I reject the notion of temperaments

[Gilly]

...as being compatible and well-correlated, in terms of the existence of relevant outward behavioral patterns and external similarities in all ways but those directly attributable to distinct functional use, with paired functional preferences.

Personally, something that I like very much about the three-letter model of referring to types (eg EIE, as opposed to ENFj) is that it leaves out the rational/irrational (j/p) indicator. I personally think that it would be altogether better if people stopped thinking of "people" as being irrational or rational, and started thinking of the functions in this manner instead.

I have come to think that it is hilarious that people describe others and themselves in terms of "temperaments" that correlate to outward behaviors. Personally, I don't think the temperaments really apply to people in any way other than their function usage. It seems to have become some kind of mythology among people in this forum that "IPs are lazy," "EPs are spontaneous," "IJs are rigid," and "EJs are active," and these traits are used as litmus tests for the supposed temperaments of people.

In the reality of Socionics theory, temperaments refer to the nature of functions. Now, in case you have forgotten, functions are not governing factors of external behavioral traits, as in Meyers-Briggs and related theories, but rather methods of information metabolism. They work on such a "smaller" scale, perceptually speaking, than the nuances of a person's external behavior, that it truly is ridiculous to assume that the two are directly related in any kind of meaningful, recognizable trend.

These constructs in no way necessitate or dictate any kind of outward behavioral patterns. I will agree that correlations can, in fact, be made, but the idea that there are underlying governing tendencies that can be used as "models" into which to fit people as a basis for typing seems absurd to me. However what I REALLY find preposterous is that people reject the idea of another person being a type because he/she does not "appear" to have a certain temperament; using it on a discriminatory basis (in terms of negating a typing; not the "mean" kind of discrimination) seems highly fallacious. It is potable that there are some vague behavioral tendencies that transfer (and would have to be dependent on subtype as well, IMO) from function usage to outward behaviors, but the idea that a person's behavioral "temperament" is in some way governed or has a strong correlation to their Socionics temperament seems, to me, to be a futile and baseless notion.

I will say that, with time, it is possible for a Socionist to develop a personal system of indicators by the use of which they are, perhaps, able to correlate vague notions of what being a "rational dominant" might look like, or how an "extravert" typically behaves. However, this takes time and the practiced typing of, I daresay, thousands of people, and, in the end, is really nothing more than a feeling, and can't really be used by anyone but the typer himself as "real" evidence for a typing; it's not the kind of thing you can explain any more than by saying "This is my impression." The usage of "traits" as concrete indicators, a sort of "checklist" for what a person of a given temperament should or shouldn't be like, is absolutely laughable, and should be stopped immediately by the use of any who wish to consider themselves credible typers.

[Phaedrus]

...as being compatible and well-correlated, in terms of the existence of relevant outward behavioral patterns and external similarities in all ways but those directly attributable to distinct functional use, with paired functional preferences.

Personally, something that I like very much about the three-letter model of referring to types (eg EIE, as opposed to ENFj) is that it leaves out the rational/irrational (j/p) indicator. I personally think that it would be altogether better if people stopped thinking of "people" as being irrational or rational, and started thinking of the functions in this manner instead.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant here. And it is also false, so stop spreading bullshit, you incompetent fool.

Is this forum doomed because its members are too ignorant of the truth? Yes, probably.

I have come to think that it is hilarious that people describe others and themselves in terms of "temperaments" that correlate to outward behaviors.

Your incompetence is disgusting. Learn the types correctly.

In the reality of Socionics theory, temperaments refer to the nature of functions.

No.

Now, in case you have forgotten, functions are not governing factors of external behavioral traits, as in Meyers-Briggs and related theories, but rather methods of information metabolism. They work on such a "smaller" scale, perceptually speaking, than the nuances of a person's external behavior, that it truly is ridiculous to assume that the two are directly related in any kind of meaningful, recognizable trend.

These constructs in no way necessitate or dictate any kind of outward behavioral patterns. I will agree that correlations can, in fact, be made, but the idea that there are underlying governing tendencies that can be used as "models" into which to fit people as a basis for typing seems absurd to me. However what I REALLY find preposterous is that people reject the idea of another person being a type because he/she does not "appear" to have a certain temperament; using it on a discriminatory basis (in terms of negating a typing; not the "mean" kind of discrimination) seems highly fallacious. It is potable that there are some vague behavioral tendencies that transfer (and would have to be dependent on subtype as well, IMO) from function usage to outward behaviors, but the idea that a person's behavioral "temperament" is in some way governed or has a strong correlation to their Socionics temperament seems, to me, to be a futile and baseless notion.

Uttermost idiocy. Stop spreading bullshit.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[ScarlettLux]

You could just say, "I reject anything that goes against me being beta NF" It'll save you some time and energy now, and be useful for future questionings.

[Logos]

You could just say, "I reject anything that goes against me being beta NF" It'll save you some time and energy now, and be useful for future questionings.

[redbaron]

You could just say, "I reject anything that goes against me being beta NF" It'll save you some time and energy now, and be useful for future questionings.

as we all know, IPs like to conserve as much energy as possible.

[strrrng]

Your personal opinion is irrelevant here. And it is also false, so stop spreading bullshit, you incompetent fool.

lmfao

Yeah, Gilly, not exactly sure where you're coming from with this post, but it seems a little misguided.

[aestrivex]

...as being compatible and well-correlated, in terms of the existence of relevant outward behavioral patterns and external similarities in all ways but those directly attributable to distinct functional use, with paired functional preferences.

Personally, something that I like very much about the three-letter model of referring to types (eg EIE, as opposed to ENFj) is that it leaves out the rational/irrational (j/p) indicator. I personally think that it would be altogether better if people stopped thinking of "people" as being irrational or rational, and started thinking of the functions in this manner instead.

I have come to think that it is hilarious that people describe others and themselves in terms of "temperaments" that correlate to outward behaviors. Personally, I don't think the temperaments really apply to people in any way other than their function usage. It seems to have become some kind of mythology among people in this forum that "IPs are lazy," "EPs are spontaneous," "IJs are rigid," and "EJs are active," and these traits are used as litmus tests for the supposed temperaments of people.

In the reality of Socionics theory, temperaments refer to the nature of functions. Now, in case you have forgotten, functions are not governing factors of external behavioral traits, as in Meyers-Briggs and related theories, but rather methods of information metabolism. They work on such a "smaller" scale, perceptually speaking, than the nuances of a person's external behavior, that it truly is ridiculous to assume that the two are directly related in any kind of meaningful, recognizable trend.

These constructs in no way necessitate or dictate any kind of outward behavioral patterns. I will agree that correlations can, in fact, be made, but the idea that there are underlying governing tendencies that can be used as "models" into which to fit people as a basis for typing seems absurd to me. However what I REALLY find preposterous is that people reject the idea of another person being a type because he/she does not "appear" to have a certain temperament; using it on a discriminatory basis (in terms of negating a typing; not the "mean" kind of discrimination) seems highly fallacious. It is potable that there are some vague behavioral tendencies that transfer (and would have to be dependent on subtype as well, IMO) from function usage to outward behaviors, but the idea that a person's behavioral "temperament" is in some way governed or has a strong correlation to their Socionics temperament seems, to me, to be a futile and baseless notion.

I will say that, with time, it is possible for a Socionist to develop a personal system of indicators by the use of which they are, perhaps, able to correlate vague notions of what being a "rational dominant" might look like, or how an "extravert" typically behaves. However, this takes time and the practiced typing of, I daresay, thousands of people, and, in the end, is really nothing more than a feeling, and can't really be used by anyone but the typer himself as "real" evidence for a typing; it's not the kind of thing you can explain any more than by saying "This is my impression." The usage of "traits" as concrete indicators, a sort of "checklist" for what a person of a given temperament should or shouldn't be like, is absolutely laughable, and should be stopped immediately by the use of any who wish to consider themselves credible typers.

+ sqrt(5994383394893.327788293.399594839,49.47878979 3458)

my view on temperaments can be summarized in the following two sentences: "temperament is determined by dominant function. all traits of temperament are simply lifestyle focuses dictated by the dominant function."

[Gilly]

*diarrhea of the fingers*

I knew you would respond.

You could just say, "I reject anything that goes against me being beta NF" It'll save you some time and energy now, and be useful for future questionings.

Despite the fact that temperament is one of the potential incongruities in my self-typing as EIE, and that this was one of multiple things that led me to write this post, it has nothing to do with the reasoning presented or the fact that numerous examples can be found to support my claims.

[Gilly]

My real argument here, in essence, is not only against typing by temperament (although I do see it as being unreliable), but moreso against "exclusive" methods of typing as opposed to "best-fit" methods; I think it's pointless to try to use things like the fact that, for example, the behavioral "temperament" of a type is a less-than-perfect fit to discount the possibility of a type when multiple other factors make perfect sense.

[Gilly]

By the way, I see a lot of nay-sayers here and none so far willing to offer a rational explanation as to why they hold their opinions on what I've explained fairly thoroughly here.

[strrrng]

Despite the fact that temperament is one of the potential incongruities in my self-typing as EIE, and that this was one of multiple things that led me to write this post, it has nothing to do with the reasoning presented or the fact that numerous examples can be found to support my claims.

I don't think anyone questioned your reasoning.

My real argument here, in essence, is not only against typing by temperament (although I do see it as being unreliable), but moreso against "exclusive" methods of typing as opposed to "best-fit" methods; I think it's pointless to try to use things like the fact that, for example, the behavioral "temperament" of a type is a less-than-perfect fit to discount the possibility of a type when multiple other factors make perfect sense.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. You're the one that made the thread, remember?

By the way, I see a lot of nay-sayers here and none so far willing to offer a rational explanation as to why they hold their opinions on what I've explained fairly thoroughly here.

Really? Or are you just looking for an argument to reassure yourself of your position?

[Gilly]

I don't think anyone questioned your reasoning.

I see that nobody has questioned my reasoning, which is why I find it funny that people are dismissing what I'm saying.[/quote]

I don't think anyone is disputing this. You're the one that made the thread, remember?

I don't get what you're trying to say here...yes, it is apparent that nobody has disputed this, and, yes, I remember that I made the thread. ?_?

Really? Or are you just looking for an argument to reassure yourself of your position?

It has nothing to do with reassuring myself. I would say it's more that, having seen other cases in which it is applicable, I'm addressing a personal issue on a broader scale.

He takes personal problems and addresses them on a global scale.

:wink:

[strrrng]

I see that nobody has questioned my reasoning, which is why I find it funny that people are dismissing what I'm saying.

I wasn't aware they are. I'm not dismissing it.

I don't get what you're trying to say here...yes, it is apparent that nobody has disputed this, and, yes, I remember that I made the thread. ?_?

It just seems like you're trying to prove something or get a reaction.

It has nothing to do with reassuring myself. I would say it's more that, having seen other cases in which it is applicable, I'm addressing a personal issue on a broader scale.

You're addressing it because it's a potential dissonance in your self-typing lol. I'm not saying it's invalid (the majority seems correct - most people over-emphasize temperaments).

He takes personal problems and addresses them on a global scale.

Well, isn't that great?

[Gilly]

I wasn't aware they are. I'm not dismissing it.

It sounded like you were:

lmfao

Yeah, Gilly, not exactly sure where you're coming from with this post, but it seems a little misguided.

And Diana seemed to be hinting not-so-subtly that she at least thinks I'm bullshitting (...again...unless I somehow misjudged a misguided attempt at humor), and I guess I take other people's responses to her posts as minor acquiescences to her implied stance on the matter.

It just seems like you're trying to prove something or get a reaction.

No...like I said, I'm trying to address a problem that I see as relevant to the current state of things. I have seen people talking about temperaments lately in ways that I don't think are applicable, and I guess I just felt like giving people a "reminder" of what "temperament" actually refers to in Socionics.

You're addressing it because it's a potential dissonance in your self-typing lol. I'm not saying it's invalid (the majority seems correct - most people over-emphasize temperaments).

Like I said, that's one of the reasons. I've also noticed some of my own typings IRL where this is applicable, as well as some people participating in what I consider to be an "abusive" interpretation of temperaments. I guess the fact that it is an issue with my own self-typing helped make it "prominent" enough in my agenda to write a lengthy post about it, but it's by no means the only reason.

Well, isn't that great?

Isn't it?

[strrrng]

It sounded like you were:

I wasn't dismissing the reasoning; I was questioning the motives.

And Diana seemed to be hinting not-so-subtly that she at least thinks I'm bullshitting (...again...unless I somehow misjudged a misguided attempt at humor), and I guess I take other people's responses to her posts as minor acquiescences to her implied stance on the matter.

I don't know about them. My comment was just an observation on the reason you made the post. I didn't particularly have a problem with the content.

No...like I said, I'm trying to address a problem that I see as relevant to the current state of things. I have seen people talking about temperaments lately in ways that I don't think are applicable, and I guess I just felt like giving people a "reminder" of what "temperament" actually refers to in Socionics...Like I said, that's one of the reasons. I've also noticed some of my own typings IRL where this is applicable, as well as some people participating in what I consider to be an "abusive" interpretation of temperaments. I guess the fact that it is an issue with my own self-typing helped make it "prominent" enough in my agenda to write a lengthy post about it, but it's by no means the only reason.

Ok

[aestrivex]

some constructions may be more empirically pronounced than others. but beyond that, why is causality a closed case?

because my experience and observations suggest that thinking about things in one way is productive and sensible, and the other way is meaningless and produces many problems. similar to reinin.

[PotatoSpirit]

I thought the very same thing when first learning socionics, then I saw that temperaments do seem to exist IRL, and are often the first thing I can spot. Especially the E/I part.

[Gilly]

I thought the very same thing when first learning socionics, then I saw that temperaments do seem to exist IRL, and are often the first thing I can spot. Especially the E/I part.

Yeah, I used to think so, too. Then I realized that I was wrong and had been mistyping people because I was placing higher priority on the appearance of temperaments than on my impressions and apparent valuing of functions. For example, if I had to choose a temperament, I would say that the owner of the coffee shop is quite clearly extroverted and rational in every way, in the traditional sense. However, he quite clearly values Ti>Te, and is by no means an Fe dominant. He makes very active use of Ti, shows some of the more obvious signs of weak Fi, and is pretty clearly a sensor. He is also married to a very obvious EIE. Going by letters alone, he would have been a choice example of an ESTJ, but, on the whole, SLE fits very well.

[Phaedrus]

Yeah, I used to think so, too. Then I realized that I was wrong and had been mistyping people because I was placing higher priority on the appearance of temperaments than on my impressions and apparent valuing of functions. For example, if I had to choose a temperament, I would say that the owner of the coffee shop is quite clearly extroverted and rational in every way, in the traditional sense. However, he quite clearly values Ti>Te, and is by no means an Fe dominant. He makes very active use of Ti, shows some of the more obvious signs of weak Fi, and is pretty clearly a sensor. He is also married to a very obvious EIE. Going by letters alone, he would have been a choice example of an ESTJ, but, on the whole, SLE fits very well.

If you are so incompetent at typing people, you should not try to type them.

[Expat]

My real argument here, in essence, is not only against typing by temperament (although I do see it as being unreliable), but moreso against "exclusive" methods of typing as opposed to "best-fit" methods; I think it's pointless to try to use things like the fact that, for example, the behavioral "temperament" of a type is a less-than-perfect fit to discount the possibility of a type when multiple other factors make perfect sense.

As strrrng also said, I'm not sure that anyone is disputing this. In the end, "best-fit" is often the best we can do.

And as niffweed also said, since the temperament is determined by the base function, it is most visible when seen through the use of the base function. The base function is what we tend to use most naturally, hence in principle, most often; but if we are in situations where we're focusing more on other functions, then the temperament may be masked.

In the case of Fe EJs, there is also maybe a misconception (of which I've also been guilty) of mistaking their Fe "reflection" or "attempted steering" of the emotional environment for irrationality. And, in the case of Se EPs, of mistaking a more focused, for a longer period, "push" into doing something (or getting others to do something) for rationality. But, these are things that may be understood after longer observation.

[Phaedrus]

And how far might these statements of yours go in improving him?

Probably not very far. But that is of course irrelevant. I only stated the truth. True statements are good, false statements are bad.

[Phaedrus]

you are wasting others', and your own, time, which is something gamma NT especially are supposed to be aversive to.

I am not an ENTj. Read and learn:

His inherent strengths frequently manifest a bi-polar nature: some individuals of this psycho-type develop an enviable sense of purpose and perseverance, while others on the contrary demonstrate complete inertia. In conclusion, it must be said that, for ILI, the proper job/career is especially important to find or his innate talents will be utterly wasted.

[Phaedrus]

But you're not being inert.

I certainly am. You should not have opinions on things you know nothing about.

You're squandering your time and energy on trivial "corrections" (if one even accepts that they are accurate in the first place.)

Yes. Why do you insist on drawing incorrect conclusions? What is wrong with your logic?

[Phaedrus]

You've made perhaps hundreds of these "I'm right, you're wrong"-ish statements.

Yes, and every time I have made them I have been right.

It's an activity as opposed to inertia, and one that isn't particularly informative nor illuminates much intuitively.

You don't know what you are talking about. Why can't you be less of an idiot? It's boring to talk to idiots.

[Phaedrus]

You should know by now this response of yours is seldom recieved as anything but a nuissance.

Of course I know that. So what?

Why not use your Ne (even if only to yourself) and devise some other attempt at creating TeFi?

No. The Phaddy is not for turning.

[Hitta]

Of course I know that. So what?


No. The Phaddy is not for turning.

I've always thought of myself as an anarcho capitalist, but I think the state should stay in power until they've had you killed.

[Phaedrus]

So you apparently aren't assisting anyone else much in their knowledge creation or application, and much of the time you refuse to create any yourself. An INTp, or at least a healthy one, would probably turn from correcting Zuse Z1 code as the demands of the programming world and its constituents change. It's a matter intuitively reading the TeFi changes of a situation to optimize the SeFi sought.

Apparently you have yet a lot to learn about INTps.

[FDG]

So you apparently aren't assisting anyone else much in their knowledge creation or application, and much of the time you refuse to create any yourself. An INTp, or at least a healthy one, would probably turn from correcting Zuse Z1 code as the demands of the programming world and its constituents change. It's a matter intuitively reading the TeFi changes of a situation to optimize the SeFi sought.

He probably has fun doing that.

[Gilly]

Please stop arguing with Phaedrus in my thread. Nobody has ever gotten anywhere with this nutcase, so at least give your egos a rest and stop filling up this thread with pointless bickering.

As strrrng also said, I'm not sure that anyone is disputing this. In the end, "best-fit" is often the best we can do.

And as niffweed also said, since the temperament is determined by the base function, it is most visible when seen through the use of the base function. The base function is what we tend to use most naturally, hence in principle, most often; but if we are in situations where we're focusing more on other functions, then the temperament may be masked.

In the case of Fe EJs, there is also maybe a misconception (of which I've also been guilty) of mistaking their Fe "reflection" or "attempted steering" of the emotional environment for irrationality. And, in the case of Se EPs, of mistaking a more focused, for a longer period, "push" into doing something (or getting others to do something) for rationality. But, these are things that may be understood after longer observation.

It's not so much that I see people actually "promoting" this kind of typing as I have noticed that some people think of it as a "sure-fire" method of typing.

Personally I think that the appearance of temperament can be affected a lot by subtype, or, for those who don't use subtypes, by the emphasis they place on a certain function, as in the case of my boss (Ti), that might not necessarily be their base.

For the most part, I just don't think that temperaments are always as "obvious" as the superficial appearance of a general demeanor, and that tendencies have to be observed closely in order to make any kind of reliable judgment. Not trying to point fingers, because I have done the same, for sure, but I just think it's something noteworthy.

[Ezra]

...as being compatible and well-correlated, in terms of the existence of relevant outward behavioral patterns and external similarities in all ways but those directly attributable to distinct functional use, with paired functional preferences.

Personally, something that I like very much about the three-letter model of referring to types (eg EIE, as opposed to ENFj) is that it leaves out the rational/irrational (j/p) indicator. I personally think that it would be altogether better if people stopped thinking of "people" as being irrational or rational, and started thinking of the functions in this manner instead.

I have come to think that it is hilarious that people describe others and themselves in terms of "temperaments" that correlate to outward behaviors. Personally, I don't think the temperaments really apply to people in any way other than their function usage. It seems to have become some kind of mythology among people in this forum that "IPs are lazy," "EPs are spontaneous," "IJs are rigid," and "EJs are active," and these traits are used as litmus tests for the supposed temperaments of people.

In the reality of Socionics theory, temperaments refer to the nature of functions. Now, in case you have forgotten, functions are not governing factors of external behavioral traits, as in Meyers-Briggs and related theories, but rather methods of information metabolism. They work on such a "smaller" scale, perceptually speaking, than the nuances of a person's external behavior, that it truly is ridiculous to assume that the two are directly related in any kind of meaningful, recognizable trend.

These constructs in no way necessitate or dictate any kind of outward behavioral patterns. I will agree that correlations can, in fact, be made, but the idea that there are underlying governing tendencies that can be used as "models" into which to fit people as a basis for typing seems absurd to me. However what I REALLY find preposterous is that people reject the idea of another person being a type because he/she does not "appear" to have a certain temperament; using it on a discriminatory basis (in terms of negating a typing; not the "mean" kind of discrimination) seems highly fallacious. It is potable that there are some vague behavioral tendencies that transfer (and would have to be dependent on subtype as well, IMO) from function usage to outward behaviors, but the idea that a person's behavioral "temperament" is in some way governed or has a strong correlation to their Socionics temperament seems, to me, to be a futile and baseless notion.

I will say that, with time, it is possible for a Socionist to develop a personal system of indicators by the use of which they are, perhaps, able to correlate vague notions of what being a "rational dominant" might look like, or how an "extravert" typically behaves. However, this takes time and the practiced typing of, I daresay, thousands of people, and, in the end, is really nothing more than a feeling, and can't really be used by anyone but the typer himself as "real" evidence for a typing; it's not the kind of thing you can explain any more than by saying "This is my impression." The usage of "traits" as concrete indicators, a sort of "checklist" for what a person of a given temperament should or shouldn't be like, is absolutely laughable, and should be stopped immediately by the use of any who wish to consider themselves credible typers.

Fundamentally, I agree that people should not type using temperaments in the way you suggested. However, I do think that what niffweed said is important (not the sq. bit). I also think it's important for people to recognise that temperaments are essentially a way of noting one's energy; that is, the kind of energy they put out to the world. Take glamourama. She's a clear IP. Just observe her on stickam, and you can see - the whole world can see - that she is an IP. Now take Expat. Sit down with him in conversation, and after five minutes, there's no doubt left in your mind that you're talking to an EJ. The whole way he composes himself (or rather doesn't) is completely suggestive of an EJ type. The way they speak, look, sound, everything; it all adds up. You want an IJ? Take a look at PotatoSpirit. He has a demeanour that is calm but solid. A very good example of an IJ. EP is more difficult, although I'd stick myself down for the best example of one. I'm so flexible in conversation, both in demeanour and in tone, that I can appear like anything. I'm generally quite calm, but then I can be erratic too.

However, some people are more difficult to temperament-spot. They're not a clear temperament.

you are wasting others', and your own, time, which is something gamma NT especially are supposed to be aversive to.

I am not an ENTj.

Ahahahaha. I love the way Phaedrus doesn't ever say what he is. He always says what he's not, like he's afraid of saying he's an ILI because he knows it's a lie or something.

No. The Phaddy is not for turning.

Oh you and your Ti ways.

I've always thought of myself as an anarcho capitalist, but I think the state should stay in power until they've had you killed.

Welcome to another edition of... Identical wars!

LII-LII conflicts are hilarious to watch.

[strrrng]

It's not so much that I see people actually "promoting" this kind of typing as I have noticed that some people think of it as a "sure-fire" method of typing.

Personally I think that the appearance of temperament can be affected a lot by subtype, or, for those who don't use subtypes, by the emphasis they place on a certain function, as in the case of my boss (Ti), that might not necessarily be their base.

For the most part, I just don't think that temperaments are always as "obvious" as the superficial appearance of a general demeanor, and that tendencies have to be observed closely in order to make any kind of reliable judgment. Not trying to point fingers, because I have done the same, for sure, but I just think it's something noteworthy.

lol, we get it. You're correcting it because you noticed it in yourself (or had a more direct experience with it than simple observations). You don't have to keep skating around with logical explanations. And on a side note, how certain are you of ENFj for yourself?

Fundamentally, I agree that people should not type using temperaments in the way you suggested. However, I do think that what niffweed said is important (not the sq. bit). I also think it's important for people to recognise that temperaments are essentially a way of noting one's energy; that is, the kind of energy they put out to the world. Take glamourama. She's a clear IP. Just observe her on stickam, and you can see - the whole world can see - that she is an IP. Now take Expat. Sit down with him in conversation, and after five minutes, there's no doubt left in your mind that you're talking to an EJ. The whole way he composes himself (or rather doesn't) is completely suggestive of an EJ type. The way they speak, look, sound, everything; it all adds up. You want an IJ? Take a look at PotatoSpirit. He has a demeanour that is calm but solid. A very good example of an IJ. EP is more difficult, although I'd stick myself down for the best example of one. I'm so flexible in conversation, both in demeanour and in tone, that I can appear like anything. I'm generally quite calm, but then I can be erratic too.

Yes, exactly. I like that phrase - energy put into the world. That's how I've thought of them as well.

[Gilly]

Sorry, I just don't see any other reason that someone would argue with Phaedrus

Ezra, you're pretty much doing what I'm trying to say is not a reliable method of typing. I think that a person's demeanor can sometimes be consistent with their temperament, but it's not really a good litmus test compared to close observation of their behavior in relation to their circumstances; ie, how they are attempting to do what they are trying to do.

[Gilly]

lol, we get it. You're correcting it because you noticed it in yourself (or had a more direct experience with it than simple observations). You don't have to keep skating around with logical explanations.

I'm not skating around...I'm just trying to explain what I'm attempting to accomplish with this thread, and in the process you have prodded me into explaining my motivations.

And on a side note, how certain are you of ENFj for yourself?

As certain as I can be

But in all seriousness, I do think it is the "best fit" for my type. I'm not certain, but I do think it's the best option, and have for quite a while, now that I think about it.

Yes, exactly. I like that phrase - energy put into the world. That's how I've thought of them as well.

It makes sense, but again, I think this kind of "summation" is exactly the sort of thing that can lead to "easy typings."

[PotatoSpirit]

Yeah, I used to think so, too. Then I realized that I was wrong and had been mistyping people because I was placing higher priority on the appearance of temperaments than on my impressions and apparent valuing of functions.

Well if you are telling me you gave too much importance to one aspect of the theory over the others I can only believe you, but it doesn't mean temperaments aren't there.

Going by letters alone, he would have been a choice example of an ESTJ, but, on the whole, SLE fits very well.

If that happened to me I'd have simply thought "I had the j/p wrong".

[Gilly]

Well if you are telling me you gave too much importance to one aspect of the theory over the others I can only believe you, but it doesn't mean temperaments aren't there.

They are, but I just think it's something that seems over-emphasized in the way a good deal of people go about typing, and I've had problems with it myself, so I felt it an issue worthy of addressing.

If that happened to me I'd have simply thought "I had the j/p wrong".

Well, that, too, but he does seem more EJ than IJ in his behavior, although the way he goes about things is quite clearly Ti>Te.

[Gilly]

If among temperaments, EJ's reach the highest level of energy expenditure and IP's the lowest, then dynamic ego functions demonstrate the steepest variance in energy expenditure. (This could explain in part why dynamic types are most reactive to their environment, rather than their own internal frameworks.) Notice in Beta dynamic types are NF's. In Delta, they are ST's. Then consider quadra values too. So Betas as a quadra must cope with steep energy fluctuations driven by the personal meaning in a situation, which itself is perceived by a less physically hardy club. Where as Deltas fluctuate steepest here in relation to ST's and their managed equilibrium with the physical environment. In spite of empirical shortcomings of typing by them in vacuo, I think temperaments do explain a lot besides being just derivatives of functions.

See, to me this seems like a bunch of extrapolated crap that is only going to get in the way of actually typing people accurately. I mean, it does sound valid, but I can't see how you would possibly use that in typing someone.

[Phaedrus]

Personally I think that the appearance of temperament can be affected a lot by subtype, or, for those who don't use subtypes, by the emphasis they place on a certain function, as in the case of my boss (Ti), that might not necessarily be their base.

Well, the temperament can not be affected by subtype, so it is far more likely that you have mistyped a few people based on such considerations (that seems to be a rather common phenomenon).

For the most part, I just don't think that temperaments are always as "obvious" as the superficial appearance of a general demeanor, and that tendencies have to be observed closely in order to make any kind of reliable judgment. Not trying to point fingers, because I have done the same, for sure, but I just think it's something noteworthy.

You don't think, and you don't think ... Keep your personal opinions to yourself then. You don't have any empirical evidence, you have no case.