What is his type? He self-types IEE.
Printable View
What is his type? He self-types IEE.
He's whatever type thinks I'm ISTj. In other words he's one of a kind. We should open a new quadra for him.
We can call it the "Correctly Types Others" quadra!Quote:
Originally Posted by Scapegrace
If you had to pick from a pool of types, what would be in that pool?
IEE, EII, or ILE
BURN!Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Does anyone need a band-aid? I have band-aids. That was scathing.
So sorry, didn't mean to burn you there
sp
How did you think while growing up and interpreting, analyzing, and/or dealing with the world around you (eccentricities of thinking that you felt made you different from others)? How has that changed from how you are now and why do you think you changed?
SEI
for some reason I have ESE in my mind and it won't go away. Did someone tell me JB was an ese?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kill4Me
What would make either of you think I am an Alpha SF?Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure Flame
The only difference between my system and mainstream socionics are the definitions of the cognitive functions. I abide by the rules of intertype relations, but I prefer my definitions of the functions because they explain intertype relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
The reason why my typings make no sense to you is because you have no idea how to type. You can't even type yourself, lol. LSE for William? Only if LII for Johannes Bloem!Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Nobody has shown me any evidence thus far besides "EVERYONE ELSE SAYS I AM THIS TYPE!" That don't mean shit to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
You don't even know what a Ti-ego looks like!Quote:
Originally Posted by William
You allege that I pull shit out of my ass, and then you say that I'm Ti/Fe valuing but offer no proof. That right there is blind hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
I say that to anyone who I think doesn't know how to type.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Thanks, glad to hear they're working :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by William
I dare say "annoying as fuck"
:hello:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
Wow, there's a piece of christian "turn the other cheek"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
Based on what interaction I had with JoBlo there is something with his Ti; He looks for internal consistency of communication and will attack any position that conflicts with a position that the same person had previously expressed. He values that above factual, authorative or emotional arguments. Also he goes out of his way to "test" people who do try to use factual, authorative or emotional arguments. If he finds them lacking he reacts with a strong counterattack that is, interestingly ennough, mostly of what I'd say to be ethical tone; he attacks the person, almost seemingly punishing them for their inconsistency.
That said, I've got no clue about typing... I'd say he's ethical with the need to have consistent people around him. Ti dual seeking? Fi creative?
Also, he's only annoying if you equate yourself to what you're saying... if you feel annoyed it's probably because you're too attached to the thing he's messing with ;-)
Ohh, you remind me of that guy, Bolt. I think he changed his name though. I think he self-types ILE; he seemed to enjoy arguing with people; you seem to as well. IEE or ILE is probably about right or something. Maybe ESE or EIE.
The16Types.info - hostile action against ILI´s :shock:
yesss. i haven't responded to this thread because i don't have any particular reason for my ILE impression but maybe that's why. he reminds me of bolt a LOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackk
I don't think Joblo has relaxed enough to be approaching his posts from his strengths. He is using his weaknesses and asking for us to see that and help him move on from them, maybe in due time he will. IEE are individualists, yet so are ILEs. I don't think we have yet to see the face of Joblo, we have only seen what he is 'not'.
As usual, I only take sincere self-typings as true. The real challenge for myself and I am sure others comes in seeing in what different ways the sociotypes may manifest in different individuals, and let that broaden our own views on what the types may look like, say, do.
I encourage JoBlo to take into consideration what others say, think, act towards him. Let it burn away the fat Joblo, even the negative comments, the truth can be hard to face. And If the truth confirms what you already know, then I will take your word for it.
Such language really turns me on! Lets make babies together!Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
He's from Rotterdam. Doesn't that say it all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim
I don't know what you mean by this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
And I sincerely believe, if not know with certainty, that I am IEE. I used the same typing methodology I use for everyone else to reach this conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
There is always room to learn, you're right. Even though I hate Betas I still must live with them, and part of that is learning and accepting their rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
lol, all that suggests is that I am from Rotterdam, and I'm not even from Rotterdam.Quote:
Originally Posted by consentingadult
It means Jo, that you behave like a jerk here. I think several people have been trying to point this out to you. Is it really that important for you to be right (Ti polr), or is that how you are (Ti-Base)?
If you're not, that settles it: only ILEs can be such fantasts!Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
This is undoubtedly the most insightful response in this thread. Here's a snippet from an SLI-IEE duality description:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reficulris
Here's a video of Michael Jordan, who I think might be SLI. The man on the phone in the beginning of the video I think is LSI:Quote:
The Psychologist very much needs a caring partner and finds relaxation for his emotional and restless soul in the 'quiet haven' of a friend, who is constant in his words and deeds, reliable and faithful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovrqZ7vZVmU
Notice how often Michael says, "I've always thought", or "I've never done".
It is really important for me to point out how others' ideas are wrong (minus-Ne base) and explain how my ideas are correct (plus-Fi auxiliary). I think my subbornness stems from a combination of obstinancy (Reinin) and plus-Fi auxiliary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
"auxiliary"? Now I understand why your interpretation of Socionics is so deluded!Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Quote:
Originally Posted by consentingadult
So because I use some Jungian terminology I lose all credibility? Dude, "auxiliary" and "creative" mean the same fucking thing! They are names for a type's second strongest and second most valued function. Furthermore, I think "auxiliary" is better to use than "creative" because it denotes the secondary role of the second function in the ego block. Couldn't the first function in the ego block also be "creative"?Quote:
Socionics divides people into 16 different types, called sociotypes. They are most commonly referred to by their two strongest functions, which in socionics are called the leading function (Jung's dominant) and the creative function (Jung's auxiliary).
You really need to get over yourself. I know you're just mad because you made a blog where you post like you know what you're talking about, and now that my ideas are threatening your conception of socionics, you're scared of being embarrassed.
Ding ding ding. Closet MBTIer located.Quote:
Originally Posted by consentingadult
Typical Beta NF: "you must follow EVERY SINGLE RULE of system, even the INSIGNIFICANT or INEXPEDIENT ones." Since they suck at figuring out what to do on their own because of their weak Te, they seek systems for guidance and clarity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
You're IEI. LIE "goes skydiving" and "builds businesses", not "plays guitar" and "looks soulful".
Ding ding ding. narrow-minded elitistic Socionists detectedQuote:
Originally Posted by Narc
I'm just going to go ahead and ignore your insignificant and/or inexpedient stereotyping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Narrow-minded? I don't think it counts as narrow-minded when you drop a limited system that characterises and types people based heavily upon stereotypes. That's just good decision making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
@Narc
You just proved my point twice, Socionics isn´t that different from MBTI may even worse so.
It may be strongly stereotyped but that it´s what it is and he got a point on what is most likely to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
If I proved anything, it was your opinion. You'd require something of substance to be putting forward a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
Socionics is different enough from MBTI that it's actually useful, but MBTI is still the system touted around in offices and administered by doofy HR people that post their magic Forer effect stories on LinkedIn.
Do cognitive processes drive behavior?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Then why the hell are you posting on this forum? "Socionics" is a "system that characterizes and types people" and a "type description" is really just a "catalogued stereotype".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
A "cognitive process" is just the process of thinking. Do thought processes drive behaviour? Perhaps they do. More often they catalyse a separate decision to undertake action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I'm not sure if you're trying to refer to cognitive functions or information elements, but they are differently defined, which you should take into consideration.
I post on this forum to amuse myself, not fulfil some fanciful purpose or majestic Socionic goal. I moved to Socionics from MBTI because it was a system that was coherent enough that I was able to type myself within it quite quickly. There's plenty of literature that's helpful, which isn't something quite so accessible to MBTI. You can think whatever you want about Socionics, but it was the shedding of some stereotypes that made it far easier for me to type myself and others without having to rely on stupid generalisations like "goes skydiving".Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
This post screams Se- PoLr (overreaction turned into lameass assumptions made into an attack that isn't related to topic at hand... it's overcompensation to look tough and to look "like you know what you're talking about.")Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
and a gross amount of Ti.
also, you're really rather unlikable.
shoo.
Gilbert Ryle disagrees with you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
inb4 tl;drQuote:
According to Ryle, mental processes are merely intelligent acts. There are no mental processes that are distinct from intelligent acts. The operations of the mind are not merely represented by intelligent acts, they are the same as those intelligent acts. Thus, acts of learning, remembering, imagining, knowing, or willing are not merely clues to hidden mental processes or to complex sequences of intellectual operations, they are the way in which those mental processes or intellectual operations are defined.The rationalist theory that there is a transformation into physical acts of some purely mental factulty of "Will" or "Volition" is therefore a misconception because it mistakenly assumes that a mental act could be and is distinct from a physical act, or even that a mental world could be and is distinct from the physical world. This theory of the separability of mind and body is described by Ryle as "the dogma of the ghost in the machine". He explains that the workings of the mind as it governs the body are neither an independent nor a distinct mechanism, that there is no entity called "Mind" inside a mechanical apparatus called "the body", but that the workings of the mind may be better conceptualized as the actions of the body.
I see "cognitive functions" and "information elements" as one in the same, since the functions are merely information processors. What can you really say about them besides what sorts of information they process?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Lmao, I thought you went through like six different typings before you erroneously settled on LIE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
You missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
I'll grant that I have weak Se, but it isn't my PoLR, and I fail to see how my post indicates such a weakness to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackburry
No, just Ne+Fi.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackburry
I am unlikable to you, and I am perfectly okay with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackburry
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackburry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Hahahaha, ILE. Pretty funny.
By the way, you're proving me right here, even though I agree with Ryle. If a thought process "catalyzes" a "separate decision" to "undertake action", then thought processes do indeed drive behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Sounds like Ti-dual seeking to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Yeah, this kind of hair-splitting Ti babble is not interesting to me. There is nothing practical to be learned from a discussion of 'cognitive processes', it serves to dot the i's and cross the t's and philosophise. I don't really care for it. I can see that you do, which points excruciatingly towards Ne + Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
They are not the same thing. Even if we take away the erroneous 'cognitive processes' throwup you burped out there, cognitive functions are different in Jung, MBTI and different to information elements in Socionics. I'm not sure if you just fail to understand when you read (or if you've read at all)Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I made a decision. Something I doubt you'll be able to do properly over the next few months. I considered a number of types, as did basically everyone else here. It happens when you attempt to make a choice from a rather incomplete knowledge base (something you're extensively doing right now).Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
You're taking this very personally, I noticed. Perhaps you're the one that's afraid of being wrong, which would make sense considering you're arguing desperately with incomplete information and then getting upset and having a little sook when someone gives you a smack on the wrist for it.
I got your point, it's just not even worth arguing about, we have different opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I'm saying a separate decision is made with the information. You're implying that because it can drive the action, it WILL drive the action. Classic example of black and white thinking, and it also illustrates the difference between why we're arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
You clearly don't know shit from clay. I suggest you do a bit more reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Sorry, Michael Jordan is LSI. Oh, and and you strike me as ILE, but I've only skimmed what you've written so who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I had to put it in quotes :) because I didn't want to say it...but when I hear someone else say that it reminded me of this situation and how well it suits my current emotions about that. So, yes...it was the closest to how I felt.Quote:
Originally Posted by consentingadult
So anytime anyone says anything remotely scientific or philosophical, they're using Ti? You're looking at the general "character" or "overall impression" of someone's langauge and equating that with a certain function, and that is where you err.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
If I'm so stupid and mistaken, then how about you educate me? What more is there to "aspects" and "functions" than "qualities of information being perceived and processed" and "that which does the perceiving and processing"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
[QUOTE=Narc;989795] You're taking this very personally, I noticed. Perhaps you're the one that's afraid of being wrong, which would make sense considering you're arguing desperately with incomplete information and then getting upset and having a little sook when someone gives you a smack on the wrist for it.
[/QUOTE ]
lol, I'm not taking anything personally. I'm just laughing at how much people are breaking out.
Bro, your "separate decision" is itself a "cognitive process", and no matter how you wanna word it, "cognitive processes" drive actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
I've done enough reading. It is time for me to teach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
For what reason is Michael Jordan LSI? "Because I said so" is your rationale thus far.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
Definitely not you, lolQuote:
Originally Posted by squark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Is this William trolling the forum?.. what in the world.
My dear, there are subjective emotions and objective. Expressions of one's subjective emotional state as in "I love" "I hate" those are subjective "he looks happy" and such are objective...LOL Every human can do both type is set in what takes predominance as in which is "typical" attitude of the individual.
Start a type thread on him if you want to discuss it with ppl, or better yet bump an old one. My opinion in brief though - IJ temperament, receptive to Fe, clearly ST.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Michael Jordan is LSE confirm and final.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
sigh.
go read about it. it's all Te.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...el_jordan.html
It's a common attitude of negativist types to fair through tough times and succeed while I think positivists tend to withdraw and look elsewhere for success
It's all about work and teaching others (like disciplining) on how to become successful.
"I've always believed that if you put in the work, the results will come."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...CPw8ivfHApA.99
No, look at the way he's separating the information and defining it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
This isn't just a case of something 'vaguely scientific' being tarred with the Ti brush. It is Ti. Purposely clarifying based on a perceived misconception of another, centring around clarifying a concept. (As a side note: formal logic is most likely derived from Ti.)Quote:
The rationalist theory that there is a transformation into physical acts of some purely mental factulty of "Will" or "Volition" is therefore a misconception because it mistakenly assumes that a mental act could be and is distinct from a physical act, or even that a mental world could be and is distinct from the physical world. This theory of the separability of mind and body is described by Ryle as "the dogma of the ghost in the machine". He explains that the workings of the mind as it governs the body are neither an independent nor a distinct mechanism, that there is no entity called "Mind" inside a mechanical apparatus called "the body", but that the workings of the mind may be better conceptualized as the actions of the body.
Te is generally quite terse in comparison, but will get verbose when a sentence is created that connects a series of events together. Example: "To cook this dish, you need to oil up the pan, then put the heat up to halfway and let it simmer for 10 minutes, then you put the beef mince into the pan in small amounts so the excess fat will begin to burn out, wait for the meat to properly sear before adding more meat in the pan, then add spices, etc. Then, then, then, then, then. Doing one thing opens that door, and doing that thing opens this door, etc. Seems to pertain far less to clarification and works based on an understanding that each object/person in a situation will do a certain thing a certain way and crafting a goal or process from that.
Jung and Briggsy define the cognitive functions differently to each other. I don't care to categorise them in any specific way, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that each set of definitions are incompatible with the other, so a dual/tri-discipline approach will create a series of inconsistencies. It's easier for my purposes to keep to Socionics. This root of this question reeked of Ti argument trap, by the way. Not something I find interesting to discuss, nor helpful. It's a sleight of hand that Ti ego types seem to use to provoke a debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Hahaha, not at all, young grasshopper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I don't really care, to be honest. I only have arguments like these when I'm drunk and bored and I'm neither of which right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I promise you, that time has not yet come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Attachment 2821Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
I'll agree that he is clearly ST, but I don't think he has an IJ temperament. He was late to a press conference in one of the videos I posted, and that is uncharacteristic of any IJ type, as they are all equally attuned to Ni, though they vary in their valuation of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
You realize that I copy+pasted that from Wikipedia, right? Regardless, "separating information and defining it" is something we all do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Don't we all do that when we think we're being misunderstood? Type-unrelated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Welcome to the redundancy factory where we make redundant, this is the redundancy factory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
"Formal logic"? Fucking children and their buzzwords, I'll tell ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
It depends on whether it is plus- or minus-Te and whether it is the "primary function" or the "auxiliary function" (before you get butthurt over bullshit again, that is my own terminology). A type with plus-Te as its primary function would likely be loquacious compared to a type with minus-Te as its auxiliary function; incidentally, I believe the supervision of LIE by SLI is related to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
I can't wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Your example is pathetically-disguised and poorly-rendered Ti blended with scraps of Ni, Se, and Fe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
You're establishing a plus-Ti context for your example with this statement. You could've easily jumped into the action and still made your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
The first bolded section is plus-Ti insofar as it means "the rules for dish-cooking necessitate that you oil up the pan". The second bolded section indicates Ni in a pop-psychy kinda way. Take it or leave it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
You are focusing on the "relation" between your "actions" and the "objects" involved, but not on the "objects" themselves. That is plus-Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
If I may, allow me to rewrite your statement in my chickenscratch minus-Te:
"Food can stick to pans if you don't use enough oil, so apply a generous coating then let it sizzle on medium heat until the oil starts popping and crackling. Take a half-cup of minced beef and drop it in the pan. Let all the excess fat burn out and then put in another half-cup."
That is "Explicit Object Dynamics". That is Te.
It doesn't matter how they define them if you're just borrowing their terminology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Again, I'm just borrowing terminology and using my own, better definitions, kinda like how Model A borrows Freudian terminology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
lol @ "Ti Argument Trap". That sounds like a Pokemon attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Attachment 2820Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Good, because you're a waste of my time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
That's only because you're not listening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
I saddens me to see I failed to touch your heart :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
@Johannes Bloem: Your massive immaturity + communication barrier = no more of me wasting my time on you. I say you're a particularly annoying ILE/LII.
Enjoy playing around in your little sandbox.
You didn't fail. You did touch my heart lolQuote:
Originally Posted by consentingadult
Let's say you are IEE,
By your understanding, how would the super aggressiveness and seeming overreactions to an unwillingness to be wrong play into you being IEE? Of course, if you're unwilling to validate my perception as relating to your behavior in some way, I guess there's little that you will entertain that you don't already agree with. And I actually could see that as a super ego complex then, ironically.
really? You make me blush!Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
Johannes you seem like a person who gives shit on etiquette. You have to ask yourself how much aware you are of that. If you really aware of your behaviour IEE is a possibility otherwise weak unvalued Fi is likely i'd say ILE-Ti or LII.
Especially male IEE can be very confrontational (with words ;))
Considering Quadras Delta wouldn't be my first choice for you.
Who doesn´t give shit to etiquett? He was insulted, called being a yerk, said that he doesn´t know what he is talking about and that with very weak logic and without proof. So where is your Etiquette now? The subjective perception are really obvious here. Infact the attackers here behave like little children sweet-talk everything into their twisted realm.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaftPunk
My main point is not this thread but conversation in the chatbox and overallimpression. I don't play judge here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
Throwing a snowball at the broad side of a barn, of course your going to hit something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Is English not your first language because WTF DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
also @Johannes Bloem, Tackk made a good point..You should respond to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackk
also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Generalizations about types are always correct, aren't they you simple-minded twerp? He was late to a press conference in one of the videos I posted, and that is uncharacteristic of any IJ type, as they are all equally attuned to Ni, though they vary in their valuation of it.
YEAH! If someone is late to anything in their entire life, cross that IJ temperment out ya'll because they can't be it. nope. nada. impossible.
Here is Filatova on the relationship between IEE and IEI:Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Quote:
Ekaterina Filatova "Art of understanding yourself and others"
Here we have four identical functions of different orientation in the same channels. And, at the same time - not a single communication channel on identical functions. This implies that for these partners, there isn't any significant sphere in which they would have same point of view.
Where one pays attention to external processes via his extroverted function, the other focuses on the internal states via his introverted function, and vice versa. As a result, it becomes difficult for these partners to understand each other and agree.
This statement is completely meaningless. What a waste of time and forum space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Thank god you're not making the choices then, lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DaftPunk
Finally, someone who gets it! Thank you for your support!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
No, that is what I found embedded in the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
If you don't already understand it I'm afraid you never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackburry
But I'm sick of taking out the garbageQuote:
Originally Posted by blackburry
:(
No, I merely said that being late to a conference "suggests" a temperament other than IJ. If the reason people believe Michael is IJ is because he invested so much time into basketball, then they're doing the same thing I do when I say "he was late, I do not think him IJ". The difference is that I follow my statement up with "that is because an IJ, regardless of type, will be adept in Ni, which has been described by some as a keen sense of time". Furthermore, if Michael Jordan really is SLI, then he is an "obstinate" type and would thus be normal in devoting a lot of time to an interest of his.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackburry;989892Generalizations about types are always correct, aren't they you simple-minded twerp? He was late to a press conference in one of the videos I posted[B
Basketball itself is a "dynamic" game, with plays often developing a seemingly spontaneous manner as the players constantly adjust their positions on the court relative to the ball, which constitutes the center of action. An SLI, whose primary function is Si, or "Implicit Relation Dynamics", and whose auxiliary function is Te, or "Explicit Object Dynamics", would be in an excellent position to excel in a dynamic game like basketball. The primary function might be responsible for some of Michael's more "creative" moments, as with it he could have envisioned a dynamic relationship between himself, the ball, the other players, the basketball hoop, and the court itself that no other player could conceive of. His well-trained auxiliary function assisted with court awareness - tracking the "Explicit Dynamics" of the "Objects" of play, i.e. the players and the ball.
Now, if you'd like to tell me why he is IJ, I'm all ears.
Yes, I realise that you copied and pasted. You're not processing my posts properly because you're too concerned with excluding any information that doesn't match your fruity little subjective system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Are you really so short-sighted? I pointed out that he's clarifying within a specific area and that was the difference. You seem quite adamant about arguing to win and in doing that, you're shutting yourself off to furthering your understanding, which I think is a big shame. I'm happy to wait until you've managed to read my posts properly and actually get the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Caring about minimising redundancies is Ti. You sure do wear your heart on your sleeve, buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
lol, I take it you've never been to college or university then. Actually, that does make me wonder, are you in high school?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Plus and Minus tweaking of IEs is not something I've heavily dabbled in, so I don't wish to split hairs with you on this one, however, given that Socionics has generally gotten on without the Plus/Minus system for quite some time, it can be considered superfluous. As such, I don't except any of your points made based on this extension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Don't get upset when I chide you for mixing up terminology (and it was a mixup, you clearly fall on "your system" as a crutch for your gaps in understanding and misuse of proper jargon), if you're going to claim that you have your own subjective system and please have the foresight to realise that you're going to have clashes with people that use the more commonly accepted model of Socionics (although this could apply to any system that you deem fit to argue about at any stage).
Yeah, this is almost entirely a thinly veiled attempt to cover up the fact that your argument is weak and based on an impulse decision you made earlier. You selected IEI as your suspected type for me based on speaking with me for no greater than 10 minutes, then proceeded to double down on that opinion when people (including myself) poked fun at you for it. I believe that you got upset and are now scurrying around to attempt to confirm your bias that is based in emotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
And you're attempting to argue that against a system with more foundation. That just strikes me as being like you sharpening a stick and bringing it to a knife fight and then being surprised when you end up with a body covered in delightful new openings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
If you're so insistent on spending your time arguing your baby boy Fisher Price Socionics against actual Socionics, I don't think you have the right to place any value on your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Finally, something we actually agree on. Yes, this argument is a perfect example of extinguishment. However, I think that's because you're LII. The formation and interaction remain the same, only the types differ. I am very confident with my LIE typing and have checked it with other LIEs (who have in turn done their own introspection and study and generally know their own kind well enough), my own intertype relations with large amounts of people I know, finding a large amount of parallels in myself and the written profiles (Filatova, Stratiyevskaya, etc) and even VI at the end of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
If you are genuinely curious in discovering your type, my advice to you would be to reflect on the arguments you've had in this thread and draw something positive from them, because otherwise, all you've done is spent several days on a petty ego battle.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
"Clarifying within a specific area" is what makes one a Ti-valuer? SO, if a biologist and a geneticist and a sociologist are all clarifying their views, which is using Ti? You're such a fucking tard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
NOBODY LIKES REDUNDANCIES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TI. YOU'RE AN IDIOT WITH A SHALLOW UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIONICS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
You're such a fucking ******.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
"Commonly accepted model" = Fe-valuing. Just fucking give it up you little Beta NF fairy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Why don't you point out to me where I went wrong, then? And I wholeheartedly believe you to be IEI, there is nothing "desperate" about it. You're the one who won't even stop to consider it. Talk about "emotional".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
What point are you even trying to make here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
You're a fucking moron. There is no way I am LII and there is no way you are LIE. Get over yourself, stop "fighting" (IEI loves to fight), and LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Yeah, it's been a helluva fight trying to destroy your blind and emotional ego. If you are genuinely curious to discover your type, then I suggest you be honest with yourself about your weaknesses. As a man living in a world where most men use logic, do you think it was easy for me to admit to myself that I use ethics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Tackk had a valid point you imbecile.
Also, if I don't get I never will? His sentence was incoherent because he sucks at typing, you poor, poor, little incoherent man.
Now, if you'd like to tell me why he is IJ, I'm all ears.
How the hell would I type someone based on one sentence that he was late for a conference with no other information than that?..
No, I merely said that being late to a conference "suggests" a temperament other than IJ. If the reason people believe Michael is IJ is because he invested so much time into basketball, then they're doing the same thing I do when I say "he was late, I do not think him IJ". The difference is that I follow my statement up with "that is because an IJ, regardless of type, will be adept in Ni, which has been described by some as a keen sense of time".
No you didn't. You just now added "suggests" and put quotes around it. Your exact quote was actually this: " He was late to a press conference in one of the videos I posted, and that is uncharacteristic of any IJ type, as they are all equally attuned to Ni, though they vary in their valuation of it."
That.is.uncaracteristic.of.any.IJ.type.
Also, WHAT THE FUCK DOES MICHAEL JACKSON OR BASKETBALL HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT I'VE POINTED OUT? nothing. That whole paragraph seriously has nothing to do with what I've said. There is no correlation to with time between how much time is investing in an activity you enjoy and being late. Any type devotes time to what they are interested in.
Tackk asked why exactly do you think you are IEE considering you are so flamboyantly aggressive and lack any insight into what you are even spewing. You seriously just say things that add absolutely zero to your point and answer anyone's questions.
also, you are a total fucking moron beyond saving.
Can he be banned anyone?.. ..anyone..?
@Johannes Bloem, lets take your argument that @Narc is an IEI how do you further develop your justification that he is that? You've said in the earlier posts that LIE are supposed to be starting businesses and going skydiving as opposed to what @Narc does which is being a guitar playing hippy in your eyes.
What makes IEIs accept commonly held values, without any analytic thinking as you see it forth? Why are such people like that? The assumption you've made that ethical men may be ashamed about being ethical rings only true for early socionists or MBTIs who have logic defined ''reason'' and ethics as being based on emotions. Given that, what makes Narc ashamed to be an ethical type if he is indeed one given that he is not acquainted with an elementary understanding of socionics?
In your understanding how are auxiliary and creative functions similar or the same between the two theories? How are the functional models between the two theories very similar that such differing terminology is redundant in your perspective?
By the way, take all the time you need to respond and be honest, I'm not here to attack you, I'm just interested in learning your perspective? I'm not here to tell you whether you are right or wrong.
Okay, guys chill out. Yeah? Everyone (myself included). We are making mountains out of mole hills.
Jo, look, when you come on here and say you are a type, most people believe you. I believe you. You are IEE.
I think that the confrontational nature others are approaching you with has less to do with the type you are, and more to do with the nature of your replies. You see, Deltas and Gammas are a sensitive bunch, most especially the deltas. In my experience delta's may like to reply to you and have a conversation, if you were a little more polite. Politeness is a real key with Deltas. The NF's there hate feeling as if they personally are under attack, and even if you are correct, they are going to get their backs up just because of the nature of the conversation. Now, I can hear the debate come back saying I am talking about Fe, and blah, blah, blah. I am not. I am talking about maintaining a certain amount of decorum in order that we may come closer to knowing each other.
So my next point is this, as an IEE, would it not make you very uncomfortable to be having such a meltdown here with others? I know for myself, that if I was in your shoes I would just feel so awful, even if I felt correct in my views, because the damage that was occurring between me and them would make me feel sick and cause my heart to race every time I signed on. If this is the case for you, I am sorry, because I can empathize with how that must feel.
Or, perhaps you are working through some inner patterns of thought that have found an outlet here on the16types? Hkkmr calls it group therapy and for once I agree with him.
I can say one thing for certain, you mentioned you are here to teach. I wonder who your students will be? Imagine, Jo, that we are all in the same room as you, right now, in person. When I write this is what I think about. That helps me say what I want to say with honesty and respect. Both for myself and for others. I have made mistakes too. I have also ranted on the16types, sometimes because of issues in trl, and sometimes with issues on here. Either way, I can understand where you may be coming from. So back to the first sentence, just chill out, everyone. In my view the people on this forum and tinychats are just regular people like you or I. They do not need teachers, I'm not sure what they need maybe people don't need anything, but it's def not teachers.
You speak of duality with SLI. I'm not sure if you have seen this duality, but in my experience your dual does not make you feel good all the time. Sometimes they will look at you when you are being retarded or unreasonable or whatever (I am not saying you are being these things - I am using them as an example - cause I am really talking my own experience here), and they are going to make you feel like shit. The caveat is that you can move on with your dual and not look back. They are still going to make you feel stupid, however. Especially SLI, who is in my opinion the most sensitive of the bunch, and reeeeaally wouldn't feel comfortable around a newcomer making everyone defensive, Fe polr and all.
I live on a ranch and will tell you that sometimes it's best to let the horse have it's head and let the reins go to loosen the bridle. A softer approach makes her respect you.
One thing I would like to end with is that is it fair of you to question other people's self-typings when you demand that others must trust that your own is correct?
Weak/Strong logic :Ti:Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Good/Bad Ethic :Fi: (impulse decision viewed as weak)
burn the Witches at the stake burn them! burn them!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by blackburry
you are aware that you are out of arguments and now it´s time too use brute force, very democratic I must say
Just did it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
No, it just means someone is using Ti. Don't forget that all types have access to it, whether it's valued/unvalued and strong/weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
This isn't true at all. Many people are totally indifferent to redundancies. For example, I can read them and not have a stomping little autist tantrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
You're using MBTI. Te utilises consenses pertaining to facts or at least uses utilises a group of proven reliable information sources before believing something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Yes, I've been doing that. Try reading the posts in between spitting steam of your ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I already considered IEI ages ago. It was one of the first types I ever crossed off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Christ, how can you possibly be Te valuing if you don't understand what I just said there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I'm listening to what you say, but that doesn't mean I accept it. And generally, I don't like fighting unnecessarily. You're the one that dragged me into this, and you're getting hysterical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Look at Model A. Every type is able to use logic and ethics to a certain extent. That sort of 'confession' or 'acceptance' of being ethical is a waste of time. I considered both ethical and logical types and didn't really attach any preference to being one or the other. They all get by in life anyway, so it's a non-issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Just because you think my logic is faulty (and let's note your 'sore thumb level' obvious bias here), doesn't mean it's not my base IE. Attacking a person's logic is extremely common in arguments as a way of attempting to discredit them. It doesn't mean a person is not a base or creative IE logical type. Logical types can display and be motivated by emotion. Ethical types are able to display competence in areas of logic.
Sensing and ethics are the areas I take suggestions on-board with, meaning I am confident enough with intuition and logic that I don't need further help in most cases. This would make me an NT type, despite your present tantrum.
You lack the coherence to be contributing to this discussion constructively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
I wouldn´t call it coherence more a lack of energy, to go into full arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
A textbook understanding of :Te: is not the same as a native understanding which you clearly lack if you need to put that up. What you just described was the Jungian PoLR version good luck with that. :Ti: does not disable :Te:, :Fe: does that because it is also a rational Extraverted function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
What does mean "reliable" information anyway it is so without context, very weird for contextual Logic.
Zero, i luv you :) i am currently working, but when i get home i will help you quell this madness
Don't you want to answer the rest of my post which is more interesting than what you quoted. I even said I could see you as IEE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
You really are the epitome of a glasscanon
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
I put the information up because this argument is starting to make me feel like I can't provide any point as a given, particularly to Johannes who uses his own system that he refuses to explain properly apart from tiny little sections where he thinks he's snared me in his trap. If you want to make your own value judgements on my level of understanding, that's your choice. Doesn't change anything, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
Utilising 'reliable' information might be like using peer-reviewed journals only to ensure that strictness of information, or asking a reliable person that has been previously confirmed as adequately knowledgeable either by yourself or a combination of yourself and others. A source that has been assessed a number of times to confirm usefulness. A source that is otherwise reliable that betrays that 'trust' would possibly be cast aside immediately or done so over time, after an overall drop in quality is noted.
My "arguments" are complaints that he just nitpicks what he will answer back to and ignores the rest... it's fucking stupid. also, I dislike both of you. There's nothing wrong with me stating that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero11
You really have a problem with Systems do you? His version isn´t really that complicated infact it is easier than the really senseless and complex Socionic descriptions that reek :Ti: in total. :Si:/:Ne: and :Ti:/:Fe: are about relations, :Ni:/:Se: and :Fi:/:Te: are about Objects based on the extraverted functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
nice :Ti: logical breakdown I wouldn´t be able to put something like that upQuote:
Utilising 'reliable' information might be like using peer-reviewed journals only to ensure that strictness of information, or asking a reliable person that has been previously confirmed as adequately knowledgeable either by yourself or a combination of yourself and others. A source that has been assessed a number of times to confirm usefulness. A source that is otherwise reliable that betrays that 'trust' would possibly be cast aside immediately or done so over time, after an overall drop in quality is noted.
and again the textbook nah to whom am I talking to how could you know? The keyword is context here just because something is "reliable" through sources anchoring in superficial Systems does not make it valid. A source could be a number of times useful used by any :Te: devaluer at any time. :Fe: wants to be convinced not just logical confirmed so if :Fe:>:Ti: is the case :Ti: does not really makes it own System it rather goes into confusion or simply breaks the rules to ensure :Te: isn´t used.
@blackburry
It´s not strategic so it is kinda opposed to me.
ILIs have demonstrative :Ti: also I think he is Enneagram 5 so making your own System is not exclusive to :Ti:Quote:
Originally Posted by William
It's not that I'm not processing your posts, it's that your posts have nothing to process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Back to my original question, then:Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
lol @ "many people" = "just me"Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
No, dipshit. "Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics". "Te" = "what objects do". Tell me, what is your guitar doing when it makes noise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
All you've done is provide me with the *official* Myers-Briggs and Model A definitions of functions. Actually, you haven't even done that. You merely told me that my definitions differ from theirs like I wasn't already aware of it, and stumped for the importance of "proper jargon", all while spewing vague, 100-level descriptions of Te and Ti. Here, I can do that too:Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Quote:
"Te" collects objectively verifiable facts, creating a massive mental database that can be drawn from at any time. It extracts raw data from nearly every situation, which enables it to chart the most efficient course of action. If presently-available facts are inadequate, the mind can turn to its library of facts for guidance.
"Ti" perceives the logical connections inherent in the underlying fabric of objective existence but, as an introverted function, it does so from a strictly subjective standpoint. It categorizes things according to shared logical structures, creating a logically unified 'picture' of reality in the mind. Each mind possesses its own unique 'picture'.
lol, you really ought to reconsider.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
I understand what you said just fine, but I fail to see how you stating the obvious constitutes a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
You made the first accusation, not me:Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
I'm glad you feel that way, it should make it easier for you to accept being ethical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Nor does me using what you mistakenly consider "Ti" necessarily make me a Ti-dom. You're not following your own rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
lol, one day you'll meet a real LIE and he/she will supervise the shit out of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Soupman, I want to answer the first question you posed because I require instant gratification, but I plan on answering all of your questions in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soupman
Exhibit A is "Implied Object Dynamics" or "Ni". If he had said, "secret MBTI fanboy detected", that would've been "Implied Object Statics" or "Fi". Notice how in Narc's statement the subject "does" whereas in mine the subject "is".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Isn't "Explicit Relation Statics" or "Ne" the ignoring function of IEI? He then says:Quote:
Originally Posted by NarcI'm just going to go ahead and ignore your insignificant and/or inexpedient stereotyping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
When he says "limited system", he means "explicit system".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
The first bolded portion of the text is "Explicit Relation Dynamics" or "Fe", as the "office" is a "social environment" or a "system of social relations". The second bolded portion is "Implicit Object Dynamics" or "Ni".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
The bolded portion of the text is "Implicit Object Dynamics" or "Ni".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
"Builds businesses", "goes skydiving", "plays guitar", and "looks soulful" are all "Explicit Object Dynamics" or "Te". They are connected by a system of "Explicit Static Relations" or "Ne". Notice how Narc disparages these constructs, calling them "stupid generalizations".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
The bolded section is Narc pathetically attempting to explain what an object "does". What the fuck does "serves to dot the i's and cross the t's and philosophise" mean? That statement provides us with no insight as to the "Explicit Dynamics" of an "Object", which in this case is a "discussion of cognitive processes". Why is a "discussion of cognitive processes" so unprofitable, Narc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
The first bolded section is "Explicit Relation Dynamics" or "Fe". The second bolded section is "Implicit Object Dynamics" or "Ni".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
This passage is "Explicit Relation Dynamics" or "Fe".Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
This statement is ironic because it is "Implicit Object Dynamics" or "Ni". "Clearly" you don't either, Narc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
I could've kept going, Soupman, but only finding "Ni" and "Fe" was getting a little repetitive.
That's clearly not true. You're arguing like a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Do you sincerely believe that to be true? Go and talk to a few people and see what they think. Get a wide sample of people from various backgrounds and ask them whether they genuienly care about redundancies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
They're not required to be more complex than "100 level" to be to be correct within Socionics. Given that Te is external, objective and dynamic, both of my explanations perfectly fit that classification. I find it cute that you can't accept that, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Te
Quote:
Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions.The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects.
Since http://wikisocion.org/en/images/1/12/Symbol_p.gif perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a http://wikisocion.org/en/images/1/12/Symbol_p.gif type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A http://wikisocion.org/en/images/1/12/Symbol_p.gif type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So http://wikisocion.org/en/images/1/12/Symbol_p.gif types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.
Ti
Quote:
http://wikisocion.org/en/images/0/01/Symbol_l.gif is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty. It is like common sense, in that it builds on one's expectations of reality, through a somewhat personal, though explicable, understanding of general truths and how they are manifested.
See in bold for things relevant to the way you've been acting, just within this thread.Quote:
Types that value http://wikisocion.org/en/images/0/01/Symbol_l.gif naturally question the consistency of beliefs that are taken for granted in everyday life. They strongly prefer to make decisions based on their own experience and judgement, as opposed to relying on external authorities for knowledge, which they use only as a last resort. They also have respect for people with clearly defined and internally consistent opinions, believing that a sense of internal certainty is necessary for orienting oneself in life. To these types, one's personal standards of truth are more reliable than public consensus.
They see overly pragmatic views as shallow, and try to limit public discussion of mundane practical matters. They are especially sensitive to redundant information.
If it's 'obvious' then it means it's accepted. Which means it constitutes a point. Do you not see this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
Sorry, I wasn't to know that you'd be so upset by that. Tissue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
My two best friends are both Ni-ENTj. I don't see the supervision happening, to be quite honest, considering we're too busy agreeing and coming from near identical angles on issues. Also, I've come across several on here and experienced a similar thing. I think you'd be more likely to be supervised by one than me, if I'm honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
@Johannes Bloem
if you could pick a type as your absolute favorite, what would it be?
If one person claims another person is arguing like a child, the person making the claim is actually the one arguing like a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
No, that is too much work. Not that you would know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
What's "objective" mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Or how about this: "Te" = "what things do" = "Explicit Object Dynamics". "The how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions" is completely and utterly vague.
You only bolded more text in the Ti box than in the Te box because you couldn't spot Te if it was staring you in the face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
A point is made only after a dispute, and if something is obvious then there is no dispute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
The point is you started this whole debate, not me:Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
One thing I've noticed about SEI and IEI is they have a hard time recollecting their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Attachment 2829Quote:
Originally Posted by Narc
Probably EIE. Not because I'd rather be one, but because they're good company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure Flame
ok but more specifically, if you thought one of them was the coolest, and you wanted to be that personality, what would it be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by William
"The how, what and where of events" could be talking about something as miniscule as how subatomic particles interact or about something as massive as how superclusters form, or anything in between. Way. Too. Vague.
"Activity or work" could be talking about something as miniscule as how subatomic particles interact or about something as massive as how superclusters form, or anything in between. Way. Too. Vague.
"Behavior" could be mean human behavior, cat behavior, rat behavior, or tectonic plate behavior, just to name a few. Here's the a snippet from the Wikipedia entry for "Behavior":
I don't think I really need say much more. What's funny is that I never even claimed that Te "doesn't make sense" to me. I claimed that Narc's definitions were vague, which I just demonstrated here.Quote:
Behavior or behaviour is the range of actions and mannerisms made by organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the physical environment.
The personality I think is the coolest is LIE. If I could be a different personality I would be ILI or EII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure Flame
I find this to be true too, my sister and another friend at university are both EIE I do enjoy their energy and zest for life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
I don't want to divert your attention I was just surprised you saw the same phenomenon as me. Don't feel interrupted continue your responses.
:Fe: hit me are you sure you are LSE?Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
Hahaha.
He actually reminds me quite a lot of you. It's the over confidence.
You can only be over-confident if you don't know what you're doing, and that is not the case with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scapegrace
lolzQuote:
Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem
They are Narc's definitions insofar as he is the one who provided them.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
What I don't understand is if the "official" definition is this:
Then how is my definition, "Explicit Object Dynamics", so much of a stretch for you? Do you realize that "the external activity of objects" could be explained in terms of relationships?Quote:
Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects
That's because I've read it all before and while there might be some truth to those definitions, I don't think they are specific enough to be very helpful. Each function constructs language in a particular way, and I think my definitions best describe the linguistic forms that the functions make use of.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
I have been reading voraciously about socionics for a good two years now, and have also spent much time lurking on this forum. I've still got a lot to learn, but I am very, very confident in my ability to type and also in the correctness of my definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Just because someone comes up with their own definitions does not make them Alpha.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
How the fuck am I "nitpicking"? "Nitpicking" means "unjustified faultfinding", but I justified the faults I found. Furthermore, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE COMES UP WITH THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALPHA OR THAT THEY VALUE TI OR THAT THEY ARE EVEN USING TI. You're making me start to think that one's understanding of socionics is inversely related to one's post count. Not that post count has anything to do with a proper understanding of socionics, of course. I would never believe a silly idea like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
The manner in which I distill the commonly-accepted definitions to make more sense to me is Ti- and Fe-devaluing, "Ti" meaning "Implicit Relation Statics" and "Fe" meaning "Explicit Relation Dynamics".Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Here is my thought process:
"FUCK THESE DEFINITIONS THEY R GAY" = minus-Ne, "Ne" meaning "Explicit Relation Statics". I saw no obvious relation between the definitions and and anything in the real world.
"TI IS DIS, TE IS DAT, FI IS DIS, FE IS DAT" = plus-Fi, "Fi" meaning "Implicit Object Statics". I assigned definitions to the functions based on what I thought they "meant" or "equalled" or "represented".
I displayed a blatant disregard for Ti by completely rejecting the "official definitions", and I showed my contempt for Fe by not caring what effect my actions had on others while I was defending my views (Fi > Fe).
Then why are you furthering it with this post?Quote:
Originally Posted by William
I appreciate your welcoming attitude, but I know what type I am. I've known since I first took the MBTI test in high school AP Psych, even though back then I replaced the "F" with a "T", just as I think many others have done in some way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
People can believe me to be whatever type they wish. Just know that I will continue to laugh at any moron who thinks I am anything but IEE.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Your post was a complete joke, and I don't need to read up on shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
If you're not discussing this with me, then why are you discussing this with me? When you asked "Is that clear?" you basically invited me to respond.