Te vs Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

Why I value Te over Ti and how they feel different, by me!

Ti sounds to me like this:

A, therefore B. Or A -> B. Then sometimes a Ti person will build upon that. A -> B, and B -> C, and C -> D, therefore D.

To me, every one of those movements is a logical leap. It isn't that I am unable to follow it, it's that I think it's ridiculous to assume that A -> B rather than X, Y, Z or whatever. Every time I see someone do that I think, "Why on earth do you assume A -> B?" It makes me crazy. That doesn't mean it isn't useful because making those assumptions allows people to reach things they might not reach without making those assumptions, and maybe they'll come up with some new idea that will be really useful.

TiNe people are able to consider X, Y and Z. So they're continually changing that A -> B thing to see if maybe A -> B or C, and they try out different things and see what works, and move on to some other path, like rather than A -> B, and B -> C; they'll change their idea to A -> X and try to figure out where X might lead. TiSe people aren't able to see other possibilities so they figure A -> B and it MUST lead to B and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid or even apparently immoral or whatever.

If you disagree with a Ti Ne person, he or she will move on and keep trying different paths to try to find this ultimate enlightened truth. And they figure that once they find that truth, it'll be evident to everyone and then they will be vindicated. They might get annoyed along the way if you disagree with them, but they move on and keep searching different paths, inspired by their Ne, and they have confidence that at some point they'll reach this truth.

But if you disagree with a person who works with Ti + Se, that person reacts much more negatively to the disagreement. Well at least if an Ne + Fi person disagrees with them they react more negatively. They are offended that you would even suggest they consider another possibility because they figure they're working from some level of authority or something, or they're calling upon some other authority, and your inability to agree with that authority drives them crazy.

Now, on to Te.

Te people work more like this:

A makes me believe X.

B makes me believe X or Y.

C makes me believe X or Z.

D makes me believe Z

E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

This kind of logic works for me. I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do). Although that example is more Te+Ni. Te+Si needs to be given some possibilities to work with. Like, "what might A mean?" And I'll say, "Maybe A means X, or Y, or Z, or . . ." And they'll try out each one and if it works they'll go with it and if not they'll move on to the next possibility.

People who value Te sometimes use Ti and people who use Ti sometimes use Te. But people obviously favor one over the other. I feel it very strongly when someone uses that Ti over Te because every time they do that A -> B thing, I die a little inside. :lol: Ok it isn't that bad, but it isn't a good reaction anyway.

I admit this is all fairly sketchy and subjective - it's just from my ENFp point of view. But it is my reason for seeing Phaedrus as I see him. And I know Phaedrus will cringe when reading it and hate it because he doesn't like "sketchy and subjective". But that's what I've got to work with. I can't give him the Ti arguments he's looking for because that isn't me. We all work with our strengths.

Feel free to critique as I'm no expert, but please don't just say "You're an idiot." Please EDUCATE me and give me information if you disagree with something. Thank you :)

a very interesting description of Ti polr.

feel free not to respond if you have no idea, but do you have any ideas on how this might differ from an SEEs thought process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).

---

I see it differently :) And that's one of the reasons for my not seeing Phaedrus (since he got mentioned here too) as a Ti IJ. A true INTj or ISTj, in the process of building up their logical systems, will have no problem at all discarding D if they have already built up an internally consistent system made of A, B, C, X, Y, Z. Both Ti and Te ego types discard "D"s all the time, the difference between logical Ti>Te and Te>Ti is more on the priority. One of my reasons - not the only reason - for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type is precisely this insistence on making every single bit of supposed evidence fit. To use the quantum theory examples, Einstein was confident about rejecting evidence pointing towards the uncertainty principle - "God does not play dice with the universe" - and Bohr did not care about having a supposedly half-baked system as long as it could be applied. He was more concerned about -- "localized" solutions. To me, these are two opposite uses of confident Ti and Te.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).

---

To use the quantum theory examples, Einstein was confident about rejecting evidence pointing towards the uncertainty principle - "God does not play dice with the universe" - and Bohr did not care about having a supposedly half-baked system as long as it could be applied. He was more concerned about -- "localized" solutions. To me, these are two opposite uses of confident Ti and Te.

---

Just trying to clarify my own undertanding here - you're stating it to mean than Einstein and Bohr used Ti and Te respectively?

In such a case, I'm wondering about function use: Did Einstein reject the uncertainty principle because his conventional model worked regardless of the loose end - and therefore was a pragmatic decision - or was it rejected because it conflicted with his model (a behaviour I have associated with Ti, right or wrong)? As we know, Einstein was incorrect, so if the latter, I have to assume this is a potential problem area for extreme Ti types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by force my hand

Just trying to clarify my own undertanding here - you're stating it to mean than Einstein and Bohr used Ti and Te respectively?

---

In the particular discussion on the uncertainty principle, yes. Which is not to mean that Bohr himself was necessarily a Te type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by force my hand

In such a case, I'm wondering about function use: Did Einstein reject the uncertainty principle because his conventional model worked regardless of the loose end - and therefore was a pragmatic decision - or was it rejected because it conflicted with his model (a behaviour I have associated with Ti, right or wrong)? As we know, Einstein was incorrect, so if the latter, I have to assume this is a potential problem area for extreme Ti types.

---

In my very humble opinion, Einstein rejected it because it conflicted with his basic understanding of how the universe should work, as in his "God does not play dice with the universe". That is also why Schroedinger, another Ti type in my opinion, also tended to reject it. His Schroedinger's cat experiment was meant precisely to show that the uncertainty interpretation of his wave wasn't acceptable.

I think Einstein was wrong in that particular case, but he may have been right in the longer term, assuming that something like the Many-Worlds interpretation is correct, rather than the Copenhagen "wave-collapse" interpretation. So it's not as simple as saying that Te was right and Ti was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by force my hand

Did Einstein reject the uncertainty principle because his conventional model worked regardless of the loose end - and therefore was a pragmatic decision

---

No, definitely not. And he was not rejecting the uncertainty principle in itself, he was rejecting Bohr's interpretation of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by force my hand

- or was it rejected because it conflicted with his model

---

No, because it conflicted with his strong belief that the world must have a structure in itself. That assumption (that the world must have a structure in itself) was not a part of Einstein's model. It is a part of every model that can make a valid claim to be true. Therefore Einstein was correct in rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by force my hand

(a behaviour I have associated with Ti, right or wrong)?

---

Yes, to reject empirical data that conflict with your model is usually associated with :Ti: . My behaviour is the exact opposite of that. I prefer to reject the model, when it cannot explain the empirical data. That's what I am doing all the time -- questioning the model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).

---

I see it differently :) And that's one of the reasons for my not seeing Phaedrus (since he got mentioned here too) as a Ti IJ. A true INTj or ISTj, in the process of building up their logical systems, will have no problem at all discarding D if they have already built up an internally consistent system made of A, B, C, X, Y, Z. Both Ti and Te ego types discard "D"s all the time, the difference between logical Ti>Te and Te>Ti is more on the priority. One of my reasons - not the only reason - for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type is precisely this insistence on making every single bit of supposed evidence fit. To use the quantum theory examples, Einstein was confident about rejecting evidence pointing towards the uncertainty principle - "God does not play dice with the universe" - and Bohr did not care about having a supposedly half-baked system as long as it could be applied. He was more concerned about -- "localized" solutions. To me, these are two opposite uses of confident Ti and Te.

---

I think it's true that both Ti and Te types are able to be flexible and discard what doesn't fit. But to me, it seems to be partly an N thing (as Slacker Mom suggested when comparing INTj vs. ISTj).

I also agree that failure to distinguish between good and bad evidence (especially a tendency to pile on awful arguments together with good ones) is a mark of weak T. However, I don't see Phaedrus as either as stubborn or lacking in competence as you seem to. :? He says a few things that I don't necessarily agree with (like that people should supplement their Socionics understanding with MBTI type descriptions to better understand their type, and not just for purposes of changing or critiquing the theory). (That particular one actually strengthens your point, I admit, because the argument against it is precisely that Te demands that new data be used to revise one's model rather than to supplement one's perceptive understanding directly.) But he strikes me as quite open to a good argument for why he should change a given position (although I haven't debated him as much as you have). This doesn't mean he isn't INFp, but I tend to be skeptical of arguments like "I disagree with this person's reasoning. Therefore he's an F type," which really is what your sound like you're saying.

Anyhow, over all, I think Slacker Mom's description is a good one, because it really captures something about Te that hasn't been much discussed. That is, Te involves forming a model to fit the data; the model must have some rigidity to it, otherwise one has merely a lump of data. The key is that the data suggests a working model. This is why Te can be considered to relate to "understanding" just as much as "Ti" can, although Te types may sometimes seem arrogant because they can jump to conclusions without demanding perfectly consistent syllogistic logic (I'm relying on my pre-Socionics views here; they seem more applicable at the moment).

In pure Ti, the logical connections are independent of whether they relate to anything; hence, Ti only seems rigid to people who assume it must be tied to belief. That's what I love about Ti.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think it's true that both Ti and Te types are able to be flexible and discard what doesn't fit. But to me, it seems to be partly an N thing (as Slacker Mom suggested when comparing INTj vs. ISTj).

---

The difference between the ISTj and INTj is basically that the ISTj's main input for his Ti reasoning comes from Se reality - or what the ISTj perceive as "reality". The INTj's main input comes from this Ne "alternative realities", which almost by definition are more easily changeable than the Se reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This doesn't mean he isn't INFp, but I tend to be skeptical of arguments like "I disagree with this person's reasoning. Therefore he's an F type," which really is what your sound like you're saying.

---

I have no control, and therefore no responsibility, over how what I say may "sound" to you. I did not say, nor mean that at all, and that is perfectly clear from what I did say. I have no inclination to repeat it here to correct your own faulty understanding. What you just said "sounds to me" like a lazy and erroneous oversimplification to dismiss what I said rather than bother to try thinking about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Now, on to Te.

Te people work more like this:

A makes me believe X.

B makes me believe X or Y.

C makes me believe X or Z.

D makes me believe Z

E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

This kind of logic works for me. I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).

---

What if you arrange the evidence according to some relevance criteria before you do this "Te logic"? What I mean is that your example seems to suggest Te considers amount of evidence over quality of evidence. From your example it seems that X is the right answer. However if you dig deeper into A, B, C, D and E you might find that A and B cannot be trusted as evidence and thus they are discarded and instead C, D, E are given the priority. This leads to conclusion Z > X >Y which is different from what you get when you consider all evidence being of equal importance. I kind of work this way I think. First collecting evidence, then exploring the evidence a bit to see which evidence should be given more weight and which less and finally concluding the answer using this "weighted" evidence where some pieces of evidence are considered to be more important than some others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

If you disagree with a Ti Ne person, he or she will move on and keep trying different paths to try to find this ultimate enlightened truth. And they figure that once they find that truth, it'll be evident to everyone and then they will be vindicated. They might get annoyed along the way if you disagree with them, but they move on and keep searching different paths, inspired by their Ne, and they have confidence that at some point they'll reach this truth.

---

Welcome back high school angst :P
Sigh, the depression that this thinking brings is uproductive, yet I always end up in this stupid trap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Now, on to Te.

Te people work more like this:

A makes me believe X.

B makes me believe X or Y.

C makes me believe X or Z.

D makes me believe Z

E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

This kind of logic works for me. I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).

---

What if you arrange the evidence according to some relevance criteria before you do this "Te logic"? What I mean is that your example seems to suggest Te considers amount of evidence over quality of evidence. From your example it seems that X is the right answer. However if you dig deeper into A, B, C, D and E you might find that A and B cannot be trusted as evidence and thus they are discarded and instead C, D, E are given the priority. This leads to conclusion Z > X >Y which is different from what you get when you consider all evidence being of equal importance. I kind of work this way I think. First collecting evidence, then exploring the evidence a bit to see which evidence should be given more weight and which less and finally concluding the answer using this "weighted" evidence where some pieces of evidence are considered to be more important than some others.

---

Yes that's very true. Some of the evidence might be stronger than others and might be weighed differently. It was really just a simplification of how it feels to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I think Slacker Mom's description is a good one, because it really captures something about Te that hasn't been much discussed. That is, Te involves forming a model to fit the data;

---

Exactly. From recent thread referring to an ancient thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

What I try to do is to make my empirical observations of patterns fit into a theory. I try to make generalizations.

---

I start with observing a pattern. I don't start with a stated idea, like the INTjs, who start with an object function creating a field function. Instead I start with a field function and create an object function. I have introverted perception and my behaviour here is only consistent with being a Narrator. In the same thread I said that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

I am more interested in general empirical observations of people's behaviours. That's why I am so focused on type descriptions and statistical findings of correlations between types and behaviours. I try to make all the empirical findings, all the pieces of information, all the things that are said about different types by different theorists of different models, fit together.

---

which is a clear illustration of why I consistently make general observations instead of specific observations. It is observation of fields, not objects. And every time I say that all the pieces of information must fit into the big puzzle otherwise we have to redo it, every time I start with accepting empirical facts and see where they are going to lead me, I am expressing a clear Gamma, non-Alpha attitude.

---

Don't do it cap'n!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Exactly. From recent thread referring to an ancient thread:

---

I have some remnants of that "ancient thread" which I'd be willing to post for you, (since you seem to want to quote from it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

I have no control, and therefore no responsibility, over how what I say may "sound" to you. I did not say, nor mean that at all, and that is perfectly clear from what I did say. I have no inclination to repeat it here to correct your own faulty understanding. What you just said "sounds to me" like a lazy and erroneous oversimplification to dismiss what I said rather than bother to try thinking about it.

---

Is there a way to turn down the heat just a little bit? :) Maybe we're in some sort of conflicting intertype relation here (supervisory or otherwise), but since you value listening carefully to what other people said and not just dismissing it through oversimplifications, then you should realize that I was agreeing with 90% of your points. I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was dismissing your points, because I really agree with most of them, and just wish we could tone it down a little bit...and if I seem dismissive, please know that's not the intention.

Here's what I referring to you regarding your comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

And that's one of the reasons for my not seeing Phaedrus (since he got mentioned here too) as a Ti IJ. A true INTj or ISTj, in the process of building up their logical systems, will have no problem at all discarding D if they have already built up an internally consistent system made of A, B, C, X, Y, Z.

---

Implied: discarding D is an ability ("will have no problem").

Quote:

---

One of my reasons - not the only reason - for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type is precisely this insistence on making every single bit of supposed evidence fit.

---

Implied: Phaedrus's use of evidence isn't very good. (Note the use of the word "supposed." Note also that the word "insistence" implies taking one action when another one would be warranted.)

Clearly stated: These points are "one of [your] reasons"..."for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type"

Therefore, it is reasonable to parse this as saying, in effect, Phaedrus's reasoning isn't that good (he "insists" on fitting "supposed" evidence rather than doing what T types do, which is to "have no problem" doing this wonderful thing which is discarding D when it's correct to do so). And because of the last (clearly stated) point above, it sounds as if you're implying that what you see as a weakness in Phaedrus's arguments is implying that he's F.

Anyhow, the only reason I brought it up is that I think it's important to recognize that psychological relevance is more important than what we (subjectively) think is competence in a person's arguments.

Actually, this thread is a great example of that. Slacker Mom is demonstrating something I've noticed about other ENFps on the forum, which is that they often seem to have better reasoning than the "T" people do. It may come from the fact that it's using the full axis rather than just relying on the ego block.

@Expat:

PS, by the way, I'll admit that I'm splitting hairs a bit, and that may be what ticks you off. If your point is that Phaedrus's enthusiastic embracing of lots of different systems that you may not feel should all be embraced could be construed as somewhat similar to patterns in some INFps, I would agree. Still, that's far from conclusive (and based on a subjective opinion about whether those systems are worthwhile)....and I hate to see it when I feel people are giving someone too hard a time. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Now, on to Te.

Te people work more like this:

A makes me believe X.

B makes me believe X or Y.

C makes me believe X or Z.

D makes me believe Z

E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

This kind of logic works for me. I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).

---

What if you arrange the evidence according to some relevance criteria before you do this "Te logic"? What I mean is that your example seems to suggest Te considers amount of evidence over quality of evidence. From your example it seems that X is the right answer. However if you dig deeper into A, B, C, D and E you might find that A and B cannot be trusted as evidence and thus they are discarded and instead C, D, E are given the priority. This leads to conclusion Z > X >Y which is different from what you get when you consider all evidence being of equal importance. I kind of work this way I think. First collecting evidence, then exploring the evidence a bit to see which evidence should be given more weight and which less and finally concluding the answer using this "weighted" evidence where some pieces of evidence are considered to be more important than some others.

---

Yes that's very true. Some of the evidence might be stronger than others and might be weighed differently. It was really just a simplification of how it feels to me.

---

actually the way it feels to you feels to me like just using real world examples. I don't think Ti people give reasons why they believe something any less than Te people. I in fact don't think Te people really need to give reasons why they believe things if they are with another Te person. They just give you an argument with real world data. What kind of computer should i buy, well consumer reports makes me believe blah blha and etc. I *think* what you were describing in the Ti example just sounds like reasons for believing something that are in their head. It's interesting that presentation matters so much.

I am speaking as a Ti person of course, but I don't really understand why it would make your crazy for that reason. My ENFp friends just hate Ti because they don't think things should fit into boxes. This is what they have told me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

If you disagree with a Ti Ne person, he or she will move on and keep trying different paths to try to find this ultimate enlightened truth. And they figure that once they find that truth, it'll be evident to everyone and then they will be vindicated. They might get annoyed along the way if you disagree with them, but they move on and keep searching different paths, inspired by their Ne, and they have confidence that at some point they'll reach this truth.

But if you disagree with a person who works with Ti + Se, that person reacts much more negatively to the disagreement. Well at least if an Ne + Fi person disagrees with them they react more negatively. They are offended that you would even suggest they consider another possibility because they figure they're working from some level of authority or something, or they're calling upon some other authority, and your inability to agree with that authority drives them crazy.

---

Every type has strengths and when it comes to logical correctness, I take my hat off before Ti dominants. There is no better help when you need to sort your theories out than a LII.

The difference between LSI and LII is that LII are rational AND reasonable, and LSI just rational (I'm not talking in socionics terms). LII will try to verify the model if there is information that suggests something is wrong (Ne) and LSI will just reject anything that don't fit the model (Se).

However, they at times get obsessed with the idea that just because everything fits in a nice model in their heads then it has to be right. This is valid for most low scale problems which have few parameters and follow certain rules that are known beforehand but problems in the real world do not follow the "laboratory conditions" often that Ti types expect and there is where the problem begins.

Instead of thinking in terms of who is right and who is wrong, I would rather put it as they are both right. Often when there is a disagreement between two persons it is not that one is wrong and the other is right, but more than they are discussing different things in the first place. Ti is concise and focused and Fi (because I don't think it's Te what you're talking about) is diffuse, wider, so when you're discussing something you're likely to be taking into the equation far more things than Ti, and this confuses Ti because it doesn't see those other parameters. Fi is famous for "considering the implications on people" (or better, in the system as a whole) and this is not always explicit, so Ti does not understand that the problem, from Fi perspective, is not circumscribed to what's it's analyzed only.

Ti and Fi process things differently and use different rules. Despite what you think, Fi never discards factors, because they are not analyzed in the Ti way in the first place. Fi is somewhat like an statistical model that takes lots of factors and analyzes things in terms of convergence. So when a single factor doesn't fit, it doesn't mean much to the whole system. For Fi, if a single factor is wrong, the entire result can be still right.

For Ti types this is the opposite. They analyze all and each of the factors involved in the equation for logical correctness and they must be right before even being considered. For Ti, if a single factor is wrong, then the entire result is wrong.

Just imagine what happens when a Fi type brings up a factor that doesn't pass the logical check. Ti jumps on and complains that the factor is wrong (and they are right, from the logical point of view) and immediately reach the conclusion that the entire model is going to fail. But this is not always the case. More often than not the model ends up with satisfactory results, regardless that it makes or not sense from the Ti perspective.

I remember watching a debate on the TV involving cigarettes, where one of the debatants was clearly EII (a medic) and the other LII (a political analyst). At first the LII throwed out "devastating" arguments. I agreed with them, because they were "elegant" - I have heard those from my own LII father before and I've learned to not oppose resistance. However, the LII quickly ran out of arguments so the EII slowly but steadily gained control over the discussion, not because his arguments were more "logical" than those of the LII, but because he had far more in the first place. This is the main issue of logicals: their models are abstract and thus are somewhat simplistic compared to reality.

Now, I've heard the comments about such way of thinking being Te and not Fi as I say. Well, I must say that if you support that idea, then I challenge you to explain what is the kind of logical system ethicals use, because ethicals, regardless of specific type, are dominated by Fi and Fe, Te and Ti often playing minor roles. If you deny what I say I expect you to give arguments to support it. I suggest it's Fi because I have a good idea on how each of the eight functions work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikemex

LII will try to verify the model if there is information that suggests something is wrong (Ne) and LSI will just reject anything that don't fit the model (Se).

---

Not sure I agree that these are the correct definitions of Ne and Se. Se people aren't as unreasonable as this makes them sound. However, LSIs are more action oriented, so they're more likely to put into practice what they think rather than to keep investigating.

@rmcnew: you are right about the Phaedrus discussion, but this is a bit -- borderline. If it goes specifically into that direction, I will continue it over in that thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Is there a way to turn down the heat just a little bit? :) Maybe we're in some sort of conflicting intertype relation here (supervisory or otherwise), but since you value listening carefully to what other people said and not just dismissing it through oversimplifications, then you should realize that I was agreeing with 90% of your points. I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was dismissing your points, because I really agree with most of them, and just wish we could tone it down a little bit...and if I seem dismissive, please know that's not the intention.

---

Ok, sure :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

And that's one of the reasons for my not seeing Phaedrus (since he got mentioned here too) as a Ti IJ. A true INTj or ISTj, in the process of building up their logical systems, will have no problem at all discarding D if they have already built up an internally consistent system made of A, B, C, X, Y, Z.

---

Implied: discarding D is an ability ("will have no problem").

---

Rather than "ability", I prefer- always - to talk about "confidence". A Ti IJ will be confident in discarding D, but that may well be a wrong decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Implied: Phaedrus's use of evidence isn't very good. (Note the use of the word "supposed." Note also that the word "insistence" implies taking one action when another one would be warranted.)

---

It isn't very good in my own judgement. But my point is a different one. What I meant was the reluctance to make nearly any selection of evidence, at least consciously, while a Ti or Te type is generally less reluctant to say "this is useless as evidence". Of course, a Ti or Te type may be totally wrong when saying this. That's not the point. One can alwayws discuss the value or usefulness of particular bits of evidence (for instance, particular type descriptions); but a position that every bit of evidence must be used uncritically (without, as I have already said, wondering how Reinin even typed his case studies - through theory or descriptons?) strikes me as low confidence (not ability necessarily) in Te and Ti.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Clearly stated: These points are "one of [your] reasons"..."for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type"

Therefore, it is reasonable to parse this as saying, in effect, Phaedrus's reasoning isn't that good (he "insists" on fitting "supposed" evidence rather than doing what T types do, which is to "have no problem" doing this wonderful thing which is discarding D when it's correct to do so). And because of the last (clearly stated) point above, it sounds as if you're implying that what you see as a weakness in Phaedrus's arguments is implying that he's F.

---

No. That's unwarranted, totally. That's where you're dead wrong and this "it sounds like" is bullshit. You seem to be saying that I think that "weak arguments = F". That's nonsense. It is the approach that I find indication of ethical type, not the "strength" of the argument.

For instance, personally, I think that tcaudilllg may not be validating with enough evidence his cross-type theory. So I think that his arguments for that theory are not "strong" enough. Does that mean that I think he's not a logical type, not an INTj? Obviously not.

Again, I really object to this interpretation of what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Actually, this thread is a great example of that. Slacker Mom is demonstrating something I've noticed about other ENFps on the forum, which is that they often seem to have better reasoning than the "T" people do. It may come from the fact that it's using the full axis rather than just relying on the ego block.

---

More often than not I agree with Slacker Mom's points, and I never suggested that that made her a logical type. That also goes for Rick, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

PS, by the way, I'll admit that I'm splitting hairs a bit, and that may be what ticks you off.

---

No, what ticks me off is your wrongful interpretation of my points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

If your point is that Phaedrus's enthusiastic embracing of lots of different systems that you may not feel should all be embraced could be construed as somewhat similar to patterns in some INFps, I would agree. Still, that's far from conclusive (and based on a subjective opinion about whether those systems are worthwhile)....and I hate to see it when I feel people are giving someone too hard a time. :)

---

Again, I avoid getting into "similar to representatives of a type" argument, except as illustration.

I also "embrace" other systems, as can be seen from my, perhaps also "enthusiastic" threads on Jung's types and the Enneagram.

The difference is, I (again, correctly or incorrectly) have made a critical analysis of the value of all that evidence.

For instance:

- that Jung's types do not correspond directly to Socionics types, and to assume that they do, so using Jung's concepts in Socionics, makes no sense, it's contradictory: if Jung's types are consistent and correct, Socionics's types are not.
- that the Enneagram types provide useful information but a few types, especially 5, do not correspond to any real person, stemming directly - and uncritically - from Jung's Introverted Thinking type.
- that it makes no sense to assume that Reinin dichotomies must necessarily fit all types perfectly, if we don't even know (unless someone does know) how Grigori Reinin himself validated those dichotomies (if he even did) with real people, and how he even typed those real people;
- that descriptions of individuals may be "empirical evidence", but descriptions of types are already, necessarily, filtered by the author's typing method (whichever that may be), and so are not really "empirical evidence" - they are "curves" in a graph, not "points".

I may be totally wrong in the specifics of the above - in fact, I would welcome a point-by-point refutation of the validity or correctness of the above. I have no problem with that. But to avoid looking at these problems, and say that all of those bits "must" somehow fit together, to me is an unwillingness to even use Ti or Te.

Now, for my own purposes, I use functional analysis according to model A ordering, quadras, temperaments, and relationships, which is why I say (for instance) that an INTp cannot have Fe>Fi preference. Is that a Ti decision? Yes. For the moment, that is the model I am assuming to be true - because I have seen enough Te evidence that it does work, to my own satisfaction, if the individuals are typed according to such criteria.

That is an illustration of confident use of Te and Ti - which, again, may turn out to be wrong. What is not a confident use of Ti and Te is simply to avoid looking at any evidence critically and say "all must fit together somehow".

In the case of experimental, hard science, of course you can't just dismiss experimental results that you don't like if they are reproducible. That would be nothing less than fraud. But when you're talking about something so blurred and subjective and inexact as distilled descriptions of many individuals (typed, again, who knows how), then the only way to get anywhere in this stuff is to be a bit critical - and be prepared to make mistakes on the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Now, for my own purposes, I use functional analysis according to model A ordering, quadras, temperaments, and relationships, which is why I say (for instance) that an INTp cannot have Fe>Fi preference.

---

Personally I'm not questioning that assumption. Even though smilingeyes had argumented that Model A is a sort of "weak link" in socionics and should be improved. I think he emphasized functions, temperaments and Quadras but was critical of the exacts of Model A. He may correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a long time.

Anyways I'm a bit worried that your interpretation of how e.g. Fe>Fi preference manifests at individual level is bit too limited. Even if your interpretation is completely correct and not a limited subset of all possible manifestations that still leaves me a bit suspicious of whether you can correctly perceive this preference in Internet forum (but the latter problem is something which can't be affected much). Now you can say that it is the only approach you can take. Which is more or less true. However your level of confidence in your arguments might be way too high considering all the uncertainties involved.

My current impression is that your criteria for different manifestations of theoretical socionics phenomena is correctly understood but limited (and not the whole truth). Thus when you type someone as "clearly Type X" that person is quite likely to be of "Type X". Your definite typings can be trusted quite a bit. But when you type someone as "Not likely Type X" you are more prone to make mistakes because you are dismissing people who don't fit into your (limited?) criteria.

My advice is to focus more on the now famous/infamous "creative" use of Te i.e. trying to type people and focus less on "destructive" use of Te i.e. trying to untype people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffweed17

a very interesting description of Ti polr.

feel free not to respond if you have no idea, but do you have any ideas on how this might differ from an SEEs thought process?

---

I don't mean to ignore you Niff but I honestly don't know what an Se-dominant person would want or feel. All I know is what I've read in descriptions but I'm sure you've read the same ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Personally I'm not questioning that assumption. Even though smilingeyes had argumented that Model A is a sort of "weak link" in socionics and should be improved. I think he emphasized functions, temperaments and Quadras but was critical of the exacts of Model A. He may correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a long time.

---

Since he's not participating, nor is he the ultimate word on Socionics (as I am not, either), that remains speculation. His main criticism of model A was its being static, as I understand it. Now, according to the "flexible type alongside temperament" interpretation, the issue of whether one is INTp or INFp becomes less important since the same individual can be - or behave - as both. Or either. Or neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Anyways I'm a bit worried that your interpretation of how e.g. Fe>Fi preference manifests at individual level is bit too limited. Even if your interpretation is completely correct and not a limited subset of all possible manifestations that still leaves me a bit suspicious of whether you can correctly perceive this preference in Internet forum (but the latter problem is something which can't be affected much).

---

In your particular case, unless you are deliberately, in nearly every post you write, totally faking a persona (in which cases all bets are off), the Fe>Fi preference is, again, so obvious it is painful and embarrassing. And that has been the case for a very, very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

My current impression is that your criteria for different manifestations of theoretical socionics phenomena is correctly understood but limited (and not the whole truth). Thus when you type someone as "clearly Type X" that person is quite likely to be of "Type X". Your definite typings can be trusted quite a bit. But when you type someone as "Not likely Type X" you are more prone to make mistakes because you are dismissing people who don't fit into your (limited?) criteria.

---

That makes no sense to me. Logically it is, indeed, nonsense.

I would say the precise opposite: if I say someone is "clearly type X", I may be wrong since perhaps the person is a "similar type to X". If I say, though, someone is "clearly not type X", then I am leaving the option open for 15 other types and just eliminating what I think is obviously not true.

Let us take Phaedrus as an example. Now there are discussions about INTp, INFp, INTj or even ISTj as types for him. But does anyone disagree that types such as ESFj or ESFp make no sense at all, whatsoever, for him? So it is quite safe to say that he is clearly "not an ESFj".

Take my own case. Some people may argue that I am ESTj. Would anyone argue that I am an ISFp? I don't think so. So it's perhaps even more valid to say that I am clearly not an ISFp than to say that I am an ENTj.

When you say this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Thus when you type someone as "clearly Type X" that person is quite likely to be of "Type X". Your definite typings can be trusted quite a bit.

---

To me that's just an indication of having Ti in super-id (as I think Kristiina would agree, for instance).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

My advice is to focus more on the now famous/infamous "creative" use of Te i.e. trying to type people and focus less on "destructive" use of Te i.e. trying to untype people.

---

Advice dismissed as meaningless.

Quote:

---

Now, on to Te.

Te people work more like this:

A makes me believe X.

B makes me believe X or Y.

C makes me believe X or Z.

D makes me believe Z

E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

---

To those who it may concern, this could well be read as a description of the Accepting Extrovert --> Creative Introvert process, and a very precise one at that. Introverts take a lot of viewpoints* and postulate from those a limited set of propositions (facts) allowed by said views. Extroverts do the opposite; the set of propositions is the basis, and the process of evaluation from overlooking said propositions results in a careful selection of limited viewpoints.

I'll leave in the middle wether this kind of thinking applies to creative Te types. The observation of a perceptive field does create a more lenient and mild form of evaluations than that of judgmental (reductive) fields, so I can see how a case can be made for it.

* (I like to think of 'fields' as 'visual fields' or 'mental representations')

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Anyways I'm a bit worried that your interpretation of how e.g. Fe>Fi preference manifests at individual level is bit too limited. Even if your interpretation is completely correct and not a limited subset of all possible manifestations that still leaves me a bit suspicious of whether you can correctly perceive this preference in Internet forum (but the latter problem is something which can't be affected much). Now you can say that it is the only approach you can take. Which is more or less true. However your level of confidence in your arguments might be way too high considering all the uncertainties involved.

---

Going back on this, since this may be an important general point.

I would not have such a high "level of certainty" on this if it was an isolated case. As you may recall, even over PM - a long time ago - I mentioned that I did not see Te in you, but Fe. And I'm not just stubbornly sticking to a original conclusion. That conclusion has been independently confirmed - in my judgement - so often, in so many examples of your posts - directly - and your own self-descriptions - that a point comes where I have to, yes, stop beating around the bush and say, yes, I am confident that you have Fe>Fi preference.

There are "uncertainties". There are always "uncertainties" in this stuff, whether online or IRL. Of course. But if I were to say, "there are still uncertainties as to XoX's Fe>Fi preference", then, to be true to myself, I would have to give up on trying to say anything about anyone, since your Fe>Fi preference is one of the most blatantly obvious characteristics here. If I were to be wishy-washy about that, then I might was well start being wishy-washy about anything at all I say here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Personally I'm not questioning that assumption. Even though smilingeyes had argumented that Model A is a sort of "weak link" in socionics and should be improved. I think he emphasized functions, temperaments and Quadras but was critical of the exacts of Model A. He may correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a long time.

---

Since he's not participating, nor is he the ultimate word on Socionics (as I am not, either), that remains speculation. His main criticism of model A was its being static, as I understand it. Now, according to the "flexible type alongside temperament" interpretation, the issue of whether one is INTp or INFp becomes less important since the same individual can be - or behave - as both. Or either. Or neither.

---

That was just a remark which crossed my mind. Not meant to be a real argument. Just a note.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Anyways I'm a bit worried that your interpretation of how e.g. Fe>Fi preference manifests at individual level is bit too limited. Even if your interpretation is completely correct and not a limited subset of all possible manifestations that still leaves me a bit suspicious of whether you can correctly perceive this preference in Internet forum (but the latter problem is something which can't be affected much).

---

In your particular case, unless you are deliberately, in nearly every post you write, totally faking a persona (in which cases all bets are off), the Fe>Fi preference is, again, so obvious it is painful and embarrassing. And that has been the case for a very, very long time.

---

I'm not faking a persona but I am often hiding some facets of my personality which I perhaps think it is not wise to show. Then occasionally I might "overshow" these facets I'm usually hiding (for whatever reason). So the view you get is a bit "polarized". Usually to over-emphasize my better qualities and occasionally to over-emphasize my worse qualities. Imho faking would be to show "facets" which are not really part of you at all but a complete act (as in acting a role on stage).

Another thing is that I have a tendency to sometimes get "behind" my arguments (intellectual or ethical) in a way which doesn't necessarily reflect my "true opinion" (whatever that means). I can do this just for the sake of argument and in real life situation which concerns serious matters and is not "just an argument" I could take the opposite stance. So you might get the impression that I'm 100% behind something (and make a character judgment based on this) when in reality I'm exploring whether that kind of argument can be made and if it can be made "water proof".

But I would think that in the long run you can see my true "unpolarized" persona if you don't get stuck into details but try to see the whole of my behavior and cut out the most extreme things I say or do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

My current impression is that your criteria for different manifestations of theoretical socionics phenomena is correctly understood but limited (and not the whole truth). Thus when you type someone as "clearly Type X" that person is quite likely to be of "Type X". Your definite typings can be trusted quite a bit. But when you type someone as "Not likely Type X" you are more prone to make mistakes because you are dismissing people who don't fit into your (limited?) criteria.

---

That makes no sense to me. Logically it is, indeed, nonsense.

I would say the precise opposite: if I say someone is "clearly type X", I may be wrong since perhaps the person is a "similar type to X". If I say, though, someone is "clearly not type X", then I am leaving the option open for 15 other types and just eliminating what I think is obviously not true.

Let us take Phaedrus as an example. Now there are discussions about INTp, INFp, INTj or even ISTj as types for him. But does anyone disagree that types such as ESFj or ESFp make no sense at all, whatsoever, for him? So it is quite safe to say that he is clearly "not an ESFj".

Take my own case. Some people may argue that I am ESTj. Would anyone argue that I am an ISFp? I don't think so. So it's perhaps even more valid to say that I am clearly not an ISFp than to say that I am an ENTj.

---

I try to use an example to show what I mean to see if we understand each other here or not. This painfully reminds me of the past discussions. So far I think my logic is solid but I will explain it through an example to see whether you can find holes in that example. It would be easier to see whether you just don't understand my point or if my point is indeed faulty.

Let's say you have these kind of criteria for types:

Type1 criteria:
has to have a, b
cannot have c, d

Type2 criteria:
has to have c, d
cannot have a, b

Candidate 1:
a, b

Candidate 2:
a,b,c

Candidate 3:
b,c,d

Candidate 4:
c, d

Conclusions reached when over-focusing on the "NOTs":
Candidate 1 fits exactly Type1 and cannot be Type2
Candidate 2 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
Candidate 3 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
Candidate 4 fits exactly Type2 and cannot be Type1

Now in reality (in this example) Candidate 2 is indeed of Type 1 and Candidate 3 is of Type 2. They just have some individual variation. My claim was that in these situations you sometimes seem to over-focus on the NOT parts or CANNOT HAVE parts to dismiss a possibility too quickly. This is what I call "destructive" use of Te. "Constructive" use of Te would be to focus on the YESs more than the NOTs. In theory focus on YESs and NOTs should be balanced (balancing the constructive and destructive use of logic) but for subjective reasons I tend to think it is, in practice, a bigger mistake to focus on the NOTs too much. I might me wrong in this and symmetric approach is the best in the end. In any case focusing overly on the NOTs is a bad approach imho.

So my claim was that you might have a tendency to do this. E.g. if someone has more INTp than INFp qualities but they also have some qualities which you claim CANNOT be an INTp qualities you dismiss the "positive evidence" and stick to the NOTs to reach the final conclusion thus taking a "destructive" approach instead of constructive or balanced approach. You might disagree about this of course seeing your approach as balanced or just disagreeing that the over-focus on NOTs is a bad approach at all.

But well in this example "you" were right in all typings which fit well into your criteria and wrong in cases where there was some variation from the model and you sticked too heavily in the NOT opinions over the YES opinions. I say "you" because I claim that you do this. That is debatable of course. However this is why I tend to currently trust your positive typings more than your negative typings. How is this illogical? You made me suspect there is a flaw there but I still cannot see it and thus stick to it being logical. The main problem here I see is the possibility of your approach being indeed balanced and not overly focused on NOTs. But in my personal case it somehow seems the NOTs dominate the scene.

Anyways, I'm not here bringing up any particular cases nor do I wish to get back to my or anyone else's specific cases nor do I claim your opinion on me is necessarily faulty but I'm just trying to clear up my message in this thread. I'm curious whether you can see my point here and criticize it in the way which I agree to be useful criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

My advice is to focus more on the now famous/infamous "creative" use of Te i.e. trying to type people and focus less on "destructive" use of Te i.e. trying to untype people.

---

Advice dismissed as meaningless.

---

It wasn't hard to predict your answer but I have a tendency to "be patronizing" even when I suspect it is not going to work :) I wonder what socionics explanation there is to that. Perhaps I just want to prove my model of your behavior correct or something.

About XoX's Fe>Fi or Fi>Fe preference, what can we conclude from his possible identification with one of the two types of behaviour that Rick describes in his blog under the headline "Extraverted and introverted ethics at the group level"?

http://www.socionics.us/blog/12_06.shtml

We might have the same problem here as we have when we discuss the differences been accepting :Ti: and creating :Te: , because Rick tends to think of the functions as static phenomena. So, I'm not sure of the reliability of such a "test", but I certainly identify much more with what Rick describes as :Fi: on the group level than with he describes as :Fe: on the group level. My behaviour in real life is clearly on the :Fi: side here.

XoX, what do say about Rick's description (which I think is a probably a very good one)? And Expat, what would you say if XoX would say that he behaves and identifies with :Fi: here? If he says that he clearly and strongly identifies with :Fe: on the group level, I will see that as most likely a refutation of the INTp hypothesis -- given the assumption that such a "test" is reliable despite the possible pitfalls I mentioned above, and unless we have missed something very important or XoX has misunderstood what is said in Rick's description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Let's say you have these kind of criteria for types:

Type1 criteria:
has to have a, b
cannot have c, d

Type2 criteria:
has to have c, d
cannot have a, b

Candidate 1:
a, b

Candidate 2:
a,b,c

Candidate 3:
b,c,d

Candidate 4:
c, d

Conclusions reached when over-focusing on the "NOTs":
Candidate 1 fits exactly Type1 and cannot be Type2
Candidate 2 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
Candidate 3 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
Candidate 4 fits exactly Type2 and cannot be Type1

---

You missed some "NOTs" :P

If told that a person can only be a, b but not c, d (or vice versa)
and a person shows up that is a, b, c; or b, c, d or a, d; or b, c (or any other mix of the letters other than the theory allows for)
then it's possible that someone's understanding of what constitutes a, b, c, or d does NOT reflect the theory
and/or it's possible that the theory is NOT sufficiently representing reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Let's say you have these kind of criteria for types:

Type1 criteria:
has to have a, b
cannot have c, d

Type2 criteria:
has to have c, d
cannot have a, b

Candidate 1:
a, b

Candidate 2:
a,b,c

Candidate 3:
b,c,d

Candidate 4:
c, d

Conclusions reached when over-focusing on the "NOTs":
Candidate 1 fits exactly Type1 and cannot be Type2
Candidate 2 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
Candidate 3 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
Candidate 4 fits exactly Type2 and cannot be Type1

---

You missed some "NOTs" :P

If told that a person can only be a, b but not c, d (or vice versa)
and a person shows up that is a, b, c; or b, c, d or a, d; or b, c (or any other mix of the letters other than the theory allows for)
then it's possible that someone's understanding of what constitutes a, b, c, or d does NOT reflect the theory
and/or it's possible that the theory is NOT sufficiently representing reality.

---

:Ne: has a habbit of over-complicating simple things :P Like my perfect example :o Actually I thought this was the "Expat"-thread where this discussion would fit better. It is a bit out of context here. I had both threads open but failed to realize which thread I was writing in :? It doesn't really bother me but I'm sure it bothers some people as lately there have been a movement to make threads more "context-aware". I'm not sure if it is a crime to go on about this here or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

And Expat, what would you say if XoX would say that he behaves and identifies with :Fi: here? If he says that he clearly and strongly identifies with :Fe: on the group level, I will see that as most likely a refutation of the INTp hypothesis -- given the assumption that such a "test" is reliable despite the possible pitfalls I mentioned above, and unless we have missed something very important or XoX has misunderstood what is said in Rick's description.

---

What I would say would depend on precisely what XoX says and how he explains it. Just to say, "yeah, I identify more with the :Fi: bit" won't do.

The first post kinda makes sense to me. Sometimes I'm surprised how INTp can just reach conclusions. He sits still one moment and just says, "If there's A, then X is most probably true." I'm all confused, because I'm still trying to link A to B,C. And when I reach D, I'm all confused and I give up. I can even say that A->X would make sense, but I can't prove it, so I'll ignore the feeling that it could be true.

mikemex, good post. It sounds logical that ISTjs tend to discard possibilities that I haven't experienced ("the data doesn't show it, so it why are we even talking about it?") and the INTjs trust the theoretical models too much ("I still haven't proven my theory, so I must find a way to improve my methods"). In some ways I've noticed both (LII and LSI) tendencies among real-life scientists. In science, I think LII method is more likely to bring fame and fortune.

msk, lol, my ENFp&ISTp friends also tell me they hate it when I fit things into boxes and they think it doesn't work like that. I always thougt it was Fe in my case. Lol, I guess there is a point to linking Fe with Ti. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

So you might get the impression that I'm 100% behind something (and make a character judgment based on this) when in reality I'm exploring whether that kind of argument can be made and if it can be made "water proof".

---

A disclaimer like "now I don't really think that, but let's just assume for the moment" made before you have to back off in an argument, rather than afterwards, would be more useful/convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

But I would think that in the long run you can see my true "unpolarized" persona if you don't get stuck into details but try to see the whole of my behavior and cut out the most extreme things I say or do.

---

Why should I - or anyone else - do that? The "most extremes things you say or do" have also been said, and done, by yourself - none other. A murderer is perhaps also a nice person if you "cut out the most extreme things he says and does". Life gets very easy then, doesn't it? Just "cut out the most extreme things I say and do".

You have to "cut out the most extreme things you say and do", if you don't want to be evaluated (also) according to them. Not I or anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

I try to use an example to show what I mean to see if we understand each other here or not. This painfully reminds me of the past discussions. So far I think my logic is solid but I will explain it through an example to see whether you can find holes in that example. It would be easier to see whether you just don't understand my point or if my point is indeed faulty.

---

That is not an example, is an attempt to avoid the real concrete arguments by going for a generalized model that, instead of clarifying the issues, obscures them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Let's say you have these kind of criteria for types:

Type1 criteria:
has to have a, b
cannot have c, d

Type2 criteria:
has to have c, d
cannot have a, b

Candidate 1:
a, b

Candidate 2:
a,b,c

Candidate 3:
b,c,d

Candidate 4:
c, d

Conclusions reached when over-focusing on the "NOTs":
Candidate 1 fits exactly Type1 and cannot be Type2
Candidate 2 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
Candidate 3 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
Candidate 4 fits exactly Type2 and cannot be Type1

Now in reality (in this example) Candidate 2 is indeed of Type 1 and Candidate 3 is of Type 2. They just have some individual variation. My claim was that in these situations you sometimes seem to over-focus on the NOT parts or CANNOT HAVE parts to dismiss a possibility too quickly. This is what I call "destructive" use of Te. "Constructive" use of Te would be to focus on the YESs more than the NOTs. In theory focus on YESs and NOTs should be balanced (balancing the constructive and destructive use of logic) but for subjective reasons I tend to think it is, in practice, a bigger mistake to focus on the NOTs too much. I might me wrong in this and symmetric approach is the best in the end. In any case focusing overly on the NOTs is a bad approach imho.

---

The problem with this whole - rather pointless - exercise of yours is that you avoid the real issue, that is, looking precisely on what "a, b, c, d" really are. By doing that, you are giving them, or saying they should have, exactly the same weight.

What does it matter if a, b and c are secondary traits pointing towards type1, if d most clearly goes against the very essence of what type1 is about? That is the issue here, which this exercise confuses rather than clarifies.

In the specific discussion, what really matters is if an INTp can really have such a clear Fe>Fi preference, and whether that is overruled by things like identifying that that James description. That is the issue. To call them "a, b, c" etc does not clarify anything.

What you're doing, XoX, is essentially the same thing, saying "come on, guys, give me a break :) just cut out the 'most extreme things I say and do', and please look into what does make me an INTp, rather than at what does not make me an INTp".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

So my claim was that you might have a tendency to do this. E.g. if someone has more INTp than INFp qualities but they also have some qualities which you claim CANNOT be an INTp qualities you dismiss the "positive evidence" and stick to the NOTs to reach the final conclusion thus taking a "destructive" approach instead of constructive or balanced approach. You might disagree about this of course seeing your approach as balanced or just disagreeing that the over-focus on NOTs is a bad approach at all.

---

My "tendency" is to give each evidence the weight that it deserves, in my judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

But well in this example "you" were right in all typings which fit well into your criteria and wrong in cases where there was some variation from the model and you sticked too heavily in the NOT opinions over the YES opinions. I say "you" because I claim that you do this. That is debatable of course. However this is why I tend to currently trust your positive typings more than your negative typings. How is this illogical? You made me suspect there is a flaw there but I still cannot see it and thus stick to it being logical. The main problem here I see is the possibility of your approach being indeed balanced and not overly focused on NOTs. But in my personal case it somehow seems the NOTs dominate the scene.

---

That's because in your case there is one huge NOT and some small yes yes yes.

All this post of yours has been about trying to give equal weight to evidence that has different weights. I disagree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Anyways, I'm not here bringing up any particular cases nor do I wish to get back to my or anyone else's specific cases

---

1) Each case has its nuances, that is why that story of a, b, c does not clarify anything
2) Would you really have made this point if it wasn't about your own case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

nor do I claim your opinion on me is necessarily faulty but I'm just trying to clear up my message in this thread. I'm curious whether you can see my point here and criticize it in the way which I agree to be useful criticism.

---

Since I totally disagree with the very premises on which you bases your -- message, I guess you won't see it as "useful" criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

It wasn't hard to predict your answer but I have a tendency to "be patronizing" even when I suspect it is not going to work :) I wonder what socionics explanation there is to that. Perhaps I just want to prove my model of your behavior correct or something.

---

Yes, people who are consistent in their behavior and reasonings are, by definittion, more "predictable" than people who say they did not really mean what they said and ask for their more "extreme" words and actions to be discounted, and say that they themselves do not know whether they really mean something or not.

So I'm glad to be "predictable".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

And Expat, what would you say if XoX would say that he behaves and identifies with :Fi: here? If he says that he clearly and strongly identifies with :Fe: on the group level, I will see that as most likely a refutation of the INTp hypothesis -- given the assumption that such a "test" is reliable despite the possible pitfalls I mentioned above, and unless we have missed something very important or XoX has misunderstood what is said in Rick's description.

---

What I would say would depend on precisely what XoX says and how he explains it. Just to say, "yeah, I identify more with the :Fi: bit" won't do.

---

I agree. That won't do.

XoX, try to focus on this problem now, please! :) You can return to the other problems later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

A disclaimer like "now I don't really think that, but let's just assume for the moment" made before you have to back off in an argument, rather than afterwards, would be more useful/convincing.

---

It is more like "I'm not sure which way I REALLY think but I will construct argument to see what comes out of it and choose my "side" later after the argument is fully matured and I can see all the aspects involved". Anyways words do not equal _real_ actions imho. Sometimes words are used to carry out an action though but sometimes they are just used to explore ideas. It is e.g. a different thing to construct an argument of why genders should not be equal just to explore and entertain that thought than to actually discriminate against the other gender in real world actions involving money and life issues. If you use words to consciously manipulate people into doing actions then they do become actions but if you just "explore" an idea then they are not actions in the real sense. Putting up disclaimers seems weird :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

But I would think that in the long run you can see my true "unpolarized" persona if you don't get stuck into details but try to see the whole of my behavior and cut out the most extreme things I say or do.

---

Why should I - or anyone else - do that? The "most extremes things you say or do" have also been said, and done, by yourself - none other. A murderer is perhaps also a nice person if you "cut out the most extreme things he says and does". Life gets very easy then, doesn't it? Just "cut out the most extreme things I say and do".

You have to "cut out the most extreme things you say and do", if you don't want to be evaluated (also) according to them. Not I or anyone else.

---

Why? In order to come to right conclusions about my personality of course :) I do that all the time. Try to see through someone's words or even external "act" if such exists beyond words to perceive the real essence of that person. Of course you don't have to do that but then you might attribute things to me which do not describe me all that well in the end. Anyways I often find exact words to be misleading and sticking to them too much can cause misunderstandings.

Another point...I found it "funny" how you leaped from extremely promoting team spirit on an internet forum to being compared to extreme behavior of a murderer, "lol". I guess the "extreme" there is the common factor but other than that your analogy is a bit...weird :) To throw something back...I would think someone who is overtly rational, seemingly lacks empathy, easily judges people and executes those judgments in practice, and seriously lacks team spirit is closer to what I think a potential "murderer" is like. At least if we talk about planned murders not something done in "heat of emotion" (but around here murder is something which has to be planned, rationalized and "coldly" executed otherwise it is "just" killing and the penalty is considerably less severe. But this trivia does not relate to the discussion :)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

I try to use an example to show what I mean to see if we understand each other here or not. This painfully reminds me of the past discussions. So far I think my logic is solid but I will explain it through an example to see whether you can find holes in that example. It would be easier to see whether you just don't understand my point or if my point is indeed faulty.

---

That is not an example, is an attempt to avoid the real concrete arguments by going for a generalized model that, instead of clarifying the issues, obscures them.

---

It is an example...a generalized example based on my impression. It is also a bit speculative as I try to explore whether it is true or not. Whether it ends up obscuring issues is another thing but the point is to try to clarify them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

The problem with this whole - rather pointless - exercise of yours is that you avoid the real issue, that is, looking precisely on what "a, b, c, d" really are. By doing that, you are giving them, or saying they should have, exactly the same weight.

What does it matter if a, b and c are secondary traits pointing towards type1, if d most clearly goes against the very essence of what type1 is about? That is the issue here, which this exercise confuses rather than clarifies.

In the specific discussion, what really matters is if an INTp can really have such a clear Fe>Fi preference, and whether that is overruled by things like identifying that that James description. That is the issue. To call them "a, b, c" etc does not clarify anything.

What you're doing, XoX, is essentially the same thing, saying "come on, guys, give me a break :) just cut out the 'most extreme things I say and do', and please look into what does make me an INTp, rather than at what does not make me an INTp".

---

The problem with generalized models is of course that you can't show all relevant details there. What you are complaining about is the exactly same thing I complained about to Slacker Mom in the thread where she explained Te. In her case as in this case the thing is that the model doesn't try to focus on those points but to show the general pattern. So the assumption behind the model is of course that all the "facts" are of equal importance. If they are not (as perhaps in my specific case) then that is a variation of the example model. As I said this was not directly tied to my or other's specific cases.

About the Fe>Fi preference. I'm still not convinced. It would be interesting to see what exactly is the data what makes me Fe>Fi. You say it is all over but most things you point out are from some theoretical arguments where I think my meaning and persona was misinterpreted. I know many other people say that too so there could be something to that. Especially if there is such a huge difference between leading and creative Fe. My impression has historically been that I am kind of weak in both to the point that comparing them against each other doesn't necessarily bring meaningful results. I might be mistaken here. Then there was the fact of me wanting Fe from others. That is an interesting claim but so far I fail to see how this is necessarily true either. Historically I have been in the "belief" that I'm more into Fi-side and my circle of friends is (apparently) dominantly from Fi-Quadras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

All this post of yours has been about trying to give equal weight to evidence that has different weights. I disagree with that.

---

More like my weights differ from your weights. It is not about equal weights. E.g. I currently give little weight to the team spirit discussion or the win/lose discussion and more weight to some other things. You do the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Anyways, I'm not here bringing up any particular cases nor do I wish to get back to my or anyone else's specific cases

---

1) Each case has its nuances, that is why that story of a, b, c does not clarify anything
2) Would you really have made this point if it wasn't about your own case?

---

The "interest" to do so was inspired by my case (as I'm trying to figure what is the core problem or if there is any). The example wasn't really about my case. I might have gotten the inspiration from some other case too so I might have made this point even if it wasn't about my own case. I have made "patronizing" points before in situations which do not directly concern me and received some "heat" because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

nor do I claim your opinion on me is necessarily faulty but I'm just trying to clear up my message in this thread. I'm curious whether you can see my point here and criticize it in the way which I agree to be useful criticism.

---

Since I totally disagree with the very premises on which you bases your -- message, I guess you won't see it as "useful" criticism.

---

Heh. Yes. It is useful in the sense that it enforces your "disagreement" which means something. It is useless in the sense that it didn't "solve" any of the questions it was meant to solve. You just disagreed about the usefullness of the whole approach which of course doesn't help me much :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Yes, people who are consistent in their behavior and reasonings are, by definittion, more "predictable" than people who say they did not really mean what they said and ask for their more "extreme" words and actions to be discounted, and say that they themselves do not know whether they really mean something or not.

So I'm glad to be "predictable".

---

I did not ask for extreme actions to be discounted only (extreme) words said in a context where they don't necessarily "map" into actions but are used to enforce a theoretical argument by making things black and white (for the sake of argument). Or something like that. I tried to explain earlier why words and actions are not equal to me (except in some cases). I am way more consistent in "real" actions (even though perhaps not completely consistent there either, I don't know). Real action means something which has objectively measurable results.

This all said I haven't made up my mind about my type. The above rebuttals and refusals and all does not imply that I e.g. have a clear stance of Fi>Fe. I just am not convinced about Fe>Fi yet. I probably need more real life interaction with clear Fe-types to know for sure. At least you are making me greatly suspicious about my self perception of Fi>Fe if that makes you happy (it doesn't but that was just a...way to end this post).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

And Expat, what would you say if XoX would say that he behaves and identifies with :Fi: here? If he says that he clearly and strongly identifies with :Fe: on the group level, I will see that as most likely a refutation of the INTp hypothesis -- given the assumption that such a "test" is reliable despite the possible pitfalls I mentioned above, and unless we have missed something very important or XoX has misunderstood what is said in Rick's description.

---

What I would say would depend on precisely what XoX says and how he explains it. Just to say, "yeah, I identify more with the :Fi: bit" won't do.

---

I agree. That won't do.

XoX, try to focus on this problem now, please! :) You can return to the other problems later.

---

Sigh. What is the exact problem we are tying to focus on atm? :) Fe vs Fi and how to reliably know whether someone prefers one over the other? I don't know the answer currently but I suspect team spirit (as I meant it) has little or at least less to do with it than claimed.

Then there was the win-thing being Fe/Ti concept. I'm not convinced about that either. It seems these might be more about personal preferences than about socionics concepts.

Whatever the case, I'm a bit confused :)

It's interesting that this thread started as being about Te vs. Ti, and now we're on Fi vs. Fe. It seems this isn't a mere digression though, as they're integrally related.

In my view, the speech and writing of a Ti/Fe person tends to create sub-structures where each unit seeks to directly invoke a response from the listener. Ti is used as the technique by which the thoughts are coherent, and by which content is conveyed to the listener. The speaker describes what he/she thinks, and seeks to write something that will be accepted favorably the by the listener. (See Kristiina's post above)

In contrast, the speech and writing of a Te/Fi person creates sub-structures where the units attempt to build up some sort of larger argument or understanding. Fi provides the impression that (in the speaker's mind) what's being talked about is worth talking about. The relationship-building with the listener is suspended, as it assumed that there should be certain shared values (we "should" seek truth, and so forth), and the attention is drawn to discussing or critiquing the structure of what was said as if it a method for getting somewhere. (See Expat's posts above)

@XoX

1) My "murderer" example was an exaggeration to make the point, a common rhetorical trick. I think it should be clear that I do not think, nor did I mean or imply, that you were at any risk of becoming a murderer. If that was not clear, I state so clearly now. Therefore, your mention on that respect regarding myself, suggesting indeed that someone with what you perceive as my character, could be a murderer, is unwarranted, although understandable, so that's ok by me.

2) Empathy: according to my understanding of "empathy", which is the dictionary definition, it is you who lacks it, not I. And that is precisely why you have such a hard time even understanding what the Fe>Fi issue is about - even in order to disagree with it.

3) You and Phaedrus enjoy droning on the "team spirit" thing and the "win or lose" thing as if those were the only arguments for Fe>Fi. That's a strawman argument. Your Fe>Fi preference pops in almost everything you say, and I have said so over PM many times, months ago already. Your assumptions on the "why even have internet long-distance relationships" are another example of that. So, for the umpteenth time, to insist on the bloody "win or lose" or "team spirit" things just shows that you haven't got it.

You know, this conversation is actually kind of interesting because Filatova thinks Beethoven is INTp, but Rick made a good case for ENFj, and I can definitely see Beethoven as ENFj. The thing is that whereas Stravinsky and Shostakovitch definitely have this Te "hardness" like someone "choosing evidence" the way Expat talks about it, Beethoven often seems to suggest more of a "Ti projected onto Fe" argument. (Ironically, Filatova thinks Shostakovitch is INTj).

Anyhow, this makes me wonder whether it has something to do with information cycles along the supervisory route. In other words, perhaps an INTp Ni subtype actually has Fe as a "precursor" to Ni, so that rather than this: Te > Ni > Te, it looks more like this: Fe -> Ni -> Te. ...whereas the Te subtype may have Ni -> Te -> Si, and thus be more adept at implementation, taking on a Delta aspect. The idea that subtypes may blur the boundaries of quadras a little has been suggested before. What I'm considering now is that it has something to do with a "supervisory information cycle"...so that the Ni subtype of INTp is in some ways more like ENFj than INFp.

@Expat...by the way, sorry about my misunderstanding your point about "confidence" not "ability"; perhaps I misunderstood in part because Phaedrus's tendency to question whether Socionics is even right, to stand against many people who disagree with him, and to say things challenging whether the functions matter all seems (to me) to indicate a lot of confidence in challenging systems and evidence (whether it's correct or not being irrelevant).

Also, could you show us some examples of Fe in XoX, Phaedrus, (and me? :)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

1) My "murderer" example was an exaggeration to make the point, a common rhetorical trick. I think it should be clear that I do not think, nor did I mean or imply, that you were at any risk of becoming a murderer. If that was not clear, I state so clearly now. Therefore, your mention on that respect regarding myself, suggesting indeed that someone with what you perceive as my character, could be a murderer, is unwarranted, although understandable, so that's ok by me.

---

If I had mentioned that kind of analogy I'm sure you would have said something :) You have always commented about my exaggerated analogies. I don't think the analogy really was describing well the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

2) Empathy: according to my understanding of "empathy", which is the dictionary definition, it is you who lacks it, not I. And that is precisely why you have such a hard time even understanding what the Fe>Fi issue is about - even in order to disagree with it.

---

I don't know about the understanding Fe>Fi thing but you might have more empathy than I do. Hard to compare. Anyways I don't think you are a master of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

3) You and Phaedrus enjoy droning on the "team spirit" thing and the "win or lose" thing as if those were the only arguments for Fe>Fi. That's a strawman argument. Your Fe>Fi preference pops in almost everything you say, and I have said so over PM many times, months ago already. Your assumptions on the "why even have internet long-distance relationships" are another example of that. So, for the umpteenth time, to insist on the bloody "win or lose" or "team spirit" things just shows that you haven't got it.

---

First of all I have had long distance internet and other kind of such relationships in the past. I think my main problem with them is that especially in my current life situation they can't go anywhere really. They become stagnant at some point so it makes you think what is the point to even start one. Also they take up a lot of time and effort to manage. I am very bad at managing relationships even in real life. I need to be constantly kicked in the arse to be focused on people. I might like those kind of relationships if someone else is willing to put up the effort to keep them up and be ready to take long periods of me not concentrating on them. Secondly your logic would make FDG a Fi>Fe type as he seems to promote them like you do.

Taking this one step further, if Expat is a Te subtype, then my model would predict Si > Te > Ni, which would explain his heavy emphasis on limiting what kind of evidence may be considered (i.e., distrusting "fuzzy" Ni stuff), whereas an ENTj Ni subtype would be Te > Ni > Fe, and would enthusiastically sell people on Te-related agendas that nevertheless would seem to some like sandcastles built in the air.

XoX, please comment on Rick's"Extraverted and introverted ethics on the group level".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

XoX, please comment on Rick's"Extraverted and introverted ethics on the group level".

---

I started a new thread about it.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=198952#198952

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

@Expat...by the way, sorry about my misunderstanding your point about "confidence" not "ability"; perhaps I misunderstood in part because Phaedrus's tendency to question whether Socionics is even right, to stand against many people who disagree with him, and to say things challenging whether the functions matter all seems (to me) to indicate a lot of confidence in challenging systems and evidence (whether it's correct or not being irrelevant).

---

To use an example everyone is tired of, ****** is most often typed as ENFj by the mainstream Socionics crowd - an ethical type. Yet he did "stand against many people who disagreed with him". The same applies to other ethical leaders persuaded of their "vision".

So, being persuaded of their ideas is not enough to make one a logical type.

It is when attempting to be scientific, which Phaedrus thinks he is but he isn't, that the lack of confidence in evaluating critically the evidence becomes clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Also, could you show us some examples of Fe in XoX, Phaedrus, (and me? :)).

---

With regard to XoX's case, I can't be bothered. Any skimming of my posts in XoX's threads shows very clearly what I mean, not only in his type thread but that's where it was most clear. If you have read what I have said in that regard but still haven't got it, then I think that explaining it all over again would just be a huge waste of time.

With regard to your case, I don't recall clear-cut examples that would clearly indicate the Fe>Fi preference. I see glimpses here and there, but that's not enough imo.

In Phaedrus's case I'd say that things taking discussions to the Fe realm, as in (paraphrasing from memory):

"look at your emotional state"
"everyone is hunting me"
"it is so difficult for anyone to be accepted as INTp here"

Etc etc.

These are all Fe-realm arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Taking this one step further, if Expat is a Te subtype, then my model would predict Si > Te > Ni, which would explain his heavy emphasis on limiting what kind of evidence may be considered (i.e., distrusting "fuzzy" Ni stuff), whereas an ENTj Ni subtype would be Te > Ni > Fe, and would enthusiastically sell people on Te-related agendas that nevertheless would seem to some like sandcastles built in the air.

---

Why should a Te subtype have Si>Te>Ni?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

In Phaedrus's case I'd say that things taking discussions to the Fe realm, as in (paraphrasing from memory):

"look at your emotional state"
"everyone is hunting me"
"it is so difficult for anyone to be accepted as INTp here"

Etc etc.

These are all Fe-realm arguments.

---

No. They are not Fe-realm arguments in themselves. They belong to the Fe-realm if, and only if, they are the result of using the :Fe: function. In my case they are not. And neither they are that in XoX's case, at least not most of the time. That you insist on interpreting the information elements in this superficial, shallow way shows very clearly that you haven't understood what they are about. You totally dismiss the meaning dimension in language uses.

So what function do you think you were using, and what was the "non-shallow meaning", in these?

"everyone is hunting me"
"it is so difficult for anyone to be accepted as INTp here"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

So what function do you think you were using, and what was the "non-shallow meaning", in these?

"everyone is hunting me"
"it is so difficult for anyone to be accepted as INTp here"

---

I observe a pattern, which I try to describe. I am not trying to influence people emotionally by saying those things. I analyze the pattern from a distant position. I am an observer of a somewhat (but not very) fascinating phenomenon. And in doing that I am not even analyzing the pattern very much, I just recognize its existence. What does that have to do with the :Fe: function?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

I observe a pattern, which I try to describe. I am not trying to influence people emotionally by saying those things. I analyze the pattern from a distant position. I am an observer of a somewhat (but not very) fascinating phenomenon. And in doing that I am not even analyzing the pattern very much, I just recognize its existence. What does that have to do with the :Fe: function?

---

Your answer above, especially the highlighted bit, suggests that you see :Fe: as mainly, or only, about "influencing people emotionally". Would also say that :Te: is mainly, or only, about "influencing the external logic?" That would be equally wrong.

:Te: is about making sure that the external world makes sense logically, from your point of view. That is why :Te: is not only about influencing the external logic, but also about collecting data. Especially in the case of cre-Te, Te will be even more about collecting logical information rather than doing anything about it.

:Fe: is about making sure that the external world makes sense emotionally. Both :Fe: and :Te: are externally-oriented rational functions.

So, even from the point of view of "influencing people emotionally", before you do that you have, yes, to "recognize the pattern" in people's external emotional expressions and how they supposedly relate to you emotionally.

Therefore, the examples above are, yes, focusing on :Fe: .

Now, those isolated examples, in themselves, say little about your type because everyone uses all functions; I was answering Jonathan's question.

In this particular case:

"it is so difficult for anyone to be accepted as INTp here"

This is simply, verifiably, factually incorrect: others have been "accepted" as INTp easier than you have, so it's a perfect example of focusing on :Fe: : what you see as people's "bias" against you ("bias" being a typical :Fe: term) rather than on facts :Te: : the fact that others have been more "easily accepted as INTp" than you.

Still on this --

Just like cre-Te in INTps will generally be more about collecting data than actually doing something about it, cre-Fe in INFps will be more about being aware of people's emotional states than actually doing something abouit.

And that is precisely what I described in my Ni "boat on the river" metaphor. Both the INTp and the INFp are sitting up there, not doing much, absorbing information that tells them that the trip is proceeding as a flow agreeable to them.

(a)The information that the INTp focuses on is Te-related: are there obstacles? Will there be fuel? Etc

(b) The information that the INFp focuses on is Fe-related: are the people down there on the deck "on board"? Wil they mutiny? Are they cooperative? Etc

And what you did, in the examples above, was very obviously like (b) rather than (a).

And please don't argue with "INTps can also act as (a)" etc. I am explaining why those reactions of yours were INFp-like rather than INTp-like. On their own, they do not "prove" that you are INFp, although this is my view.

If you can argue why what I have outlined is incorrect, and why that isn't Fe, fine, but I can't be bothered with the "I act like this and I am INTp therefore you are wrong" line of argumentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

:Te: is about making sure that the external world makes sense logically, from your point of view. That is why :Te: is not only about influencing the external logic, but also about collecting data. Especially in the case of cre-Te, Te will be even more about collecting logical information rather than doing anything about it.

---

We agree on that. And I use cre-Te a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

:Fe: is about making sure that the external world makes sense emotionally. Both :Fe: and :Te: are externally-oriented rational functions.

---

We agree on that too. I may use :Fe: sometimes, but not more than 10 % of the time I use :Te: , probably less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

So, even from the point of view of "influencing people emotionally", before you do that you have, yes, to "recognize the pattern" in people's external emotional expressions and how they supposedly relate to you emotionally.

Therefore, the examples above are, yes, focusing on :Fe: .

---

Do you mean that whenever I try to make sense of something that has to do with people or emotions, I automatically use :Fe: ? Is it impossible to use :Te: for that purpose? What if I try to make sense of people's emotions and behaviours logically in a scientific framework, for example Socionics or some other theory about human relations? Do I use :Fe: then too? Why not :Te: ? How can you tell the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Just like cre-Te in INTps will generally be more about collecting data than actually doing something about it, cre-Fe in INFps will be more about being aware of people's emotional states than actually doing something abouit.

---

I am very seldom aware of people's emotional states. There is maybe a 50 % chance that I have at least a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome. Probably because the issue has come up in some threads and I have mentioned the possibility, some people (like FDG) seem to have focused most of their energy on stating that as an obvious fact. Well, it isn't an obvious fact, but it is obvious to me, and probably to them too, that one likely reason why I come across as "aggressive", "impolite" etc. in their eyes is that I use very little :Fe: in my posts, I express very little emotion. I don't use smileys much, and rather often my answers may sound "computer"-like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

(a)The information that the INTp focuses on is Te-related: are there obstacles? Will there be fuel? Etc

(b) The information that the INFp focuses on is Fe-related: are the people down there on the deck "on board"? Wil they mutiny? Are they cooperative? Etc

And what you did, in the examples above, was very obviously like (b) rather than (a).

---

If so, that is a mere coincidence. That is not a general pattern in my posts. And it is certainly not a general pattern in my overall behaviour in real life situations. I am clearly on the Te side here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

And please don't argue with "INTps can also act as (a)" etc. I am explaining why those reactions of yours were INFp-like rather than INTp-like. On their own, they do not "prove" that you are INFp, although this is my view.

---

I know for a fact that I am an INTp, so if you believe that I am an INFp, your view is incorrect. If you looked at all my posts, that would most likely be obvious to you too.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

I know for a fact that I am an INTp, so if you believe that I am an INFp, your view is incorrect. If you looked at all my posts, that would most likely be obvious to you too.

---

Why does it matter whether or not people agree with you? It seems to me that the vast majority of your time here is spent trying to convince everyone that you're INTp. Being "accepted" as an INTp seems to be somewhat of a hang-up of yours. Why?

---

*high fives diana*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

I know for a fact that I am an INTp, so if you believe that I am an INFp, your view is incorrect. If you looked at all my posts, that would most likely be obvious to you too.

---

Why does it matter whether or not people agree with you? It seems to me that the vast majority of your time here is spent trying to convince everyone that you're INTp. Being "accepted" as an INTp seems to be somewhat of a hang-up of yours. Why?

---

exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

(a)The information that the INTp focuses on is Te-related: are there obstacles? Will there be fuel? Etc

(b) The information that the INFp focuses on is Fe-related: are the people down there on the deck "on board"? Wil they mutiny? Are they cooperative? Etc

---

I think this is a really good characterization of typical Gamma N vs. Beta N concerns.

Where things get tricky is perhaps that while in the classic theory, these should be far apart (e.g., one is either Te/Fi or Fe/Ti focused), there may be individuals that blur the line a bit....for example, a professional in the psychology field who appears to use Te methods, but is also clearly interested in what appear to be Fe questions (what causes people to mutiny? what factors lead to cooperation? what policy decisions will tend to lead to fewer personnel problems, etc.). For these individuals, it can become harder to type them. If you accept Tcaud's "dual-type theory," (sorry Tcaud, I have to mention your name, otherwise it wouldn't be clear what I'm referring to), then perhaps you might say these people are INTp-INFp, or something like that. Anyhow, on some level, you can probably tell if such a person is "at the root" INFp or INTp, but the appearance of valuing both Fe things and Te things may make that decision harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

Why does it matter whether or not people agree with you?

---

It doesn't matter much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

It seems to me that the vast majority of your time here is spent trying to convince everyone that you're INTp.

---

Yeah, I would very much prefer if that time could be spent discussing more interesting questions than my type. But for some obscure reason people seem to bring it up very often when I try to focus on other issues. If they don't think that I am an INTp, why do they have to repeat it openly over and over again? Why not keep their opinion to themselves? Why make it public all the time?

There are some persons on this forum, whose type I am slightly skeptical of, but if they don't want to discuss their type I try to respect that. And there is no person on this forum whom I am totally convinced is wrong about his or her own type. And I never base my opinion on someone's type on my own subjective impressions only. I always try to base my opinion on as much personal information they can provide as possible. What they say about themselves and what test results they get is very important to consider, and I always do that. But people have the nerve to ignore such information in my case, and I find that very irritating.

If someone asks for some help in determining his or her correct type, I might try to help as well as I can. But I don't need any help in determining my type, so why should I be treated differently? Why don't I deserve the same respect as others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

Being "accepted" as an INTp seems to be somewhat of a hang-up of yours. Why?

---

I don't care what people think of my type as long as they keep their mouths shut about it. But if they insist on stating in public that I am a deluded idiot who is wrong about his own type, then I feel an urgent need to correct them. It don't like to keep silent every time someone makes a false statement. That is contrary to being an INTp. We are natural born critics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

I don't care what people think of my type as long as they keep their mouths shut about it.

---

R-O-T-F-L!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

I don't care what people think of my type as long as they keep their mouths shut about it. But if they insist on stating in public that I am a deluded idiot who is wrong about his own type, then I feel an urgent need to correct them. It don't like to keep silent every time someone makes a false statement. That is contrary to being an INTp. We are natural born critics.

---

Very interesting...I think this may well be the key to why people misunderstand... Most people naturally judge other people's behavior based on why they would do what they see someone doing; and most people act based on certain things they would want to achieve. I think you're right that INTps in particular may allow themselves to get caught in clarifying things, correcting falsehoods, etc., without thinking "what do I hope to achieve here?" But, in the interest of balance, it's probably something we should all try to avoid. I think one can learn from Se people in this regard, as Se people wouldn't generally do something if they weren't trying to achieve something.

There are lots of good reasons to post...testing the strength of one's own arguments, trying to learn from points other people make, kindly directing newbies to good sources of relevant information, etc. However, we can all fall into the "trap" of being led by what others say into posting when we're not really thinking about what we hope to accomplish. And this not only burns a lot of time, but also can cause others to misinterpret one's motives.

I find myself getting "drawn in" a lot, but I try to catch myself (or should) if posting doesn't serve any useful purpose or doesn't go in the direction I would like to go.

I think you have a lot of interesting and useful ideas about, for example, typology and philosophy, etc. Maybe by ignoring posts that get in the way of exploring those ideas, you can shake off these patterns of misunderstanding that have developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Maybe by ignoring posts that get in the way of exploring those ideas, you can shake off these patterns of misunderstanding that have developed.

---

I have ignored many, many posts from people who have insisted on focusing on my type, but there is a limit to that. My main point is this one:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If someone asks for some help in determining his or her correct type, I might try to help as well as I can. But I don't need any help in determining my type, so why should I be treated differently? Why don't I deserve the same respect as others?

---

Very often I have to refer to my own type and my own experinces and my own impressions as an INTp, because that's the way we INTps function. We make a lot of personal observations. If people didn't question my INTp-ness every time I do that, they might actually learn something from me. If they don't want to participate in the discussion, they could stay out of it. But everyone else is referring to their own type now and then, and I will do the same when I find it approprate. Otherwise it would be impossible for us to make certain points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Where things get tricky is perhaps that while in the classic theory, these should be far apart (e.g., one is either Te/Fi or Fe/Ti focused), there may be individuals that blur the line a bit....for example, a professional in the psychology field who appears to use Te methods, but is also clearly interested in what appear to be Fe questions (what causes people to mutiny? what factors lead to cooperation? what policy decisions will tend to lead to fewer personnel problems, etc.). For these individuals, it can become harder to type them.

---

Sure. But I'd say that the difference appears when the people shift from studying Te evidence (as in reports on the mutiny) to attributing Fe motivations to people directly from their own judgements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If they don't think that I am an INTp, why do they have to repeat it openly over and over again? Why not keep their opinion to themselves? Why make it public all the time?

---

The reason is simple and it should be obvious.

By comparison, look at Jonathan. Discussions with him/by him seldom have anything to do with the issue of his type. There are also other people whose attributed type I am skeptical of, but I don't go out of my way to raise that issue, and that doesn't prevent me from discussing Socionics with those people.

Your type becomes an issue because you make it an issue. One of your favorite techniques for typing others - or at least for discussing their types - is to refer to your own typing of yourself as INTp. If you will recall, the issue of your type was most recently brought into the open during the discussion of XoX's type.

That happened because most of your case for XoX being possibly INTp was around "I identify with what he says, and I am INTp, hence he may well be INTp". It was all about that or variations thereof.

So, if you "invoke" your typing as INTp in order to argue for INTp as a type for XoX - or anyone else for that matter - that inevitably brings your own type into the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Your type becomes an issue because you make it an issue. One of your favorite techniques for typing others - or at least for discussing their types - is to refer to your own typing of yourself as INTp. If you will recall, the issue of your type was most recently brought into the open during the discussion of XoX's type.

That happened because most of your case for XoX being possibly INTp was around "I identify with what he says, and I am INTp, hence he may well be INTp". It was all about that or variations thereof.

---

False. Most of my case for XoX being possibly INTp is based on what he has said about himself. I have analyzed the information he has provided us with. And most of it clearly suggest INTp as the most likely type. That I also can identify with a lot of things he says, and the fact that I have a sense of similarity, is only a "bonus". I do not base my typing of XoX on that sense of similarity, and I do not base it on the fact that I can identify with what he says. As always, such subjective impressions are only to be used as indications, but in this case they point in the same direction as the other pieces of evidence, which makes the case for INTp even stronger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

(a)The information that the INTp focuses on is Te-related: are there obstacles? Will there be fuel? Etc

(b) The information that the INFp focuses on is Fe-related: are the people down there on the deck "on board"? Wil they mutiny? Are they cooperative? Etc

---

I think this is a really good characterization of typical Gamma N vs. Beta N concerns.

---

This is perhaps a good example in theory but in practice any intelligent (and far-sighted) person would likely consider all the aspects that might cause them problems. E.g. I would most likely consider both the "objective obstacles" and "subjective obstacles" defined there. Why would I decide that I dismiss one of them if I at the same time acknowledge that it is something which might cause problems? Running out of fuel or mutiny...either one can destroy my trip so I need to try to avoid them.

It would be weird to assume that people only focus on one particular aspect which their type "dictates" and neglect all other relevant aspects. However I can see how, despite their being aware of that there might be a problem, a Beta N would be more likely to fail in something related to option a) (despite trying not to) and Gamma N would be more likely to fail something related to option b) (despite trying not to).

So imho an INFp can try to focus on Te-issues if they see it necessary but they are more likely to fail than e.g. INTp. Similarly INTp can try to focus on Fe-issues if they see it necessary but they are more likely to fail than INFp.

I'm not sure if this is what was meant? I don't buy the idea that you never try to focus on issues related to your "weak" functions even if you see how they are clearly important to take care of. Thus it seems it is not that important whether e.g. Phaedrus seems to use Fe or Te but how successful and skilled he is in using them. Is Fe really his "strength". Te can be evaluated in the same spirit. And same logic of course applies to me and others.

@Phaedrus: I see you will really "force" me to quote a lot of your posts.

@XoX: your post was a very good example of a straw man argument. When have I or anyone said that you "never" focus on weaker functions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Where things get tricky is perhaps that while in the classic theory, these should be far apart (e.g., one is either Te/Fi or Fe/Ti focused), there may be individuals that blur the line a bit....for example, a professional in the psychology field who appears to use Te methods, but is also clearly interested in what appear to be Fe questions (what causes people to mutiny? what factors lead to cooperation? what policy decisions will tend to lead to fewer personnel problems, etc.). For these individuals, it can become harder to type them.

---

Sure. But I'd say that the difference appears when the people shift from studying Te evidence (as in reports on the mutiny) to attributing Fe motivations to people directly from their own judgements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If they don't think that I am an INTp, why do they have to repeat it openly over and over again? Why not keep their opinion to themselves? Why make it public all the time?

---

The reason is simple and it should be obvious.

By comparison, look at Jonathan. Discussions with him/by him seldom have anything to do with the issue of his type. There are also other people whose attributed type I am skeptical of, but I don't go out of my way to raise that issue, and that doesn't prevent me from discussing Socionics with those people.

Your type becomes an issue because you make it an issue. One of your favorite techniques for typing others - or at least for discussing their types - is to refer to your own typing of yourself as INTp. If you will recall, the issue of your type was most recently brought into the open during the discussion of XoX's type.

That happened because most of your case for XoX being possibly INTp was around "I identify with what he says, and I am INTp, hence he may well be INTp". It was all about that or variations thereof.

So, if you "invoke" your typing as INTp in order to argue for INTp as a type for XoX - or anyone else for that matter - that inevitably brings your own type into the discussion.

---

I haven't been following this discussion at all, but I totally agree with Expat here. I think most forum members (me included) couldn't care less about Phaedrus' type, or would prefer to think about it on our own, if at all. But this habit of bringing up one's own type all the time in the context of typing someone else is somewhat irritating to forum members who otherwise would not be interested in discussing or disputing your type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

I haven't been following this discussion at all, but I totally agree with Expat here. I think most forum members (me included) couldn't care less about Phaedrus' type, or would prefer to think about it on our own, if at all. But this habit of bringing up one's own type all the time in the context of typing someone else is somewhat irritating to forum members who otherwise would not be interested in discussing or disputing your type.

---

The only reason forum members would be irritated is because they dispute my INTp-ness, and you have contributed in installing that ridiculous misconception in them by disputing it yourself -- on completely invalid grounds. If someone, like Expat for example, would occasionally bring up his own type when discussing someone else's type no one would have any reason to bother, because everyone accepts the fact that he is an ENTj. If you prefer to dismiss some kind of information beforehand, that can of course be done in most cases, but I find it rather "funny" that people are not able to weigh the relevant evidence and come to a qualified guess in XoX's case. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thread about his type and related threads where he provides us with information about himself must come to the conclusion that the most likely type for him is INTp. It is not yet a proven fact that he is an INTp, but based on the evidence so far, we are almost there. To think that XoX is most likely an INFp is stupid, even if he turns out to be one, because the evidence does not support such a claim.

Quote:

---

but I find it rather "funny" that people are not able to weigh the relevant evidence and come to a qualified guess in XoX's case. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thread about his type and related threads where he provides us with information about himself must come to the conclusion that the most likely type for him is INTp.

---

Reading this makes me want to jab something sharp in my eyes. We MUST come to that conclusion? And YOU are the determiner of what evidence is relevant, and which guesses are qualified? BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

Okay, let's turn down the heat here. :) I think we can agree that in some way the issues involved in typing the "controversial" people here is of interest to people, at least judging by the length of the XoX thread.

@XoX:
Considering my whole post, I was suggesting the possibility of a "gray area."

In addition, I think it may be interesting to consider yet another possibility, something that TCaud used to talk about a lot, which is (I will add here..."degrees of") undifferentiation.

Judging from Expat's posts, he has been attacking your Te credentials. I don't know whether his attacks are justified or not (haven't read all the posts), but what seems to be missing is whether you clearly show confidence/strength on the Fe side.

If not, and if things are so much open to interpretation, perhaps we really should focus on what you yourself value (your self report view, and leave it at that)...or, if we want to consider other possibilities, perhaps we should consider INxp...or maybe even better...INxox. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Feel free to critique as I'm no expert, but please don't just say "You're an idiot." Please EDUCATE me and give me information if you disagree with something. Thank you :)

---

read this

start at section 6

hit control-f and type the logic of attributes

p.s.

please no one assume i am in any way connecting any particular logical format with any function. i don't give a shit about the functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Quote:

---

but I find it rather "funny" that people are not able to weigh the relevant evidence and come to a qualified guess in XoX's case. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thread about his type and related threads where he provides us with information about himself must come to the conclusion that the most likely type for him is INTp.

---

Reading this makes me want to jab something sharp in my eyes. We MUST come to that conclusion?

---

Yes = you SHOULD come to that concusion, IF you are competent in objectively evaluating the evidence for each possible type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

And YOU are the determiner of what evidence is relevant, and which guesses are qualified?

---

Yes. It is ALWAYS YOU (whoever that YOU person happens to be, and in this case that YOU happens to be me) that are the determiner of what evidence is relevant, and which guesses are qualified. It is NEVER someone else that should determine that instead of YOU -- no authority, no leader, no one except YOURSELF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

---

WHO is making this value statement? WHO is determining whether it is bullshit? WHO is the arbiter here? Is it me? Is it someone else? Is is some elected socionist judge? No, Slacker Mom, it is always YOU who are the judge -- whoever you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

if things are so much open to interpretation, perhaps we really should focus on what you yourself value (your self report view, and leave it at that)...

---

Exactly my point too. And if we do that the conclusion is clear: INTp is the most likely type. There is no gray area here. Based on XoX's self reports, what he identifies with, his test results, what other real life persons tell him, etc. the evidence most clearly support INTp, not INXp or some other type. But the case is not yet closed, because XoX hasn't been doing everything we should expect him to be doing in order for us to be completely sure. Some pieces of evidence point in other directions, and we should try to explain them. Until XoX has evaluated all the sources of information, we can't be sure that he is an INTp. Two other types are still possible -- INFp and ENTp -- but the case is much weaker for those two types. Other types than those three are only possible if we (including XoX himself) have been totally mislead by XoX's faulty self reports. If he is another type completely, everything has to start from scratch.

Phaedrus, 90% of what you write is related to the issue of your own type. It's simply not interesting to read anymore. I don't think the issue is going to settle down on its own, so the best thing is for people to just stop reacting to it, and Phaedrus to stop bringing it up. Most people don't care enough really to drop everything and spend all their time studying your arguments until they arrive at a conclusion. There are plenty of people here who never talk about their type, and it's perfectly fine to participate in discussions without having everyone accept your type. There is always someone who will doubt your type, anyways, no matter what you do. Plus, your vicious attacks and accusations of people are offensive. For the most part, these are people who have proven themselves to be reasonable, mature forum members. I think, if you don't like the constant arguments, a little ignoring on both sides would do a lot of good.

How's that for a :Fi: solution to the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Quote:

---

but I find it rather "funny" that people are not able to weigh the relevant evidence and come to a qualified guess in XoX's case. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thread about his type and related threads where he provides us with information about himself must come to the conclusion that the most likely type for him is INTp.

---

Reading this makes me want to jab something sharp in my eyes. We MUST come to that conclusion?

---

Yes = you SHOULD come to that concusion, IF you are competent in objectively evaluating the evidence for each possible type.

---

Indeed, but are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If someone, like Expat for example, would occasionally bring up his own type when discussing someone else's type no one would have any reason to bother, because everyone accepts the fact that he is an ENTj.

---

I do occasionally bring up my own type into the discussion, but I think over 90% of my posts make points which do not address that type at all. For instance, very seldom do I use my type as an argument to type someone else. For instance, I haven't argued against XoX's type as INTp by saying "no way we are of the same quadra" or whatever. If I did, he or anyone else could (rightly imo) bring my own type in the discussion.

During the XoX type discussion, you have said, more than once, things like "how can [insert functional analysis argument here] be a good argument against INTp for XoX if I identify with it?" so, yes, using your own typing as an argument. If you didn't do that - very often - your own type would not be raised so often by those who disagree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If you prefer to dismiss some kind of information beforehand, that can of course be done in most cases, but I find it rather "funny" that people are not able to weigh the relevant evidence and come to a qualified guess in XoX's case. Anyone who bothers to read the whole thread about his type and related threads where he provides us with information about himself must come to the conclusion that the most likely type for him is INTp.

---

On the contrary, anyone who bothers to read not only that thread but anything else he wrote since he first showed up here must conclude that INTp is a very unlikely type for him - at least as far as an INTp according to Socionics theory, the one that explains functions, quadras and relationships and why and how that all fits together.

According to Phaedrusian Socionics, where an identification with that James INTP description is weighty evidence, sure, there he might be an "INTp".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

It is not yet a proven fact that he is an INTp, but based on the evidence so far, we are almost there. To think that XoX is most likely an INFp is stupid, even if he turns out to be one, because the evidence does not support such a claim.

---

On the contrary, the evidence given by XoX's own words and threads points more towards INFp than INTp - however, personally, I am arguing far more strongly against INTp than for INFp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Judging from Expat's posts, he has been attacking your Te credentials. I don't know whether his attacks are justified or not (haven't read all the posts), but what seems to be missing is whether you clearly show confidence/strength on the Fe side.

---

You, Jonathan, specifically asked me for examples of Phaedrus using :Fe: and those I have provided. However, I haven't said that Phaedrus had as obvious Fe focus as XoX, and I repeat that now. However, I do think that a true :Ni: :Te: with :Fe: PoLR would very obviously see the :Fe: in XoX's posts as something -- "alien".

As for "Te credentials" and "attack" -- that's not a very helpful way of putting it. What I "attack" is what I see as idiocy. One of the biggest idiocies on this forum is the notion that XoX is an INTp (yes Phaedrus, based on the available evidence) and that's what I have decided to "attack".

But I will say what I see as a common lack of :Te: focus in XoX and Phaedrus -- they both seem to be unable to realize what they themselves have stated in this forum, sometimes as late as a few pages before. An IRL debate with them, without a written record of their words, would be a total nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

I do occasionally bring up my own type into the discussion, but I think over 90% of my posts make points which do not address that type at all. For instance, very seldom do I use my type as an argument to type someone else. For instance, I haven't argued against XoX's type as INTp by saying "no way we are of the same quadra" or whatever.

---

Neither have I. And most of the time I state general truths about the types, but often when I state general truths about the INTp type that are nothing but common knowledge in Socionics, people show up and say that others shouldn't listen to what I say about INTps, because I don't know anything about that type. Such bullshit is hard to put up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

During the XoX type discussion, you have said, more than once, things like "how can [insert functional analysis argument here] be a good argument against INTp for XoX if I identify with it?" so, yes, using your own typing as an argument. If you didn't do that - very often - your own type would not be raised so often by those who disagree with it.

---

It is still a perfectly legitimate use of modus tollens, since you have claimed that I too would be an INFp if I identify with XoX's reasoning. The fact that I am an INTp proves that there is something wrong with your argument for INFp in XoX's case. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

On the contrary, anyone who bothers to read not only that thread but anything else he wrote since he first showed up here must conclude that INTp is a very unlikely type for him - at least as far as an INTp according to Socionics theory, the one that explains functions, quadras and relationships and why and how that all fits together.

---

No. You are wrong. Your argument is faulty. It is as simple as that. The only problem is to find out exactly where you go wrong. But we know that you have gone wrong somewhere, since your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

On the contrary, the evidence given by XoX's own words and threads points more towards INFp than INTp - however, personally, I am arguing far more strongly against INTp than for INFp.

---

If you really believe that, and it seems as though you do, then you are incompetent and unobjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You, Jonathan, specifically asked me for examples of Phaedrus using :Fe: and those I have provided. However, I haven't said that Phaedrus had as obvious Fe focus as XoX, and I repeat that now. However, I do think that a true :Ni: :Te: with :Fe: PoLR would very obviously see the :Fe: in XoX's posts as something -- "alien".

---

You assume that, yes. You fool. You think that you understand the INTp type better than the INTps themselves. Such an arrogant attitude is disgusting in this context. You should keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you are talking about, and you don't know this about the INTp type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

As for "Te credentials" and "attack" -- that's not a very helpful way of putting it. What I "attack" is what I see as idiocy. One of the biggest idiocies on this forum is the notion that XoX is an INTp (yes Phaedrus, based on the available evidence) and that's what I have decided to "attack".

---

Me too. The biggest idiocy by far on this forum is your insistence that it is impossible for XoX to be an INTp. It is your fault that the level of the disussion has decreased so much when it comes to typing XoX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

On the contrary, the evidence given by XoX's own words and threads points more towards INFp than INTp - however, personally, I am arguing far more strongly against INTp than for INFp.

---

If you really believe that, and it seems as though you do, then you are incompetent and unobjective.

---

I do believe that. I may be wrong, but I have good reasons to think I'm right.

As for my being "incompetent and unobjective", you're entitled to that opinion, of course :) I don't think many people agree with you, though. Why would that be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

You assume that, yes. You fool. You think that you understand the INTp type better than the INTps themselves. Such an arrogant attitude is disgusting in this context. You should keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you are talking about, and you don't know this about the INTp type.

---

I think I understand the INTp type better than you, not better than the INTps themselves.

And I will not "keep my mouth shut" -- it is your choice to read what I write or not. Please note that I never told you or XoX to "shut up" about his being INTp -- it is your right to have that opinion and, yes, to express it. I just think that I should make it very clear the objections I have to that opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Me too. The biggest idiocy by far on this forum is your insistence that it is impossible for XoX to be an INTp. It is your fault that the level of the disussion has decreased so much when it comes to typing XoX.

---

Ok, it is not "impossible". It is extremely unlikely in my opinion.

As for typing XoX - tell you what. I think anyone who's interested should be able to know by now what my objections to his typing as INTp are. I have no inclination to repeat myself all the time anyway.

So, if you want to make the case for XoX as INTp again, I won't interfere :) I will let you and XoX reach the conclusion that he's INTp. I will let others judge for themselves, since obviously my "mind-control powers" are preventing them from seeing that. So, go ahead. In this discussion I will "keep my mouth shut". What about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

As for my being "incompetent and unobjective", you're entitled to that opinion, of course :) I don't think many people agree with you, though. Why would that be?

---

A not unlikely explanation is that some of them are brainwashed by you. There are also other possible explanations of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

I think I understand the INTp type better than you, not better than the INTps themselves.

---

And you are wrong. But you will probably never admit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

And I will not "keep my mouth shut" -- it is your choice to read what I write or not. Please note that I never told you or XoX to "shut up" about his being INTp -- it is your right to have that opinion and, yes, to express it. I just think that I should make it very clear the objections I have to that opinion.

---

Yes, but there is a big problem with your opinion. You state it with such phrenesy that people become afraid to argue against you. I am one of few who dares to do that. But I am not the only one who thinks that you are wrong about this.

That's a very clear general pattern. There are always people who suffer in silence instead of speaking up for what they believe is true, especiallly when they belong to the minoity. And most of them are glad that someone else is willing to take the shit instead of themselves. You started a thread about that phenomenon, remember? At that time I didn't realize as clearly as I do now, why those who you criticized for sending you PMs instead of debating with you in public choose to behave like that. Now, I understand better why they don't criticize you in an open debate. Just like you, I would prefer that they didn't hide as much as they do, but it takes a lot of courage to speak up against a mighty opposition. Not everyone is suited to do that, but some people are unnecessarily afraid of doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

As for typing XoX - tell you what. I think anyone who's interested should be able to know by now what my objections to his typing as INTp are. I have no inclination to repeat myself all the time anyway.

---

Good. You have repeated yourself enough already. We know what your objections are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

So, if you want to make the case for XoX as INTp again, I won't interfere :) I will let you and XoX reach the conclusion that he's INTp. I will let others judge for themselves, since obviously my "mind-control powers" are preventing them from seeing that. So, go ahead. In this discussion I will "keep my mouth shut". What about that?

---

If you have any new arguments I would prefer that you stated them instead of keeping your mouth shut. But I don't think we will get any further in that heated "team spirit" debate, at least not until we have found a new angle, a new perspective from which to look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

A not unlikely explanation is that some of them are brainwashed by you. There are also other possible explanations of course.

---

But why can't I brainwash my customers and bosses? :( That's not fair. I'd much rather be able to brainwash them than the people here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

And you are wrong. But you will probably never admit it.

---

Well that's the kind of statement that can be thrown back at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

But I am not the only one who thinks that you are wrong about this.

---

Without their saying why they think so, it becomes difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

That's a very clear general pattern. There are always people who suffer in silence instead of speaking up for what they believe is true, especiallly when they belong to the minoity. And most of them are glad that someone else is willing to take the shit instead of themselves. You started a thread about that phenomenon, remember? At that time I didn't realize as clearly as I do now, why those who you criticized for sending you PMs instead of debating with you in public choose to behave like that. Now, I understand better why they don't criticize you in an open debate. Just like you, I would prefer that they didn't hide as much as they do, but it takes a lot of courage to speak up against a mighty opposition. Not everyone is suited to do that, but some people are unnecessarily afraid of doing it.

---

For your information, the main person I was referring to in that thread was an ESTp who doesn't post anymore, apparently. I don't think that "lack of courage" was the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If you have any new arguments I would prefer that you stated them instead of keeping your mouth shut. But I don't think we will get any further in that heated "team spirit" debate, at least not until we have found a new angle, a new perspective from which to look at it.

---

It's incredible :lol: you and XoX keep coming back to that "team spirit" story, as if that had been the only argument for his Fe>Fi preference, which is clearly not true for anyone who reads, yes, the evidence, that is, what I said in that thread and in others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

But why can't I brainwash my customers and bosses? :( That's not fair. I'd much rather be able to brainwash them than the people here.

---

I have no idea ... :? Though of course I haven't said that I actually believe that you are a brainwasher, only that it is a not unlikely explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

And you are wrong. But you will probably never admit it.

---

Well that's the kind of statement that can be thrown back at you.

---

Of course you can, if you want to. I can't stop you from doing that. It probably won't achieve much though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

But I am not the only one who thinks that you are wrong about this.

---

Without their saying why they think so, it becomes difficult.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

That's a very clear general pattern. There are always people who suffer in silence instead of speaking up for what they believe is true, especiallly when they belong to the minoity. And most of them are glad that someone else is willing to take the shit instead of themselves. You started a thread about that phenomenon, remember? At that time I didn't realize as clearly as I do now, why those who you criticized for sending you PMs instead of debating with you in public choose to behave like that. Now, I understand better why they don't criticize you in an open debate. Just like you, I would prefer that they didn't hide as much as they do, but it takes a lot of courage to speak up against a mighty opposition. Not everyone is suited to do that, but some people are unnecessarily afraid of doing it.

---

For your information, the main person I was referring to in that thread was an ESTp who doesn't post anymore, apparently. I don't think that "lack of courage" was the problem.

---

I don't remember the details of that thread. I have noticed this pattern in real life situations, and a lot of anonymous polls confirm its existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

It's incredible :lol: you and XoX keep coming back to that "team spirit" story, as if that had been the only argument for his Fe>Fi preference, which is clearly not true for anyone who reads, yes, the evidence, that is, what I said in that thread and in others.

---

Okay, I gave the wrong name for it. What I had in mind was the general Fe>Fi argument. That argument should be discarded for a while, if we are going to make any progress.

The issue with authority Phaedrus is this:

NO ONE here is an authority. We all have our opinions, but that's all any of us have. Your opinions are not better than anyone else's, and the "evidence" you use isn't more valid than everyone else's evidence.

Generally, people say something like, "It is my impression that . . ." or "He seems to be (X type) to me" - but you say, "He is THIS and anyone who disagrees is stupid." Or involved in some kind of Socionics conspiracy or something. The only one trying to establish some kind of authority is you. I've seen Expat say, "I'm very sure he isn't XXXX type" but not "I am 100% sure he is this type and if you disagree with me you're stupid."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

A not unlikely explanation is that some of them are brainwashed by you.

---

An occasional brainwash keeps your mind clean and bright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

I've seen Expat say, "I'm very sure he isn't XXXX type" but not "I am 100% sure he is this type and if you disagree with me you're stupid."

---

Hmm, I'm afraid I have said things very close to it. I have said that some people were clueless about Socionics generally, or functions. However, when I do say such things, I make a point of saying precisely why I am saying it, with what I think is verifiable evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas05

An occasional brainwash keeps your mind clean and bright.

---

Then people must think that I am very bright ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

NO ONE here is an authority. We all have our opinions, but that's all any of us have. Your opinions are not better than anyone else's, and the "evidence" you use isn't more valid than everyone else's evidence.

---

That is about the worst kind of bullshit I know. I am allergic to it. Of course my opinions are better than yours every time they contradict each other, like now for example. If no one's opinion is any better than anyone else's opinion, then your opionon here -- that your opinion is no better than mine -- is an opinion I can do whatever I want with, like put it in a trash basket and burn it. EVERY person who has an opinion necessarily thinks that his or her opinion is better than every other opinion that contradicts their own. Otherwise you don't have an opinion to start with. If you deny the truth of what I say here you are a logical imbecile.

We each think our opinion is right, but they're both still opinions. There isn't any 100% reliable proof for either. And no your so-called "evidence" isn't 100% reliable or there wouldn't be any debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

We each think our opinion is right, but they're both still opinions.

---

But now you contradict yourself, since that statement of yours can't be true if this statement is true:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Your opinions are not better than anyone else's

---

-- unless you intend the word "Your" here only to refer to my (Phaedrus's) opinions, but in that case the statement is still false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

We each think our opinion is right, but they're both still opinions.

---

But now you contradict yourself, since that statement of yours can't be true if this statement is true:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Your opinions are not better than anyone else's

---

-- unless you intend the word "Your" here only to refer to my (Phaedrus's) opinions, but in that case the statement is still false.

---

They don't contradict each other. No one's opinion is better than anyone's because we all think our opinions are the best and there's no way to prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

No one's opinion is better than anyone's because we all think our opinions are the best and there's no way to prove otherwise.

---

Now you are contradicting yourself again -- in the same sentence. To think that your opinion is the best one is a value statement. To say that your opinion is the best is the same thing as saying that other opinions are worse than yours. If you are right, everyone who is contradicting you must be wrong. That we can't prove which one of you is right is another thing completely. The question who is right is logically independent of the question whether or not we can prove who is right or wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

No one's opinion is better than anyone's because we all think our opinions are the best and there's no way to prove otherwise.

---

Now you are contradicting yourself again -- in the same sentence. To think that your opinion is the best one is a value statement. To say that your opinion is the best is the same thing as saying that other opinions are worse than yours. If you are right, everyone who is contradicting you must be wrong. That we can't prove which one of you is right is another thing completely. The question who is right is logically independent of the question whether or not we can prove who is right or wrong.

---

Careful, your :Ti: preference is showing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

Careful, your :Ti: preference is showing.

---

Nice try, nice try ... :) Throwing sand in the bull's eye... with an irrelevant remark instead of choosing one of the two horns ...

It's an observation, rather relevant to discussing Socionics. You were focusing on self-contained logical consistency of a system, ie how Slacker Mom's statements were supposedly logically consistent or not. That is :Ti: not :Te: .

brainwashing, paranoia, conspiracy theories..


:Ne: PoLR overdrive!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

No one's opinion is better than anyone's because we all think our opinions are the best and there's no way to prove otherwise.

---

Now you are contradicting yourself again -- in the same sentence. To think that your opinion is the best one is a value statement. To say that your opinion is the best is the same thing as saying that other opinions are worse than yours. If you are right, everyone who is contradicting you must be wrong. That we can't prove which one of you is right is another thing completely. The question who is right is logically independent of the question whether or not we can prove who is right or wrong.

---

Not necessarily. I may put more value into my own opinions, but that does not mean that on the larger scale that my opinions somehow become worth more than the opinions of another in the public presentation of these opinions. And just because that I think that my opinions are of higher value does not make it so in reality. Just as if I thought that my toaster was valued or should sell for $100, does not mean that consumers will value the toaster at $100 as well. So what Slacker Mom says is by no means necessarily logically contradictory.

Yeah it's Phaddy that doesn't even know logic and basic price theory :lol: :lol: :lol: @ your ignorance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You, Jonathan, specifically asked me for examples of Phaedrus using :Fe: and those I have provided. However, I haven't said that Phaedrus had as obvious Fe focus as XoX, and I repeat that now. However, I do think that a true :Ni: :Te: with :Fe: PoLR would very obviously see the :Fe: in XoX's posts as something -- "alien".

As for "Te credentials" and "attack" -- that's not a very helpful way of putting it. What I "attack" is what I see as idiocy. One of the biggest idiocies on this forum is the notion that XoX is an INTp (yes Phaedrus, based on the available evidence) and that's what I have decided to "attack".

But I will say what I see as a common lack of :Te: focus in XoX and Phaedrus -- they both seem to be unable to realize what they themselves have stated in this forum, sometimes as late as a few pages before. An IRL debate with them, without a written record of their words, would be a total nightmare.

---

Sorry for my choice of words. Yes, you did show evidence of Fe in Phaedrus's posts, which I had missed. My intention, though, was just to point out that use of Fe isn't necessarily the same as strength in Fe, just as someone can use Te as a weak function as well. I don't have any opinion about XoX's type, so it was just a general comment, pointing to the possibility of T/F undifferentiation as TCaud has discussed previously.

In my view, the main reason for discussing Phaedrus's type (originally) is that it seemed a test case for resolving the contradictions regarding someone who seemed to some people to be acc-Ti but also seemed to exhibit Ip temperament. At this point, discussion of XoX's and Phaedrus's type seems perhaps mainly to explore if a "gray area" can exist between INTp and INFp.

Other that that, this issue probably isn't worth it, and I did not mean to fuel the fire in any way. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You were focusing on self-contained logical consistency of a system, ie how Slacker Mom's statements were supposedly logically consistent or not. That is :Ti: not :Te: .

---

It is unlikely that conceptual logic is function related. If it is, then perhaps you can explain why the kind of behaviour you attribute to :Ti: is more typical of INTps than of INTjs? I am not trying to uphold a system here, I am criticizing a "system", pointing out a fault in it. To point out logical fallacies is in Socionics attributed to INTps; it is typical of Critics. Maybe this kind of logic use is related to :Ti: , but in any case INTps are generally better at it than INTjs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You were focusing on self-contained logical consistency of a system, ie how Slacker Mom's statements were supposedly logically consistent or not. That is :Ti: not :Te: .

---

It is unlikely that conceptual logic is function related. If it is, then perhaps you can explain why the kind of behaviour you attribute to :Ti: is more typical of INTps than of INTjs? I am not trying to uphold a system here, I am criticizing a "system", pointing out a fault in it. To point out logical fallacies is in Socionics attributed to INTps; it is typical of Critics. Maybe this kind of logic use is related to :Ti: , but in any case INTps are generally better at it than INTjs.

---

This actually is an interesting point, and maybe we can use it to get this conversation on track (as...wow, it refers to the topic of the thread :)).

Like others, I applauded Slacker mom's definitions at the beginning of this thread, but I recognize that there is an ambiguity in Socionics, because discussions of functions appear to shift between definitions that refer to specific congnitive skills (that can be taught and used by many types) and intrinsic values that define people's psychological profile (i.e.,g what's important to them).

Generally, people use these different ways of understanding the functions interchangeably, because there seems to be a similarity in structure between the two sets of definitions. However, the tension between them is never fully resolved, and tends to lead to many of the debates that exist.

Clearly, ENTjs use deductive logic a lot, for example. Also, INTjs may be viewed as creating models of reality. One might explain this away by saying "well, of course everyone uses functions outside their ego block." But I think there's more to it. The definitions that lead to successful predictions of intertype relationships are going to be those that clearly reference what people value. Whereas if one defines functions as "using deductive logic" and so forth, there is a greater risk of mis-typing.

I believe that if one probes this issue further, there really is something of interest there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

It is unlikely that conceptual logic is function related. If it is, then perhaps you can explain why the kind of behaviour you attribute to :Ti: is more typical of INTps than of INTjs? I am not trying to uphold a system here, I am criticizing a "system", pointing out a fault in it. To point out logical fallacies is in Socionics attributed to INTps; it is typical of Critics. Maybe this kind of logic use is related to :Ti: , but in any case INTps are generally better at it than INTjs.

---

Honestly I'm getting tired of having to explain the basics of functional descriptions, just to have you say "no this isn't so" or "this is just your interpretation" and then you still say that you do understand the system.

So, I have explained often enough how I see the functions. That is very clear in my Te views thread and elsewhere.

If you understand it and you disagree that the above is :Ti: , then please give me one example of what is your understanding of :Ti: .

It is very clearly Ti, and he very very clearly prefers it to Te. T people use both Te and Ti, but they all have an obvious preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

I've seen Expat say, "I'm very sure he isn't XXXX type" but not "I am 100% sure he is this type and if you disagree with me you're stupid."

---

Hmm, I'm afraid I have said things very close to it. I have said that some people were clueless about Socionics generally, or functions. However, when I do say such things, I make a point of saying precisely why I am saying it, with what I think is verifiable evidence.

---

mhm I think it's pretty much the same thing you're objecting to slacker mom. The difference is the type of evidence used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

No one's opinion is better than anyone's because we all think our opinions are the best and there's no way to prove otherwise.

---

Now you are contradicting yourself again -- in the same sentence. To think that your opinion is the best one is a value statement. To say that your opinion is the best is the same thing as saying that other opinions are worse than yours. If you are right, everyone who is contradicting you must be wrong. That we can't prove which one of you is right is another thing completely. The question who is right is logically independent of the question whether or not we can prove who is right or wrong.

---

Not necessarily. I may put more value into my own opinions, but that does not mean that on the larger scale that my opinions somehow become worth more than the opinions of another in the public presentation of these opinions. And just because that I think that my opinions are of higher value does not make it so in reality. Just as if I thought that my toaster was valued or should sell for $100, does not mean that consumers will value the toaster at $100 as well. So what Slacker Mom says is by no means necessarily logically contradictory.

---

Sigh, that little word "opinion" causes so much trouble. contradicting oneself and something being possible in the context of the world is different. eqUivOcaTiOn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom

I've seen Expat say, "I'm very sure he isn't XXXX type" but not "I am 100% sure he is this type and if you disagree with me you're stupid."

---

Hmm, I'm afraid I have said things very close to it. I have said that some people were clueless about Socionics generally, or functions. However, when I do say such things, I make a point of saying precisely why I am saying it, with what I think is verifiable evidence.

---

mhm I think it's pretty much the same thing you're objecting to slacker mom. The difference is the type of evidence used.

---

Yeah you might be right. I don't get a rash when people give a string of :Te: arguments, but that's a subjective issue. Objectively, they might very well do the same thing with different styles of evidence. Which might be why people who prefer :Ti: react to Expat's posts the way I react to Phaedrus' posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

It's an observation, rather relevant to discussing Socionics. You were focusing on self-contained logical consistency of a system, ie how Slacker Mom's statements were supposedly logically consistent or not. That is :Ti: not :Te: .

---

By the way, in all fairness, some Socionics sites do mention in their INTp descriptions that INTps are good at pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions. I know I've read this, and I'm pretty sure in more than one place. (I'm not arguing here about whether this is what Phaedrus is doing...just talking in general.)

I think the distinction here is that INTps like to scan for possible problems; they look at the pieces of a system and hone in what they see could be a problem. It is not the same as devising or mastering a self-contained system. It may look like Ti in the sense of focusing on consistency, but it's more like "spotting problems" or saying "I think there's something wrong with this" and then looking for a contradiction as "evidence."

In contrast, the self-declared INTjs on the forum almost never point out contradictions in other people's systems in their posts. They're more inclined to say that what the other person said isn't consistent with their system, and therefore not relevant or not likely.