Clearing Up Misconceptions

[someone else]

From what I have read so far and I know most of it isn't true.

* Types are shallow loud and obnoxious.
* Types are lazy and sit around all day doing nothing.
* Types aggressive and like bossing people around and are incapable of making good decisions.
* Types do everything by the book and a inflexible and anal retentive.
* Types can't relax and never stop working.
* Types come up with a lot of useless ideas
* Types are judgmental.
* are dreamers that chase butterflies

[Aiss]

Nice.

I just can't help wondering if the suggestion that all the stereotypes are true was or wasn't intended.

[crazedrat]

From what I have read so far and I know most of it isn't true.

* Types are shallow loud and obnoxious.
* Types are lazy and sit around all day doing nothing.
* Types aggressive and like bossing people around and are incapable of making good decisions.
* Types do everything by the book and a inflexible and anal retentive.
* Types can't relax and never stop working.
* Types come up with a lot of useless ideas
* Types are judgmental.
* are dreamers that chase butterflies

Well you exaggerate alot with how you word it, otherwise it would be pretty true.

[Rubicon]

SiTe contradicts itself then

[Azeroffs]

From what I have read so far and I know most of it isn't true.

* Types are shallow loud and obnoxious.
* Types are lazy and sit around all day doing nothing.
* Types aggressive and like bossing people around and are incapable of making good decisions.
* Types do everything by the book and a inflexible and anal retentive.
* Types can't relax and never stop working.
* Types come up with a lot of useless ideas
* Types are judgmental.
* are dreamers that chase butterflies

This is a good example of how people focus too much on behavior.

These behaviors can manifest, but not necessarily. It all depends on what a person does with the information they're focusing on.

[Logos]

This is a good example of how people focus too much on behavior.

These behaviors can manifest, but not necessarily. It all depends on what a person does with the information they're focusing on.

Amen. Seconded.

[blankblank]

The people I know whom I've typed actually fit those stereotypes very well. Including me.

[krieger]

"Anal retentive" is how the Russians traditionally like to describe INTps.

Just saying.

[Suz]

SiTe contradicts itself then

Delta types are paradoxes, yes.

[Suz]

From what I have read so far and I know most of it isn't true.

* Types are shallow loud and obnoxious.
* Types are lazy and sit around all day doing nothing.
* Types aggressive and like bossing people around and are incapable of making good decisions.
* Types do everything by the book and a inflexible and anal retentive.
* Types can't relax and never stop working.
* Types come up with a lot of useless ideas
* Types are judgmental.
* are dreamers that chase butterflies

Yeah i would say these are very oversimplified and one-dimensional (I guess that was your intention though), but some of it can ring true, at times. The one outright wrong thing i see there is I'm not sure i would say "incapable of making good decisions" for Se types. Aren't Se types pretty decisive?

I agree most with Fe, Ti, possibly Ne, and possibly Fi, sorta for Te. There is a lot more to all of those, though.

[krieger]

Ti isn't about doing things by the book. It's a description that diametrically opposes reality. Ti is about developing your own views and evaluating external standards only in proportion to these. Ti types are probably the people most likely to say "the book" is wrong than any other.

What it really describes is weak T behavior, which is why everybody (IxTjs worst of all) hate it so much. That recent asinine thing about Ti types obeying the trafic rules for the sake of it is another example of this mistake people keep making about Ti.

[Azeroffs]

Ti isn't about doing things by the book. It's a description that diametrically opposes reality. Ti is about developing your own views and evaluating external standards only in proportion to these. Ti types are probably the people most likely to say "the book" is wrong than any other.

I think the given description is misleading, but I think it's accurate to say that Ti-base do everything by their own 'book.'

[Crispy]

Hell, Ti's probably (re)wrote the book.

[Logos]

I think the given description is misleading, but I think it's accurate to say that Ti-base do everything by their own 'book.'

Who doesn't?

Yeah i would say these are very oversimplified and one-dimensional (I guess that was your intention though), but some of it can ring true, at times. The one outright wrong thing i see there is I'm not sure i would say "incapable of making good decisions" for Se types. Aren't Se types pretty decisive?

I agree most with Fe, Ti, possibly Ne, and possibly Fi, sorta for Te. There is a lot more to all of those, though.

In what manner do you agree? Do you agree that those descriptions are misleading or do you agree that they are true?

[Beautiful sky]

The description of Fi is misleading in my regard.

[Logos]

The description of Fi is misleading in my regard.

All the descriptions are misleading regardless of your regard.

[Aiss]

Ti isn't about doing things by the book. It's a description that diametrically opposes reality. Ti is about developing your own views and evaluating external standards only in proportion to these. Ti types are probably the people most likely to say "the book" is wrong than any other.

What it really describes is weak T behavior, which is why everybody (IxTjs worst of all) hate it so much. That recent asinine thing about Ti types obeying the trafic rules for the sake of it is another example of this mistake people keep making about Ti.

Unless "the book" was written by their supervisor.

I see Ti types as being somehow absolute and dogmatic about their rules, regardless of the origin of these. They may accept them or make them up, and change their mind as often or as rarely as anyone else, but the rules are there and they are rules, and there's no way past one except to "disprove" it entirely, at which point they're simply replaced by a new, equally strict rule… makes me feel as if I was hitting some wall when reasoning with them.

But it doesn't make any specific examples useful as what the rules are matters less than the fact that Ti seems to put things (any things) in terms of rules; explicit and static information about the world. It can be anything from rigid political views to from which side should one crack open a soft-boiled egg, but the point is, whatever the matter of discussion, inevitably it ends up as a universally applicable rule (law, dogma, whatever word you like for it), usually exceptionless - even if it's "it doesn't matter", it's as absolute and universal and mentioning that in a particular case one way may be better than another requires fighting this rule.

So "the book", "their book", "questioning the book" or even "writing the book" is insignificant, as essentially what matters is that there's a book. And while on some level most if not all people have a "book" they're often unaware or partially aware of, what I'm trying to say about Ti types here is markedly different.

I think what you say about Ti - "Ti is about developing your own views and evaluating external standards only in proportion to these" - would work for any Xi element, except "external standards" perhaps, if what you mean by it is explicit and static information. In other words, I think it's less about developing your own views or not and evaluating outside world, and more about the terms of these views.

[Skeptic]

Keep in mind that rules are not always so strict, nor do they always apply to everything. Ti can make open ended and specific rules all the same and defend them just as readily. What you describe is some close minded individual who speaks only in absolutes.

And if you're willing to take the book analogy so far, I could just the same say that Fi has a similarly strict book as well, but it's not formed based on any logical reason at all.

[Aiss]

Keep in mind that rules are not always so strict, nor do they always apply to everything. Ti can make open ended and specific rules all the same and defend them just as readily. What you describe is some close minded individual who speaks only in absolutes.

And if you're willing to take the book analogy so far, I could just the same say that Fi has a similarly strict book as well, but it's not formed based on any logical reason at all.

What I describe is exactly not what you claim here, but if you insist on ignoring that, what can I do.

Ti/Fi differ on external/internal, which I see as explicit/implicit. This explicity is precisely why I refer to its products as "rules" (or laws, or whatever). Not its "reasonableness" or whatever.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You got Te and Se confused there, most likely...

And those stereotypes are generally true. I remember when I was a little boy, I got in trouble for daydreaming out the window in school. I knew what they were thinking. 'Stop being so dreamy mystical subjective fag like, talk about objective straight man real world things like jobs, cars and objective real events happening that are really real real!'

And some people tried to boss me around and tell me what to do, but I still had to give pure faggy psychological insights that were beyond the physical contexts of the situations. I'm really confident in this area and I was usually right so some people didn't mind. Like even if I was doing some physical thing, I still had to gracefully state what I thought. This also probably relates to why authority figures didn't like me too much. But then again they don't like anyone else either, that's why they have to 'be the boss.' Gay!

Ni needs Se , because Se is pure external objective reality with no judgement really. So all meaning can flow right in and be welcomed. With Te it's always 'critical' with Se it's just 'obvious.'

[silverchris9]

operates by it's own "logic," just the same as has it's own "logic." Neither one is necessarily logical in any conventional sense.

Even Mattie's descriptions disagree with you here. It is perfectly accurate to describe a "schematic" as more logical than a "resonance." Ti is more logical insofar as it likes nice, clean, step-by-step explanations of things, much like a formal proof. You might even call Ti "sequential logic" (and notice that just like a schematic flattens a 3D object into a 2D representation, a proof flattens a temporal process of causation into an atemporal representation). Fi is less logical in the sense that it does not require a step-by-step explanation. You could also describe it as more "intuitive." Fi does not need to distinguish the specific steps that take you from evidence to conclusion. Fi just knows the evidence and the conclusion, and what comes in-between can be described as a feeling insofar as it is something one would associate with the "heart" and not the "head." If you take these terms associatively and with all their connotations, they really do make sense. They're just not very accurate.

[silverchris9]

When I say conventional, I mean that whatever rules the person has incorporated into their thinking, aren't necessarily going to amount something acceptably logical—of the kind one might use in a formal setting, mathematical context, or even just straightforward 'common sense'. The rules may be totally asinine and completely senseless.

OH. Sorry, I completely misread you there. I quite agree. The inaneness of a method or conclusion is utterly NTR.

Implicit and explicit are also good words. You don't have to be an emotional wreck to make implicit conclusions, certainly, although a state of mind that makes implicit conclusions is one of the myriad factors that would lead to a "reason-based" or "emotion-based" lifestyle, I'm sure. But you could just as easily use sequential reasoning to "prove" that an "emotion based" lifestyle is better. That's kind of like what Montaigne did, imo.

[Aiss]

Even Mattie's descriptions disagree with you here. It is perfectly accurate to describe a "schematic" as more logical than a "resonance." Ti is more logical insofar as it likes nice, clean, step-by-step explanations of things, much like a formal proof. You might even call Ti "sequential logic" (and notice that just like a schematic flattens a 3D object into a 2D representation, a proof flattens a temporal process of causation into an atemporal representation). Fi is less logical in the sense that it does not require a step-by-step explanation. You could also describe it as more "intuitive." Fi does not need to distinguish the specific steps that take you from evidence to conclusion. Fi just knows the evidence and the conclusion, and what comes in-between can be described as a feeling insofar as it is something one would associate with the "heart" and not the "head." If you take these terms associatively and with all their connotations, they really do make sense. They're just not very accurate.

That's what I mean by explicit and implicit. Fi is implied by Te - which can be associated with explicit evidence here - rather than explicit on its own, as Ti is.

It doesn't make a person directed by reason or emotions, though. That is rather part of the personality than information metabolism, though it's likely correlated - and largely circumstantial on top of that.

[krieger]

The whole association between T and logic is annoying. Logic is metaphysics, not psychology. Saying there is a psychological mechanism for appropriating logic is like saying you can depict "art" in a painting. It refers to something outside of the proper frame of reference.

[silverchris9]

The whole association between T and logic is annoying. Logic is metaphysics, not psychology. Saying there is a psychological mechanism for appropriating logic is like saying you can depict "art" in a painting. It refers to something outside of the proper frame of reference.

...do you understand the concept of metaphor?

[Logos]

I absolutely love how this thread dedicated to "clearing up misconceptions" continues to propagate numerous IE misconceptions.

[krieger]

...do you understand the concept of metaphor?

I understand an infinite variety of ways in which that concept doesn't relate to this discussion.

[Skeptic]

What I describe is exactly not what you claim here, but if you insist on ignoring that, what can I do.

Ti/Fi differ on external/internal, which I see as explicit/implicit. This explicity is precisely why I refer to its products as "rules" (or laws, or whatever). Not its "reasonableness" or whatever.

I don't mean to intentionally misinterpret; it's just that certain parts of your post struck me as extreme. Like the following;

I see Ti types as being somehow absolute and dogmatic about their rules, regardless of the origin of these. They may accept them or make them up, and change their mind as often or as rarely as anyone else, but the rules are there and they are rules, and there's no way past one except to "disprove" it entirely, at which point they're simply replaced by a new, equally strict rule… makes me feel as if I was hitting some wall when reasoning with them.

but the point is, whatever the matter of discussion, inevitably it ends up as a universally applicable rule (law, dogma, whatever word you like for it), usually exceptionless - even if it's "it doesn't matter", it's as absolute and universal and mentioning that in a particular case one way may be better than another requires fighting this rule.

There's a lot of 'absolute', 'universal' and uncompromising in the post.

The whole association between T and logic is annoying. Logic is metaphysics, not psychology. Saying there is a psychological mechanism for appropriating logic is like saying you can depict "art" in a painting. It refers to something outside of the proper frame of reference.

I would like to agree with this line of reasoning, and indeed; I've stopped typing based on T, F, S, N etc. upon realizing how stereotypical they are, in a sense. However, I'll leave it to you to correct all the descriptions that relate T to reason and logic. The problem I think you'll encounter is that you can't describe 'introverted logic' or 'extroverted logic' without using the word 'logic' in the description. They would suddenly become mystical concepts that have obscure internal explanations if you don't conform to the premise of their existence if you know what I mean.

[FDG]

The whole association between T and logic is annoying. Logic is metaphysics, not psychology. Saying there is a psychological mechanism for appropriating logic is like saying you can depict "art" in a painting. It refers to something outside of the proper frame of reference.

Yep.

[Logos]

She's just relaying a subjective impression of how appears to her. I don't see the issue. Look how often -tards bitch about how is supposedly "rigid, prejudicial, moralistic" and what not. It isn't really, but it makes sense why it might appear to them that way.

Except this is not a thread on spreading misconceptions.

[Aiss]

I don't mean to intentionally misinterpret; it's just that certain parts of your post struck me as extreme. Like the following;

(…)

There's a lot of 'absolute', 'universal' and uncompromising in the post.

Yes, repeatedly referring to - and underlining - the nature of the information rather than to its content. Which was precisely the point that you avoid addressing, and which I'd much rather you argued than put words in my mouth.

I'm not sure how explicitly disregarding easiness of changing one's mind and such as irrelevant to information processing itself would be considered the same as or even close to suggesting close-mindedness is related to it, and I'd rather avoid commenting on political correctness of reducing socionics to meaninglessness in this thread.

Ti is focused on explicit and static information, in less socionics specific words - clear, determinable, absolute, universal. If you don't see the difference with other - non-explicit or non-static - fields, compare for example labcoat's posts in this thread with non-Ti-egos'. Even unsure, Ti-ego tends to be explicit and static about it, conveying a rule which may be changed, but won't be bend.

BTW Ashton, the extent of my subjective impressions in that post was hitting the wall part, which featured a "makes me feel" disclaimer. I know it's hard to imagine anyone here actually means it as opposed to generic stuff on anyone possibly being open-minded or anything else, or bashing one's unvalued elements, but I actually did mean approach to information in most of it.

[krieger]

Even Mattie's descriptions disagree with you here. It is perfectly accurate to describe a "schematic" as more logical than a "resonance." Ti is more logical insofar as it likes nice, clean, step-by-step explanations of things, much like a formal proof. You might even call Ti "sequential logic" (and notice that just like a schematic flattens a 3D object into a 2D representation, a proof flattens a temporal process of causation into an atemporal representation). Fi is less logical in the sense that it does not require a step-by-step explanation. You could also describe it as more "intuitive." Fi does not need to distinguish the specific steps that take you from evidence to conclusion. Fi just knows the evidence and the conclusion, and what comes in-between can be described as a feeling insofar as it is something one would associate with the "heart" and not the "head." If you take these terms associatively and with all their connotations, they really do make sense. They're just not very accurate.

I could concede that Ti flattens things in a certain sense, but at least it concerned itself with a fully voluminous, 3-dimensional understanding of the object at some point in it's investigations. Something that can not be said about PiJe (Dynamic) types, which just observe their own myopic, solipsistic perspective on issues without ever denoting real objects in any direct capacity.

[Logos]

Yes, repeatedly referring to - and underlining - the nature of the information rather than to its content. Which was precisely the point that you avoid addressing, and which I'd much rather you argued than put words in my mouth.

The nature of the information is an aspect of its content.

[silverchris9]

I could concede that Ti flattens things in a certain sense, but at least it concerned itself with a fully voluminous, 3-dimensional understanding of the object at some point in it's investigations. Something that can not be said about PiJe (Dynamic) types, which just observe their own myopic, solipsistic perspective on issues without ever denoting real objects in any direct capacity.

You totally misunderstood the concept. You don't understand metaphors, do you? Anyway, lesson one of socionics: no IE/IA/IM/function/type is better than any other. So things like "dimensionality" in the value-laden sense that you are using it, are irrelevant to IM descriptions. You should work harder to discern what it is you don't like about dynamic types, and how they are distinct from what you do like/static types. That could be productive socionics. But using a bunch of big words to basically mean "I don't like functions that aren't my base function" is in every way useless.

[silverchris9]

She's just relaying a subjective impression of how appears to her. I don't see the issue. Look how often -tards bitch about how is supposedly "rigid, prejudicial, moralistic" and what not. It isn't really, but it makes sense why it might appear to them that way.

Exactly. And stuff like that can be useful sometimes. Even a biased perspective can reveal partial truth, just emphasis on one part of the truth rather than the whole. Rants about Fi, for instance, that make betas and alphas hum in agreement aren't bad, per se. There must be some truth in the rant, otherwise it wouldn't fit with so many different people's experiences. It's truth, just one-sided truth. Partial truth.

The problem is that words such as 'logic' bear connotations like "correct thinking," etc. And that is just not true re: any of the Tx IEs. It also induces stupid assumptions about F-types being incapable of reason, etc.

...this is the part I disagree with. I mean, let's create terms that try to squash out the undesirable connotations of words, sure. That is definitely useful and worthwhile. But those can coexist with words that have multiple related meanings. To purge words of connotations, to make them only mean one thing, is to create jargon, and while jargon is useful for some, it also misses a huge portion of information. So why not work both ways? Create jargon, words with as few interpretations as possible, but also use common words, with their multiple interpretations, and put them in context, and interpret them using basic ground rules, which allow the many connotations of the words to be harnessed to better serve your point, rather than trying to get rid of them altogether.

[krieger]

You totally misunderstood the concept. You don't understand metaphors, do you? Anyway, lesson one of socionics: no IE/IA/IM/function/type is better than any other. So things like "dimensionality" in the value-laden sense that you are using it, are irrelevant to IM descriptions. You should work harder to discern what it is you don't like about dynamic types, and how they are distinct from what you do like/static types. That could be productive socionics. But using a bunch of big words to basically mean "I don't like functions that aren't my base function" is in every way useless.

Read up on some of my earlier writings on socionics. Dynamic types having a more "shallow" and "flat" perception of things has been a part of my ideas for years. It's a very simple thing following immediately from their focus on perspectives (Pi) and measurements (Je). It's also what makes Dynamic information immediately "focal" upon their first encounter with the data (Accepting). As far as I'm concerned these are the basics of socionics.

[Words]

If this stuff helps your typing then use it and don't care about what forum monkeys say.

[silverchris9]

Read up on some of my earlier writings on socionics. Dynamic types having a more "shallow" and "flat" perception of things has been a part of my ideas for years. It's a very simple thing following immediately from their focus on perspectives (Pi) and measurements (Je). It's also what makes Dynamic information immediately "focal" upon their first encounter with the data (Accepting). As far as I'm concerned these are the basics of socionics.

Really? Oh dear. Um... okay. Have you ever considered that the fact that you consider reality basically static is a result of your being a static type, and has no more claim on objective reality than a dynamic type's claim that reality is inherently dynamic?

[silverchris9]

Truth about how they tend to see maybe. Which really only tells us more about α/β than it does per say. Can't see much utility in it beyond that.

I still think it tells us about Fi. I mean, when people whine about Se, sure, I say "that isn't Se!" But honestly, some complaints can be accurate, and some subjective reactions reveal aspects of the thing reacted to. I think that subjective reactions can tell us some things about objective reality. I don't know how to prove that though.

[krieger]

Really? Oh dear. Um... okay. Have you ever considered that the fact that you consider reality basically static is a result of your being a static type, and has no more claim on objective reality than a dynamic type's claim that reality is inherently dynamic?

It's a fallacy to suppose that everything is dependent on perspective. The fact that time (Dynamics) is subjective and not part of reality except as some mirror-phenomenon of space has been known and publicly acknowledged since Einstein's works on relativity. Time for you to get with the times.