Agreed, Gamma SF for sureOriginally Posted by A Moderator
What do you think? @Aki
Agreed, Gamma SF for sure
What do you think? @Aki
I disagree
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
(takes position of agnosticism)
Ti role in ESI seems quite dismantling online (seems bit like LII). Ti role in EII seems idealistically enforcing (seems bit like LSI).
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Silky thinks Ayn Rand is her conflictor (SEI - LIE).
If Silky correctly thinks Ayn Rand is her conflictor, but Ayn Rand is SLE, then...
Ayn Rand was a nutcase, though. Not saying that I'm sane but...
Ok, Ayn Rand should have met Rick Benson
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
EII likes when LII constructs systems in their ethical favour, LII likes when EII has consistent and broad logical considerations about their relations to others IME
EII is alpha now?
EII is very open about perspectives.
EII: Just by following current trends It looks like it is not really ethical to work for them.
Me: Well, is it about ethics if you work to make it better from the inside? It is probably much more ethical thing to do than just shunning it.
EII: Oh... That is true.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Seems that Fi like consistency as well, and appreciate the logic as a relational doorway. It means something else to them on a more fundamental level, of course. It is more a contraction of the two interlocutors that makes the LII system appreciated. The fact that the systems appeal to harmonious relation between subjects (as an agreement) and boost internal conception of that relation. (a greater understanding for EII about LII)
Please correct me if i'm wrong. I'm happy to learn.
And it seems to me that when considerations are on the playing field of EII, ethics, these logical observations resonate with them on some levels, because they aren't very different when communicated. It is a successful interaction because the interpretation is smooth, not necessarily an overlap of meaning between the two.
Socionics is not a cult. Aušra Augustinavičiūtėčiūtė would not have devoted her life to something that teaches falsehood and divisiveness.
*does secret handshake-high five-pinky-promise*
Good to see you keeping up appearances, brother.
Fi dont appreciate logical consistency, have u heard of Ti polr
Most people regardless of type appreciate logical consistency in a broad manner. Fi appreciates it when it supports their own relational system (to a certain degree of course). Isn't Fi described as logical, rigid and categorical like Ti?
It might be important that we live true to Aušra Augustinavičiūtėčiūtėčiūtė's principles.
Introverted feeling is logical now, this is why this forum sucks
The discourse you're promoting isn't exactly improving it.
Neither is your ignorance
The feeling functions deal with ethics, not logic. Fi will happily forsake logic if it fulfils their ethical sentiment. Same as Fe actually. You need to make the distinction. Otherwise how would you distinguish the functions?
Nonetheless you had no intentions of curing it, which i openly asked you to do if possible.
Of course.
Its my responsibility to cure your ignorance my bad.
But Fi makes categorizations just as much as Ti, as judging elements. Maybe systematic is a better word. IME (and from what i've read) Fi lead types, especially EII (Ne perspective openness was brought up) appreciate logical support in their Fi related views, although they won't be of importance when 'judging'.
Can you give an example of discarding logic? I don't quite think i get what you mean. Their ethical views make sense to them, are systematic. (as all people) IJ elements even more so i would think. They may not explicitly think of 'logic', but right and wrong, like and dislike have systematic elements behind them, don't they? And IJ seems most internally conscious about these reasons. ''I like because, i think it's wrong because''. Ti would only strengthen this to a certain degree, and of course in agreement, wouldn't it? Te supports with facts to strengthen which is more immediately useful for Fi, but what would make EII feel alienated to Ti that supports the views?
Generally forums exist to illuminate and discuss. You seem to think differently. I guess you take issue with my level of ignorance, as you consider it to be wrong at a basic level of understanding, is that right? I think that the level which people are on is quite arbitrary, i never think it is constructive to dismiss others because they're percieved as wrong.
If you don't want to tell me how i'm wrong in a way that i understand, then leave me alone. I'm sure that there are a lot of people on here that can put me in my place without acting like a child.
That's why it needs the common _reasonable_ approach which means that the correctness of an opinion depends from the knowledge of the theory and practical experience. And that different theory have different basis to trust due to objective reasons. Many people on this forum forget about this and trust to own opinions and heretical bs too much.
Many ones here never read original Jung's book and basic Augustinavichiute's works. Never read normal Socionics books which help to uderstand the typology systematicly and in classical form. At best they read good books about dichotomies from MBTI side. And a theoretical mess from English sites, where Reinin's traits, Gulenko's bs and Jung's core theory are mixed as equal. This means most ones here have the mess in their heads instead of adequate typology understanding, what I was surpised to see in very strange views people say here about the essences of the types besides how often they use different heretical bs.
The similarly bad is in practice qualification of the most here. The initial typing qualification is proved from the moment you notice that IR theory fits to your typings good and often. How many ones did that? Then you need years of typing to improve your skills, especially to type people not only near you IRL.
The unreasonable approach is the trait of cults. Such approach I've criticized. While you with the opposing protect that irrational nonsense and should relate to "cults" your and similar positions where people having nothing reasonably good to trust to own opinions do so here and trust to baseless bs like those are not such. If Socionics is not a cult and not a game for you, then use objective reason in it like you do in other knowledge regions. Until that it's not so, despite your "magical" claims which controvert to what you do.
Also when you use what is not part of Socionics theory like Gulenko's subtypes - there is no reason to call it as Socionics. It's not a "cult" where you may irrationally and baselessly do anything like to relate anything to something or other absurd.
Disagreeing with the said above you are on the irrational side, but not me.
With more reasonable approach, on what I've pointed, there'd "magically" was lesser of bs and mistakes on this forum and in Socionics.
Last edited by Sol; 10-27-2018 at 07:03 PM.
One thing this forum has taught me is that ppl are too close minded to listen to logic
F and T are a dichotomy, welcome to socionics 101.
I don’t see why Fi would be called systematic. Fe and Fi are judging functions, but that doesn’t make them systematic or logical. I mean in a way they’re closer to S because they have to deal with “what is.” And what is, is a mess. I might tell you how you should navigate some of the human parts of that mess, or have a good idea how I myself should, but that doesn’t mean I’m doing T.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
My two cents is experiential assuming im Fi lead, so take it or leave it. Coming up with systematic reasoning to support my judgments takes effort and happens post hoc if I feel compelled to justify myself. Its like when you solve an equation and there's that internal sense of "click" because things came together...I think Fi experiences that "click" wrt how things resonate emotionally even if 2+2 doesn't equal 4 and if they're pressed to make it equal 4 the click goes away and things no longer make sense in their worldview (since that's not how emotions and values really work) and that's how conflict can come up sometimes with Ti types. I don't think anybody's gonna complain about someone providing logical support for their opinions though
Uuuh not really. Fi doesn't make the same kind of categorization as Ti. I'm not base Fi, but I do have 4D Fi, so I can try to explain things from that perspective.
Fi is the ethics of relationships. As in, from my understanding, how an ethical type feels depends on what relationship the person has with the object they're directing their emotions to. This thing can be anything, it can be people, it can be objects, facts or even ideas. Fi is constantly checking it's own position in the world relative to others. This is what gives them their sense of orientation. They're very good at understanding their position, but also other people's positions in life. This is how they make decisions.
Ti is different in that, there's no emotion attached to the characterizations. Ti types value Fe as an ethical standards. They will tell you that ethics need to be applied in a case by case manner. They don't adhere to this universal standard of "this is my position in life." that's a very personal, subjective sentiment. There's no way to quantify or objectify it. Ti on the other hand, is impersonal. It's cold logic. In fact, Ti is interested in *removing* the personal sentiment. They approach and issue, break it down to its elements. If you debate a Ti type, you can see it clearly. Ti wants to remove personal sentiment. They say "let's break down your argument."
This distinction is the clearest in types that have Ji as PoLR. ILE for example, may insist that a person's relationship with an object should never enter the equation at all. Whereas an IEE may poorly construct an argument simply because of their relationship to the subject matter.
Fi understands interpersonal dynamics. Ti doesn't, and couldn't care less. In a sense they're opposite processes. I like to think of it as Fi inserting personal sentiment into an object to make an ethical judgment and Ti as removing personal sentiment from an object to make a logical judgment.
Yes, all types have access to all functions and most people understand common sense logic and common sense ethics.
I will just add @Pano Lou, ime...
I have seen many ILEs and SLEs who do care about and learn about interpersonal dynamics. These ILEs seem to enjoy understanding general principles of how people behave and what motivates them, and the SLEs try to understand how to persuade and protect and are good with power dynamics. There’s a bit of the element of studying humans as if we were bugs or something. I even knew an ILE who took that very far by becoming an anthropologist.
Yet those same people will be unsure of themselves relationally, they don’t always know the right things to say or the right ways to treat people, or even how to stop themselves from manipulating or devaluing people they care about. Sometimes this has been subtle, other times overt.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I mean 'systematic' as in consistent within itself. And i think i get what you mean now. That they don't have to make explicit logical sense i agree with. Fi isn't socionics logical, it's systematic in it follows internal rules that are explicit in the agent, and that that is a pronounced trait of IJ types. Therefore logic (Ti) that on the surface supports the ethical values would, in my understanding of theory, be most appreciated in EII (of all the Fi/Te types maybe?) because agreement with Fi base, and openess in Ne. Clashes will of course spring up when disharmony in judgement comes to light.
I could be wrong about the ranking of Fi/Te types in surface appreciation of Ti, but i still understand Fi as having that internal ruleset which may not be Ti explicit, but still have a rigid grounding, just that the emotional resonance is the source.
But yeah EII doesn't make logical judgements in the socionics terminology, sorry for being unclear. (and wrong if there is disagreement with my post here)
Personally I get perplexed by what looks to me like inconsistency in Fi. What the Fi-heavy person does or doesn’t like or approve of is nearly impossible for me to understand. What lungs is calling the post hoc reasoning may be the problem area, because there will be one set of logic for each post hoc, and it looks like an absolute defiance of logic to me. I’m putting it this way because it’s where Fi types and I diverge and disagree.
There is clearly a constant, hidden in the Fi self, but I never seem to know the rules.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
@golden
I feel the same way. I've had many arguments over 'illogical reasoning' but there seems to be a common thread that i just don't see. Because there is reasoning, it just has a different root. It is wrong to kill = Ti and Fi agree, but may have different lines of reasoning, it is still reasoning. Like all people, Ti leads must end with something that just feels right to them.
Are we discussing the difficulties of our role function as its tendency to blend with base?
To me word "seeing" means intuitive perception almost every time.
I think LII's will subordinate ethics to logic. EII's will subordinate logic to ethics. So for EII's ethical judgment is their relational basis and from there they will arrange relational stuff into a somewhat weak system just to get by.
It is quite clear to me that they do not cut things through via logical links. They will think relations first and how to arrange them in more systematic way. This is the place where I can seriously make EII's upset by completely cutting through personal relations with words. Which in itself is not the goal but something to be arranged later on...
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
@Troll Nr 007
Definitely not formal logical links as we understand it in socionics. But reasoning isn't objective. It is a self-containing system that makes sense to the person holding it. But i get what you mean, and i agree.
I've even used this analogy describe my interest in humans.
@chriscorey - mb F type, not ILE like she thinks now
About which post?
The mind is restless and difficult to restrain, but it is subdued by practice
-Krishna
your photos
@Singu ILI. Alternatively, a Ti PoLR type. But most likely NT gamma.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote