my type

[Gilly]

An ILI might care about a honeymoon as much as anyone else. Christ...some of you people act like Fi-preference types want nothing to do with culture, tradition, societal values...it's a myth, people.

i know this isn't true.

What isn't true? What I say, or this distorted perception of ?

you fail to understand. it's not merely lack of Fe; it's Ni: "i couldn't care less about my surroundings. leave me alone to my thoughts."

...huh? I'm the same way, but it wouldn't have any bearing on whether or not I want a honeymoon...It's not like Ni types sit in their rooms all day and disregard whatever's around them when they happen to leave...they enjoy life experiences, too, whether you do or not

[Exodus]

niffweed, I still think the main issue is that you are an extreme Ni subtype INTp, which means you value Ti more than the average INTp. Comparing it with my own situation, I often find myself arguing against what is supposedly a "Ti" perspective, requiring people to back up ideas with examples or, more significantly, to demonstrate some concrete use for an idea.

That you value Se is without question; you make zero effort to go easy on people for the sake of niceness or interpersonal harmony, especially when you feel like someone is being an idiot. This could be construed as Ti, but I don't think so. If you do value Ti by some chance, ISTj is more likely than INTj.

I think niffweed's problem is that his IQ is about a million times higher than the people around him .

I think that is part of it. It could explain why he doesn't relate well to the other INTps on the forum.

[discojoe]

Niffweed *seems* INTj to me. Expats analysis seems to leave out the "pissed teenager on the internet" variable. Whenever he posts I see AHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH .

Dunno. I think he cultivates a persona online that makes it hard to tell either way. The pic didn't help either, though the hair is hilarious. He does have stereotypical INTj grooming habits, though that still doesn't help much.

[Gilly]

Niffweed *seems* INTj to me. Expats analysis seems to leave out the "pissed teenager on the internet" variable.

This points to LII how, exactly?

[discojoe]

Niffweed *seems* INTj to me. Expats analysis seems to leave out the "pissed teenager on the internet" variable.

This points to LII how, exactly?

I wasn't meant to be an argument for INTj. I just meant that some of what Expat said may have been overlooking the possibility that a pissed kid of any type can come off how he chooses on the internet. It's a place where we can be dishonest and manipulate our self-perceptions, which I think a lot of kids do for many reasons. What Expat wrote seemed an accurate analysis of what niffweed wrote, in which case I am questioning what niffweed wrote. Niffweed just seems a little too... cynical/hard-edged/geeky/antisocial for me to feel comfortable taking his self-descriptions too literally. It just "feels" off.

I can't be sure without meeting him, though.

[aestrivex]

What Expat wrote seemed an accurate analysis of what niffweed wrote, in which case I am questioning what niffweed wrote. Niffweed just seems a little too... cynical/hard-edged/geeky/antisocial for me to feel comfortable taking his self-descriptions too literally. It just "feels" off.

in what way do you find them unreliable?

[Gilly]

Niffweed just seems a little too... cynical/hard-edged/geeky/antisocial for me to feel comfortable taking his self-descriptions too literally. ]

...This, coming from you, of all people? Come on now, Peter.

[discojoe]

Niffweed just seems a little too... cynical/hard-edged/geeky/antisocial for me to feel comfortable taking his self-descriptions too literally. ]

...This, coming from you, of all people? Come on now, Peter.

i new u wud say taht

[Gilly]

gud 4 u now wut?

[discojoe]

Also, what the fuck does that have to do with whether or not it's true?

[Gilly]

Absolutely nothing. However, assuming your own credibility, you would be a case useful in discrediting this possibility.

[Gilly]

Also I think you're projecting, but that's another issue.

[Dioklecian]

Niffy do you have any pics around?

[discojoe]

What Expat wrote seemed an accurate analysis of what niffweed wrote, in which case I am questioning what niffweed wrote. Niffweed just seems a little too... cynical/hard-edged/geeky/antisocial for me to feel comfortable taking his self-descriptions too literally. It just "feels" off.

in what way do you find them unreliable?

I don't know, you just seem too "in the clouds" to be making reliable self-descriptions, but maybe that's actually something that can be of use in the matter. w/e

[discojoe]

Also I think you're projecting, but that's another issue.

Would you back off? Thanks.

[aestrivex]

i think the general sense of discojoe's criticism is very valid in that there's no reason that the way that i come off in the forum is the way i necessarily act; indeed, the very purpose of this thread is to write about experiences as honestly as possible to clear up these such misconceptions.

exactly why discojoe finds me Ti (saying "Whenever he posts I see AHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH " is not exactly very helpful) and why he finds this thread to be unreliable i am not sure.

[implied]

An ILI might care about a honeymoon as much as anyone else. Christ...some of you people act like Fi-preference types want nothing to do with culture, tradition, societal values...it's a myth, people.

i know this isn't true.

What isn't true? What I say, or this distorted perception of ?

this distorted perception of . i do think there are types who like holidays (or at least those who are not just going - "ew, holidays, yuck.")

[Gilly]

Also I think you're projecting, but that's another issue.

Would you back off? Thanks.

Just thought I'd reciprocate.

[Gilly]

An ILI might care about a honeymoon as much as anyone else. Christ...some of you people act like Fi-preference types want nothing to do with culture, tradition, societal values...it's a myth, people.

i know this isn't true.

What isn't true? What I say, or this distorted perception of ?

this distorted perception of . i do think there are types who like holidays (or at least those who are not just going - "ew, holidays, yuck.")

She hasn't gotten to everyone!

[implied]

An ILI might care about a honeymoon as much as anyone else. Christ...some of you people act like Fi-preference types want nothing to do with culture, tradition, societal values...it's a myth, people.

i know this isn't true.

What isn't true? What I say, or this distorted perception of ?

this distorted perception of . i do think there are types who like holidays (or at least those who are not just going - "ew, holidays, yuck.")

She hasn't gotten to everyone!

not that i'm promoting that i'm a type.

i'm speaking of the dual-rational couples in gamma/delta. there seems to be some holiday observance going on there somewhat. and i bet nicky's family has christmas for the kids and what have you.

[aestrivex]

delta is very different from gamma in that regard.

[Exodus]

this might change for the 3-day conference in august, but even that is a mere 3 days, in which all participants will undoubtedly be thinking about a number of socionic-related matters other than observing other people's types.

Actually, I think that will be as, if not more, interesting as talking about socionics. We can finally verify whether online behavior is (for the most part) the same as RL behavior.

Question: how do you feel about "the idea of" Se and Fe, and not in terms of your interactions with people?

[aestrivex]

Question: how do you feel about "the idea of" Se and Fe, and not in terms of your interactions with people?

what do you mean, "the idea of" those functions? can you specify exactly what that idea is?

[Exodus]

Question: how do you feel about "the idea of" Se and Fe, and not in terms of your interactions with people?

what do you mean, "the idea of" those functions? can you specify exactly what that idea is?

Do you really think you could have Fe as a quadra value? I personally don't buy it.

[aestrivex]

Do you really think you could have Fe as a quadra value? I personally don't buy it.

i would agree that there is more evidence to the contrary, but if i were certain, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Jonathan]

One suggestion: Might distinguishing between these two levels resolve some of the apparent contradictions?:

1) Functional definitions based on cognitive strengths and interests
2) Functional definitions based on structure of life decisions and behaviors

It seems that Socionics typically assumes that these are aligned, but I'm not so sure.

In the first category, Ti is seen as an interest and ability with considering things from the vantage point of pure logical consistency. With that definition, it would be be indicated by an interest and ability in mathematical reasoning, proving things, arguing based on internal logic rather than facts.

But in the second category, Ti would be seen more as a life that unfolds in an internally consistent way. With that definition, it would be indicated by a tendency to follow paths that often seem obstinantly odd, and rigid to others, because they're based on internal consistency. People would, however, be impressed by one's tenacity with sticking "on principle" and the results that brings. In other words, a person's life itself would look like a mathematical theorem. However, one may not necessarily have an interest or ability in mathematics itself.

Notice that the first definition (content-based Socionics) is fully compatible with what is usually understood as Ip temperament; the second (structural Socionics) is clearly Ij.

]


an interesting suggestion, at any rate. for me it's very clear that the first one would apply reasonably well, whereas the second not at all.

the problem is, however, that i'm not sure you can segregate interests and life behaviors. socionics more or less holds that both are a manifestation of the same functions, and that has held up well enough IME so i don't think there's any reason to challenge this.

So you see what I mean: You identify with one, but not the other.

And that's just one reason why I don't think the linkage has held up very well at all. It seems to me that many of the debates, disagreements, and doubts are about this. As you know, the two definitions are paraphrases of perspectives on Ti that are out there, and both come from stuff in the Socionics literature. And it's clear that neither definition implies the other.

Furthermore, I wouldn't even say that Socionics holds that both are manifestations of the same functions; a more accurate statement might be that most Socionists haven't thought of (or haven't clearly articulated) the difference. So there is a sort of passive acceptance that they're "the same" without really thinking about it.

The result on this site is that you often have people splitting into camps. The "content" people like to talk about how Alphas are the true intellectuals, and Gammas are into applied stuff (business, engineering), etc. The "structure" people tend to want to talk more about temperaments and will make statements acknowledging that there are non-Alpha intellectuals, and that there are Alpha-NTs who aren't so intellectual.

The result is that people from these different camps constantly come up with different typings for famous people as well as for people on the forum.

If you think of INTj only as someone who thinks mathematically and axiomatically and prefers to use logic rather than relying on knowing "facts," then it's interesting to see some of the people Rick has typed as LII, and the reasonings.

Nicole Kidman: "Versatile actress known for her sharp mind. Strict, rational style. Her normal facial expression is cold and stern"
Sigourney Weaver: "Calm and dispassionate in interviews with almost no physical movement."

Notice that most of the observations are about how the person "is" rather than anything having to do with mathematical or axiomatic thinking. It's a different definition of Ti. Socionics works on different levels; and until one sees that, it's like living in two dimensions and denying the existence of any more dimensions. (Ever read "Flatland," by the way?)

[Jonathan]

BTW, just so no one is confused about my use of terms here...I don't mean that content-based Socionics isn't also about structures. Obviously, it's all about structure. But the structure manifests itself at different levels.

Here's a sort of picture of what I think is going on:

[The Socionics of Phenomena] ----->
............................................\
..............................................\ Applications:
.................................................. Content-interest
.................................................. Life structures
.................................................. Etc.

[EDIT: I know it's not a great-looking picture. I'm trying to show these other things coming from the central source. I had to add the periods at the beginning because otherwise the spaces disappear.]

You have the core of Socionics, which is the Socionics of Phenomena, which is a sort of mathematical fact that applies to everything.
And then you have structures that manifest this mathematical pattern. These include content interest and life structures. Maybe other levels exist as well. If you manifest a sort of INTj approach to content interest, it will have structural manifestations. But it won't make you an INTj in your life structure, because it's merely a way of thinking about something; and the difference becomes more apparent when you meet someone who's an INTj "structural" type.

[Exodus]

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...htm/issues.htm

[Jonathan]

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/issues.htm

Is that me?

[Exodus]

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/issues.htm

Is that me?

Yes!

[Jonathan]

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/issues.htm

Is that me?

Yes!

So if I'm that way, what does that make me...INTj? And if it bothers you, what does that make you...INTp?

I didn't mean to take over the thread. I'm just trying to supply what seems to be the most relevant information at getting to the bottom of why Niffweed seems uncertain of his type. I'm just trying to point out some things that seem obvious to me, but maybe not everyone sees. I'm trying to further the discussion by getting to the fundamentals, the root causes. If it bothers you, just ignore it.

[Exodus]

If you think of INTj only as someone who thinks mathematically and axiomatically and prefers to use logic rather than relying on knowing "facts," then it's interesting to see some of the people Rick has typed as LII, and the reasonings.

Nicole Kidman: "Versatile actress known for her sharp mind. Strict, rational style. Her normal facial expression is cold and stern"
Sigourney Weaver: "Calm and dispassionate in interviews with almost no physical movement."

Those are not very good arguments, per se, for INTj, and I think even Rick would agree with me.

They are more just a summary of the impressions an INTj might make on someone.

Notice that most of the observations are about how the person "is" rather than anything having to do with mathematical or axiomatic thinking. It's a different definition of Ti. Socionics works on different levels; and until one sees that, it's like living in two dimensions and denying the existence of any more dimensions.

Yeah, but that's kind of obvious. I'm always learning new ways to apply socionics concepts. (And INTj != Ti, though that should go without saying.)

[Jonathan]

Those are not very good arguments, per se, for INTj, and I think even Rick would agree with me.

They are more just a summary of the impressions an INTj might make on someone.

Yeah, they are external impressions, and they're not thorough arguments for INTj, but those are the observations Rick chose to use, and those are some of the people he picked (I'm focusing on INTj because it seemed Niffweed was leaning more towards INTj than ISTj or ETp).

I was just using those as examples of how "structural" Ti is quite different from "content" Ti (i.e., mathematical/axiomatic reasoning).

I notice another good example in the UDP thread: Expat or someone else pointed out that being highly concerned with "correct" behavior is highly associated with Ij types, including ITj.

A lot of people I know who are very into things like math, logic, and so forth, aren't the least bit interested in enforcing "correct" behavior. Many of them are really quite laid back and highly accepting of many styles as well as of people's various foibles. This again just shows that someone may be quite Ti on the "content" side, but not Ti at all by the "structural" definition.

[Exodus]

A lot of people I know who are very into things like math, logic, and so forth, aren't the least bit interested in enforcing "correct" behavior. Many of them are really quite laid back and highly accepting of many styles as well as of people's various foibles. This again just shows that someone may be quite Ti on the "content" side, but not Ti at all by the "structural" definition.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them "definitions". I have known ENTps to be extremely close-minded at times; personality comes out to varying degrees in one's behavior in different situations. Big deal.

How do you see Ti in me, for example? I appear more laid-back than I am IRL. Things like that have to do with maturity too - which is intrinsically not related to type.

[Jonathan]

How do you see Ti in me, for example? I appear more laid-back than I am IRL. Things like that have to do with maturity too - which is intrinsically not related to type.

Actually, I see a structural-Ti tendency in your posts, especially given the way you react to people whom you may perceive as "shooting from the hip" or people who diverge from a standard understanding of Socionics with what may appear to be too little justification. If someone floats forth a "trial balloon" or idea, especially one that may seem to you unecessary or unwarranted, you appear to want to show how that's not "correct" in some way. I mean, you may do it affably and in a "laid-back" way, as you mention, but it still seems to be your intention to "correct" things. I've noticed that tendency in some INTjs and sometimes ENTps.

This is interesting because I've seen a lot of stuff written about how Gammas try to correct the new ideas of Alphas (i.e., saying it wouldn't work, is impractical, etc.). But I think Alphas also may play a similar role of "critic," though on different grounds.

[Exodus]

This is interesting because I've seen a lot of stuff written about how Gammas try to correct the new ideas of Alphas (i.e., saying it wouldn't work, is impractical, etc.). But I think Alphas also may play a similar role of "critic," though on different grounds.

Yeah, Alphas would most likely criticize something for lacking conceptual content, whereas Gammas might criticize something for being extreme or wildly unlikely.

[KSpin]

This is interesting because I've seen a lot of stuff written about how Gammas try to correct the new ideas of Alphas (i.e., saying it wouldn't work, is impractical, etc.). But I think Alphas also may play a similar role of "critic," though on different grounds.

Yeah, Alphas would most likely criticize something for lacking conceptual content, whereas Gammas might criticize something for being extreme or wildly unlikely.

Or pointless.

[Kristiina]

Do you really think you could have Fe as a quadra value? I personally don't buy it.

i would agree that there is more evidence to the contrary, but if i were certain, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I said earlier: after some persuation I finally get an answer out of him (INTp Erkki) and it's something like, "If I hadn't thought it was a good idea, I wouldn't have gone along with it. Duh. ".
similar?

[KSpin]

Do you really think you could have Fe as a quadra value? I personally don't buy it.

i would agree that there is more evidence to the contrary, but if i were certain, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I said earlier: after some persuation I finally get an answer out of him (INTp Erkki) and it's something like, "If I hadn't thought it was a good idea, I wouldn't have gone along with it. Duh. ".
similar?

I think it's just logical, really. You don't argue with someone if you agree with, or believe, what they're saying.

[Logos]

Do you really think you could have Fe as a quadra value? I personally don't buy it.

i would agree that there is more evidence to the contrary, but if i were certain, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I said earlier: after some persuation I finally get an answer out of him (INTp Erkki) and it's something like, "If I hadn't thought it was a good idea, I wouldn't have gone along with it. Duh. ".
similar?

I think it's just logical, really. You don't argue with someone if you agree with, or believe, what they're saying.

Not unless you seek to determine whether or not they believe what they do for the right or logical reasons.