things than they did previously, i.e., semiotic relations change. If people didn't make up fantasy languages, or at least use different meanings for words, then language would never change. And many words have changed quite a lot from their original meanings, to say nothing of idiomatic phrases (which are as crucial to our thinking and communication as individual words). And there's not as much difference between "fantasy languages" and the ordinary processes that cause language change. I mean, each individual word had to be fantasized up by someone, right, as well as each change in meaning (and seriously, look through the OED, some words really changed a lot over the years). I'm sure Shakespeare fantasized large chunks of your vocabulary. These days, we call Dante's fantasy language "Italian".

[Aiss]

No it doesn't. Every type feels like their valued elements lose the battle every time. In reality, all of the valued elements "win" in different spheres and at different times.

Which is why I specified when it happens - a part of the text in parenthesis not emphasized.

[silverchris9]

Which is why I specified when it happens - a part of the text in parenthesis not emphasized.

Punctuation issue. "T loses the battle every time" was a complete sentence, so I thought it was a complete thought unto itself, as opposed to "When those emotions come into play, T loses the battle every time," which is, I suppose, what you actually meant (although I still disagree... but only a little). Anyway, I was just trying to point out what I saw as a bit of victim-playing, not only on your part, but on mine as well: "grrr... you mean thinkers disregarding feelings." When it's not actually like that. Everybody wins their fair share of battles and does their fair share of oppressing. Shrug.

[krieger]

silverchris, you've said yourself that the conclusion was obvious and as far as I'm concerned that concludes the matter. I have no interest in following the myriad of irrelevant tangents you go off on through the rest of your post.

[Gilly]

It's not type related, but the way you talk about it sounds to me like the way a Ti type, or at least Ti valuing, would describe such phenomena, and is something they would typically be frustrated with.

[silverchris9]

silverchris, you've said yourself that the conclusion was obvious and as far as I'm concerned that concludes the matter. I have no interest in following the myriad of irrelevant tangents you go off on through the rest of your post.

...fine.




I'm still right though.

[DividedsGhost]

Sometimes it is. For a person that has a mind that prefers to do much internal processing first, they will find that expressing that processing and its conclusions to become a second psychological directive. And we can express through language (both vocal and written), physically (expressions and sensations), and visually and auditory, or a combination of them all. So this kind of person will often be misunderstood until they compromise some of their processing time for time spent better expressing their thoughts with these four mediums.

But everyone processes on some level, and so everyone can be misunderstood. But this is why communication is always considered so damn important in a relationship. I imagine Duality inherently depends on this principle more than any of the other type relations by simple reason that both indulge the same 'kind of processing', but in completely opposite levels of functional focus and importance; they are both quite capable of understanding each other and allowing each other to enjoy a most complete utilization and integration of their functions compared to other relations.

I think this is what people don't appreciate when they see they don't mix at all with a dual. The problem is that neither has any desire to enjoy their weaker functions. They both have to want to or of course it would fail horribly. Okay, slightly off topic...I'm done preachin' on my stand, tellin' it like it is, keepin' it real gangsta'.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[silverchris9]

Is this a good place and moment to say that IMO silverchris9 is an IEE?
(unless I said that already, I don't remember)

lol... given that it's not the topic of the thread, technicaly, no, it's not a good time, lol. But for reals, yes, you've implied it. I'm always open to other type options, even though I'm almost 100% sold on IEI as the best socionics representation of my thought process and personality style, as well as on SLE as my dual.

[jughead]

"not worrying about it and going ahead anyway and not caring what everybody thinks and getting ostracized: this would be entp. "
Hah this trait has rubbed off on me some from hanging out with an entp but I don't perform it as well as they do.

[Blaze]

"not worrying about it and going ahead anyway and not caring what everybody thinks and getting ostracized: this would be entp. "
Hah this trait has rubbed off on me some from hanging out with an entp but I don't perform it as well as they do.

hahaha oh well somebody has got to be on the fringe. it may as well be you and your entp buds.

[krieger]

Is this a good place and moment to say that IMO silverchris9 is an IEE?

You're going to have to re-type a lot of other people to make your typing of me work. Show some intelligence and trust me when I tell you its a lost cause. You damage yourself and the forum by insisting on this insolence.

[xerx]

Also, arguably, F functions aren't trying to get ahead of others.

Isn't EIE the most socially competitive type? I mean a textbook Enneagram 3 is pretty much EIE.

Also I'd argue that, on average, Si dominants care the least about getting ahead of others. They're generally quite simple [but NOT simple-minded!!!] and humble and that's what Ne dominants find refreshing about them.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Isn't EIE the most socially competitive type?

I'd argue that socially competitive is itself something of a contradiction in terms. Of course you can try to be the most liked person by being everything that others expect/want you to be, but that's still not an individual effort towards improvement on an object rather than meta level. Besides this, however, ENFj aren't all about Fe.

Also I'd argue that, on average, Si dominants care the least about getting ahead of others. They're generally quite simple [but NOT simple-minded!!!] and humble and that's what Ne dominants find refreshing about them.

ISFps, yes definitely. ISTps are often disciplined sportsmen and put a lot of work in things like home improvement.

Considering that I didn't manage to impose my typings, although at least in your case I'm convinced to be correct, I decided to not insist with them anymore. Because - you're right - it's probably a lost cause.
I have no regrets for what I've done, IMO I shaken an ignorant status-quo, cultivation which I feel to have great potential for a positive backlash in the future. Hopefully when I'll be around you no more, you'll not be required to cover your insecurities and will admit my version to yourself and others who don't know me.

You're insane if you think that will ever happen. If on the other hand, I expected you to ever start regretting these actions, I'd be an optimist. It looks like you really are beyond redemption in that regard.

[xerx]

I'd argue that socially competitive is itself something of a contradiction in terms. Of course you can try to be the most liked person by being everything that others expect/want you to be, but that's still not an individual effort towards improvement on an object rather than meta level. Besides this, however, ENFj aren't all about Fe.

It's not just about being well liked. The stereotype I'm thinking of is the kind of EIE that expects to be the center of attention, competes to outdo the popularity of others and expects them to accede to his status.

[krieger]

It's not just about being well liked. The stereotype I'm thinking of is the kind of EIE that expects to be the center of attention, competes to outdo others and expects them to accede to his status.

Oh dear. It sounds like you're mistyping ENTjs.

[xerx]

Oh dear. It sounds like you're mistyping ENTjs.

ENTjs can be competitive, but mostly where it concerns their tangible interests, not social status or popularity. Unless it's a reasonable investment of their time (which popularity and image usually aren't unless you're a politician). NTs are the gray eminences after all.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

You misunderstood me. The only possible regret I might have is for wasting my time and energy for nothing. Any "redemption" you're talking about is not applicable.

This is the problem with you. You don't give a shit about the fact that your half assed suggestions ruin the world around you. This makes you think the best way to behave is to spout opinions at random without any regard to their quality. You're admitting yourself that your views aren't worthy of credence of any kind.

ENTjs can be that way, but mostly where it concerns their tangible interests, not social status or popularity. Unless it's a reasonable investment of their time (which popularity usually isn't unless you're a politician). NTs are the gray eminences after all.

Well if you were talking about "competes to outdo others" as something distinct from what I already described in regard to ENFjs, there isn't much left besides these "tangible interests" you mention.

[xerx]

Well if you were talking about "competes to outdo others" as something distinct from what I already described in regard to ENFjs, there isn't much left besides these "tangible interests" you mention.

I edited the post before you posted your reply. It now reads "competes to outdo the popularity of others."

Just watch a teen movie about American high school cheerleaders. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

[krieger]

Then its what I already described ENFjs to be like. Do also keep in mind they have an Ni function.

[xerx]

Then its what I already described ENFjs to be like. Do also keep in mind they have an Ni function.

Dominant subtype is Fe and Te..

[krieger]

Dominant subtype is Fe and Te..

I hear the fairy godmother subtype has an Xe function too.