Then people must think that I am very bright ...Quote:
Originally Posted by jas05
Printable View
Then people must think that I am very bright ...Quote:
Originally Posted by jas05
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
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.
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
-- 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 Slacker Mom
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 Phaedrus
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 Slacker Mom
Careful, your :Ti: preference is showing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Nice try, nice try ... :) Throwing sand in the bull's eye... with an irrelevant remark instead of choosing one of the two horns ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Yeah it's Phaddy that doesn't even know logic and basic price theory :lol: :lol: :lol: @ your ignorance
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
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. :)
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 Expat
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 :)).Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
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.
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 Expat
Sigh, that little word "opinion" causes so much trouble. contradicting oneself and something being possible in the context of the world is different. eqUivOcaTiOnQuote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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 Ms. Kensington
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
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.
To your third point, I'd say absolutely wrong - I've had self-proclaimed INTjs and ENTps both point out all sorts of logical inconsistencies to me simply for sport. And yes, in my own "systems" if they're even well enough defined to be called that.
To your first point - some of the descriptions SUCK and that's what's caused this problem in the first place.
Yes but I think they react to my lack of :Fe: rather than to low :Ti: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
Hear, hear!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Can you show us an instance of this on this forum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
I don't want to search and my immediate recollections are ENTp (Gilly). Not you, not oy . . . maybe Pedro but I'm not sure. Really INTjs generally just dismiss me - they don't get into it that much with me - which is why I keep thinking Phaedrus is an ISTj instead of an INTj. So I'll concede INTjs and say it's an ENTp thing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
I applaud your efforts to try to figure everything out :). The ironic thing is that the problems we're encountering here, online, aren't very significant in real-time socionics situations. You're no more likely to mix up ILI and LII than, say, LSE and SLE. So a productive real-world approach would be to take the obvious differences we encounter in real life and somehow try to get them across to other people in visual (video) form, or at least by describing as meticulously as possible the differences. Maybe we can do this at our seminar, if we have an ILI and a LII present. Maybe we can find a way to capture the essential differences as we have them talk about a similar topic. It's so much easier to recognize the functions being used in real life, where you're responding to all aspects of a person at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
"INTps are good at pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions..."
This is actually true of each type, since each looks for inconsistencies and contradictions in the areas described by their leading function. In the context of discussion about a system of abstract ideas, however, we see less of the other psychic elements demonstrating their ability to recognize inconsistencies.
I'd just like to say that I behave near exactly the same here on this forum as I do in real life; in fact, it is incredibly difficult for me to behave in any other way than I do in real life, even on the internet. Maybe we can get some others' input on this? I'm not sure I agree with the above statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
:Te:Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
I behave the same here as IRL. But I'll admit I get a better vibe off people IRL. You know how it's said that people misread emails and what-not? I think that it's definitely true that it's harder to read what someone is thinking and feeling off simple typed words.
Maybe I'm strange in that I don't take forum communication very seriously. I don't think I am the same here as in real life. I don't let myself get drawn into forums or let down my barriers. So if that's not true of other forum members, then my statement is less true.Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
Barriers? What kind of barriers? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
I think if anything I'm more open here than IRL because there is some layer of anonymity here which feels insulating or something.
It's too bad then, because things won't work out for me to go to London this time. I'm hoping maybe you'll do a NYC gathering sometime, or we could organize a web-cam gathering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
I think I know what you mean regarding meeting people in person; I often have the impression of an "aura" that comes from a person and helps signal that person's type. Usually, I'm not consciously aware of what I'm actually seeing that gives off this aura. But here are some examples:
* I know someone who has a very "upright" look and seems INTj to me. He's nice, but I wouldn't want to say just anything to him as he might find it irrelevant or childish. He's very quiet and talks very precisely, but he seems to enjoy "team spirit" kinds of things.
* I know someone with a "square" look. Usually people who seem INTp appear to have this "squareness" in their face. I don't think it's because they have square faces, but rather some sort of internal perception I have. This person likes to talk about the history of this or that, and gives off an air of erudition. I feel that I can mention some bizarre idea or experience I've had, and that this person will find it interesting and mention similar things.
However, despite the fact that I can think of certain specific people that give off a very clear signal, I still find contradictions or "gray areas" sometimes. For example, there seem to be certain people who might be called "intellectualized IEIs" (or "psychologized ILIs") where there's a deep concern for personal, psychology-related things, but also some tendency to try to appear objective and scientific. Also, I might meet someone and wonder if that person was a shy ILE or a talkative LII.
Beyond the issue of specific people's types, though, are some of the theoretical issues, regarding getting inside how a person thinks. In lieu of having the direct personal data, I rely on some of the "Celebrity Benchmark" data you have as a way to see how Socionists think of these issues. Regarding the issue at hand (spotting contradictions), I see Socrates as an important test case. You have listed 9 Socionists (100%) as typing him ILI. There have been a few discussions of Socrates on this forum, one in which Dmitri defends ILI, and another where some forum members felt LIE more likely (still Gamma).
The key thing here is that while not much is known about the "actual" Socrates, the Socrates that is known to us (i.e., the character in Plato) uses pointing out contradictions as his main trump card in virtually every Plato dialogue (or maybe all of them). He never says things like "let's test this out to see how it works in practice" or "what you say is good, but does it work in the real world" or "that's all fine but if you compare to knowledge about this and that, it's not actually true." Instead, he always works by finding what in the other person's argument is vague, then getting the other person to be clearer, and pointing out the contradictions. The point always seems to be to remind people that they shouldn't be so sure of what they're saying unless they're prepared to do the hard thinking. (Actually, kind of like Expat.)
My hypothesis is that the reason why Socrates as a Gamma whose primary technique was showing contradictions in people's systems isn't (itself) a contradiction is that as an introvert (assuming the 9 are right that he's ILI), he was more comfortable working with what he had (the logic the other person was using) rather than appealing to his own knowledge. And this (the fact that ILIs are introverts, and hence more comfortable getting the most out of available knowledge rather than going "outward" to the degree of LIEs) would explain why sometimes they appear to be focusing on internal consistency, yet in a different way than LIIs.
Not sure what your point is. INTj's are known to use :Te: as their personal knowledge function (= function of opposition/agression) to affect the course of event when they feel they are headed in the wrong direction, which is precisely what I was doing with that line. Also if there is truth to dual-type theory, which I think there is, then as an exertion hidden-agenda :Te: should play a major role in the way I organize and relate information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Oh I dunno. But considering that the first time in my life that I ever posted on a forum was last year, it's not surprising that I would want to hold back.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Which is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
I think LIIs stress internal consistency both in the building of their internal viewpoint and in their life decisions. I suspect it's harder to get an LII to do something that seems inconsistent with his/her plan. Also, I think LIIs may accept or reject ideas based on whether they're consistent with their own understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
With ILIs, I suspect it's more about what you might call "conservation of information." Given that the ILI wants to use Ni primarily, that means that ILIs would rather use their imagination and insight to make the most of the data they have rather than spend most of their time collecting external data. Accordingly, they may rely on arguments that work well with little data ("this statement here contradicts that over there, so even with my limited knowledge of the system, I know something's wrong") rather than ones that require a more external emphasis or that require one to actually master the entire system.
All of that can also be attributed to, or explained by, the IJ temperament, or being introverted-rationals. ESIs and LSIs will be the same, where ESIs reject ethics based on their on understanding of them. So, so far, nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
"Most of their time" is difficult to measure. And I disagree with that (and if that is your self-perception, in my opinion it's another indication that you're IEI). Using "their imagination and insight to make the most of the data they have" is almost a description of :Ni: + :Ti: found most specifically in IEIs(dominant function + hidden agenda). I say that ILIs, on the contrary, need to collect external data to feel contented in their :Ni: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Yes, because the "they" you are describing are IEIs using :Ti: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Please see how my explanation is just as consistent if you think of IEIs, and much more easily consistent with model A functions than yours.
Yes, it is possible, but not more consistent with Model A. As you may recall, I've been intrigued by your IEI-with-hyper-emphasis-on-:Ti: hypothesis. Earlier, there were posts by Tcaud about a possible :Ni::Ti: type that I mentioned would be a form of IEI, and there was some discussion that DarkAngelFireWolf69 had postulated a "Ti subtype of IEI" whatever that really means. I think it's a possible type for me, and maybe for Phaedrus, though I don't contest his type. Phaedrus suggests that IEIs could not possibly be concerned with having a scientific or rigorous understanding of things, something I do not think is necessarily true. Chopin, who a number of Socionists consider IEI, and I believe was IEI, had a number of traits suggesting strong competence in Ti, rather than difficulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
On the other hand, I do not believe for myself that the typical profile of IEI as "weak in Ti though valuing it" applies. Nor do I think that pointing out inconsistencies in other people's arguments is typical behavior for IEIs. I know a number of "classic" IEIs, and that simply is not their style, nor is it ever mentioned by Socionists. The fact that ILIs do point out inconsistencies in other people's arguments has been pointed out by others (Dmitri, various sites); it is not my observation but theirs. It is only inconsistent if one thinks "Ti=consistency" or if one interprets Model A as giving the "id" functions no important role whatsoever. Labcoat has pointed out some important material that suggests that the "id" functions do play an important role, too often ignored.
But more importantly, plain observation shows that Gammas do indeed put a certain emphasis on "finding contradictions" and referencing "consistency." (Note your own post: "much more easily consistent with model A functions than yours." How is your use of the word "consistent" there consistent with you being a Gamma and with Model A if an emphasis of a Gamma on consistency isn't consistent with Model A? :))
[Edited for length]
However, getting back to the context of my origianl post, I was explaining why Socrates (not me, not Phaedrus :)) appears to emphasize finding contradictions in what people are saying, yet the consensus of a number of Socionists, including Dmitri, is that he was Gamma (by which I assume is meant the portrait of Socrates presented by Plato). Do you think then that Socrates is an IEI-Ti-subtype? (According to that interpretation, Socrates was perhaps using Ti to "prove" that all those :Te: types out there who think they have "knowledge" really don't.)
(Just a few thoughts I took out of the previous post...you can think of this as a footnote)
Anyhow, the way I see it, ILI's tendency to "find contradictions" is highly opposed to LII. In a way, it's a compensating technique ("I don't have patience to master the system as well as an LII; but I know enough to be able to find its flaws.") It seems that acc-Ti types are the most likely to insist that each person takes responsibility for mastering systems ("Don't say things like that until you've mastered the system." "Can't you read?" etc.). Gammas (like you [Expat]) believe that with certain "tools" they can insert themselves in the conversation and start picking at things (not with a lack of Ti understanding, but with enough...something sufficient...and thus Ti has an important function even for Gammas).
Here's where "Ti = deductive logic" falls short. It seems that Ti is really a valuing of the position that people should master the rules, the system, learn all it's details, how it works together. Gamma NTs tend to take the view that it's fine (and useful) to insert themselves into any situation and critique any system, since they can apply their "tools." Deductive logic is, in itself, a tool, and as such is something that Gamma NTs use a lot. The Gamma NT sees that many people aren't thinking clearly, and thus reasons "since I can think clearly, I can come up with better conclusions." Thus, mastering the system isn't as important to the Gamma NT; however, some working knowledge of the system is required.
I see an ILI as a "data maximizer." That is, with only a little bit of data, an ILI can potentially learn more than other people. (IEIs are similar in the realm of people. You can't fool them, because with very little data, they can tell what you're thinking, feeling, where you've been, etc.). Although Jung's typology may be slightly different from Socionics, I think it's for this reason that Jung emphasizes the mystical quality of Ni (as if Ni can derive valid conclusions from no data whatsoever). The ILI uses Te to figure out how to get the needed data with the least amount of effort. ILIs create an impression of accumulating knowledge, but much of this comes from their maximizing tendency (they remember what they've read, they think about it, they understand all the nuances, they extrapolate).