FDG's type one more round

[Expat]

No. An ENTj is time and event oriented, NOT schedule oriented. Schedules are static... they're practically the anti-Ni. Ni is about events and the flow of time, not placing tasks or appointments into neat little slots on a calendar.

Yes. ENTjs have confidence on their ability to juggle their short-term schedule as they see it because they know they can all make it fit together in the longer term. Those who need to schedule what they do lack this confidence (which is not to say that the ENTj's way necessarily works better in the end).

Perhaps that's an argument against Shwarzenegger's being an LSE - check out Wikisocion's article on him to see what I mean. If LSEs plan, what he said isn't particularly plan-orientated.

I wrote that, and if you think that, you haven't got it.

Ni is not intrinsically about planning or not planning. It's about thinking or not not thinking about your longer-term activities, if you have the choice. What Schwarzenegger meant is that he sees no point in thinking about his longer term actions if they are not already a present reality. Of course, as governor, he - or someone else for him - makes plans as to his official schedule for next week or next month, and he'd want that. But he won't spontaneously be thinking about it. And he doesn't see much point in already thinking now about what he's going to do after being governor, because the choice is not there yet. He just knows that when the time comes to take a decision, he can handle it and do what's necessary.

Now, on a short-term basis, Ni PoLR types have an inclination to focus too much on the job at hand, in what's in front of them, and think less about the fact that they have to be somewhere else in about two hours. That's the reason for the sterotypical Si EJ tardiness -- if they're not careful, they get late to a meeting because they just happened to notice that someone had messed something up and they went to tidy it up, and so got late. Now, as a reaction to that, many Si EJs compensate by adhering to pre-set schedules, even on a daily basis. These are the LSEs and ESEs who are always checking their watches and agendas. But such a behavior is not intrinsic to any function.

EDIT: by the way, my ESFj ex would do both. She'd always consult her agenda about everything, simply because it took an extra effort on her part to always keep in mind what she'd be doing next week. At the same time, she was almost always late for dates - because something would always need to be done "at the last moment". The thing is, Ni EJs are more confident that things do not necessarily have to be done the precise moment you spot them.

[Ezra]

You clearly have understood shit of what I was talking about, very good man. You couldn't have offended me worse with this stupid words. Prepare yourself to be hunted over the whole forum

Someone explain to me how this is ENTj behaviour?

Not this particular example, it is merely the most recent example of a behaviour that is rather characteristic of FDG.

Hahaha, that's a good one to rip out.

I think, FDG, you should either look at SEE or stick with SLE. You're not LIE, no way.

Look at how everyone went "Ezra, you're clearly SLE" and then pulled out about twenty quotes to support it. It's the same case with you - you clearly have Se there.

[implied]

You clearly have understood shit of what I was talking about, very good man. You couldn't have offended me worse with this stupid words. Prepare yourself to be hunted over the whole forum

Someone explain to me how this is ENTj behaviour?

Not this particular example, it is merely the most recent example of a behaviour that is rather characteristic of FDG.

Hahaha, that's a good one to rip out.

I think, FDG, you should either look at SEE or stick with SLE. You're not LIE, no way.

Look at how everyone went "Ezra, you're clearly SLE" and then pulled out about twenty quotes to support it. It's the same case with you - you clearly have Se there.

yeah, i think i agree with you, ezra. the other thing i'd consider would be perhaps ENTp? i believe our science as magic has expressed he thinks you may be his mirror.

[Ezra]

I wrote that,

Yes, Expat, I know this, because every time I use a quote or information from Wikisocion to back up my argument, you tell me this. But if what is written there is objective information, it shouldn't matter who wrote it, because it is fact. So whatever is written there can't be debated, and if you ever do so, you're contradicting yourself.

and if you think that, you haven't got it.

Good, thank you. Because this is one of the reasons I shied away from LSE. Now I understand it, I know I'm not LSE.

I find it interesting though, because the ESTJ of MBTI is particularly efficient - as with the LSE - but is also adept at time-keeping, unlike the LSE. This is because of both S and J - this is about timing. So ESTJs are good time keepers. But ENTJs in MBTI aren't particularly good at this, which is what I am. But that's because they don't see time as objective e.g. the meeting starts when they get there, hence, they can't be late for a meeting. I'd say if it's not type-related, then I could be ENTJ as opposed to ESTJ. But with socionics, what's also interesting is the idea of an ESTp being a good time keeper, unlike the ESTP of MBTI. I think Ps and Ss get quite a raw deal with MBTI - as those who can't finish things and those who can't think outside the box respectively. Some of this carries through in socionics, sadly e.g. ENTps are prone to leaving things open and unfinished.

[Ezra]

You clearly have understood shit of what I was talking about, very good man. You couldn't have offended me worse with this stupid words. Prepare yourself to be hunted over the whole forum

Someone explain to me how this is ENTj behaviour?

Not this particular example, it is merely the most recent example of a behaviour that is rather characteristic of FDG.

Hahaha, that's a good one to rip out.

I think, FDG, you should either look at SEE or stick with SLE. You're not LIE, no way.

Look at how everyone went "Ezra, you're clearly SLE" and then pulled out about twenty quotes to support it. It's the same case with you - you clearly have Se there.

yeah, i think i agree with you, ezra. the other thing i'd consider would be perhaps ENTp? i believe our science as magic has expressed he thinks you may be his mirror.

Oooh, it's possible. I did ask him to consider that. I've always got on pretty well with FDG. I'd definitely say the EP temperament was fitting to him though. He's also a 7, and many - if not most - 7s are ENTps, simply because of their characteristically being adept at brainstorming and thinking up new ways of doing things and living. The disorganisation - except when it is required - is also evident in both the ENTp and the 7. But one thing is certain about Fabio - that is that he is not afraid of combat, and he will not avoid it. It's the 8 in him.

[Joy]

i believe our science as magic has expressed he thinks you may be his mirror.

he's also expressed he thinks I may be his dual... I wouldn't use him to gauge people's types

[Ezra]

i believe our science as magic has expressed he thinks you may be his mirror.

he's also expressed he thinks I may be his dual... I wouldn't use him to gauge people's types

But do you know what your type is? Or is FDG saying that he sees you as his Dual based on the relationship described between Duals as opposed to basing his type upon what your type is?

[implied]

i believe our science as magic has expressed he thinks you may be his mirror.

he's also expressed he thinks I may be his dual... I wouldn't use him to gauge people's types

yeah i agree he's a pretty shitty gauge.

[FDG]

You clearly have understood shit of what I was talking about, very good man. You couldn't have offended me worse with this stupid words. Prepare yourself to be hunted over the whole forum

Someone explain to me how this is ENTj behaviour?

Not this particular example, it is merely the most recent example of a behaviour that is rather characteristic of FDG.

Hahaha, that's a good one to rip out.

I think, FDG, you should either look at SEE or stick with SLE. You're not LIE, no way.

Look at how everyone went "Ezra, you're clearly SLE" and then pulled out about twenty quotes to support it. It's the same case with you - you clearly have Se there.

yeah, i think i agree with you, ezra. the other thing i'd consider would be perhaps ENTp? i believe our science as magic has expressed he thinks you may be his mirror.

Yeah I understand that quote sounds pure Se. or feeling something. I don't know.

[Joy]

I wrote that,

Yes, Expat, I know this, because every time I use a quote or information from Wikisocion to back up my argument, you tell me this. But if what is written there is objective information, it shouldn't matter who wrote it, because it is fact. So whatever is written there can't be debated, and if you ever do so, you're contradicting yourself.

First of all, I wouldn't be so quick to take what's written there as fact... I wouldn't be so quick to take what's written anywhere as unquestionable, objective fact.

Secondly, when he points out that he wrote it, this serves to remind you that your arguments based on your interpretation of what's written there shouldn't be so set in stone when the author himself is telling you that you're taking it the wrong way or trying to offer further explanation.

That wiki is a work in progress, and it is only logical to expect that there are parts that could be re-worded to be more clear in their meaning. The moral of the story: Stop using it as a Bible, interpreting it in ways that are convenient for you and then using them as infallible reasons to support your arguments.

[Expat]

Secondly, when he points out that he wrote it, this serves to remind you that your arguments based on your interpretation of what's written there shouldn't be so set in stone when the author himself is telling you that you're taking it the wrong way or trying to offer further explanation.

Thank you.

[FDG]

i believe our science as magic has expressed he thinks you may be his mirror.

he's also expressed he thinks I may be his dual... I wouldn't use him to gauge people's types

But do you know what your type is? Or is FDG saying that he sees you as his Dual based on the relationship described between Duals as opposed to basing his type upon what your type is?

She was speaking about pedro_the_lion, I would never say Joy is my dual, for sure.

[Joy]

I think you've done a lot of good work with the wiki, and I think it's a valuable tool... but it bothers me to see people taking it as FACT. I don't think anything should be taken as infallible FACT, and in this situation we've got someone taking it as fact to the extent that they're willing to argue with the author over the meaning of what's written there.

On the wiki, I think people should be offering input and trying to help out... but at the same time, I'm hesitant to do so myself because I wouldn't want to be in the position you're in... I wouldn't want to have to defend it against people who are taking what's written there as objective fact when really it's no different than a carefully thought through post... it's a person doing his/her best to be objective, but at the end of the day, it's still his/her own understanding of something, not objective FACT. In order to make it more objective, many people of all types from different cultures and age groups and whatnot who have their own set of experiences would have to help add to and revise it.

[Joy]

It would depend on the knowledge of Socionics those people have.

While I agree that it may not necessarily make it more accurate, I think it would make it "more objective". Again though, I don't really believe it's possible for a human to be totally objective. No one can know everything or see a situation from every possible perspective. No matter how hard they try to take other perspectives into consideration and gather all available information, they are still only able to think of the situation with their own brain and through associations in their mind based on their own experiences.

[FDG]

It would depend on the knowledge of Socionics those people have.

While I agree that it may not necessarily make it more accurate, I think it would make it "more objective". Again though, I don't really believe it's possible for a human to be totally objective. No one can know everything or see a situation from every possible perspective. No matter how hard they try to take other perspectives into consideration and gather all available information, they are still only able to think of the situation with their own brain and through associations in their mind based on their own experiences.

There are objective facts that are indipendant from perception. Type is one of them but since there is no objective standard we can compare it to, we cannot measure it yet. Another objective fact, for example, is the existence of the post I am writing - given the presence of an observer, of course.

What you're speaking about is conclusions, and predictions. Those can only be subjective, and that's because in socionics terms they are explained by introverted functions (Ti for conclusions, Ni for predictions).

Every objective function so is objective, and every subjective function is subjective. Therefore, we could say that each type is equally objective/subjective, when he/she uses different information elements.

I personally don't feel like I'm objective enough to write anything on there. I think everything I'd write has stood no certain validation, and that if somebody else were to state something different, I would have no empirical grounding to back up what I say, except *my* experience.

[FDG]

You clearly have understood shit of what I was talking about, very good man. You couldn't have offended me worse with this stupid words. Prepare yourself to be hunted over the whole forum

Someone explain to me how this is ENTj behaviour?

Not this particular example, it is merely the most recent example of a behaviour that is rather characteristic of FDG.

Hahaha, that's a good one to rip out.

I think, FDG, you should either look at SEE or stick with SLE. You're not LIE, no way.

Look at how everyone went "Ezra, you're clearly SLE" and then pulled out about twenty quotes to support it. It's the same case with you - you clearly have Se there.

yeah, i think i agree with you, ezra. the other thing i'd consider would be perhaps ENTp? i believe our science as magic has expressed he thinks you may be his mirror.

Oooh, it's possible. I did ask him to consider that. I've always got on pretty well with FDG. I'd definitely say the EP temperament was fitting to him though. He's also a 7, and many - if not most - 7s are ENTps, simply because of their characteristically being adept at brainstorming and thinking up new ways of doing things and living. The disorganisation - except when it is required - is also evident in both the ENTp and the 7. But one thing is certain about Fabio - that is that he is not afraid of combat, and he will not avoid it. It's the 8 in him.

I could be ENTp no problem for me really. I think it's a rather shunned type in socionics. However I came here as ENTP and quickly realized how the descriptions didn't fit me, so the option has already been considered.

[Expat]

I think you've done a lot of good work with the wiki, and I think it's a valuable tool... but it bothers me to see people taking it as FACT. I don't think anything should be taken as infallible FACT, and in this situation we've got someone taking it as fact to the extent that they're willing to argue with the author over the meaning of what's written there.

It's an interesting phenomenon, but we've seen it elsewhere. People attributing interpretations to what (say) Lytov or Smilingeyes or whoever wrote, but they'd probably ignore it if they would say "no, that's not what I meant at all".

Karl Marx noticed the same phenomenon, he said, "if Marxism is what some of these people are saying, then I'm not a Marxist".

And of course, what Filatova or Stratievskaya or Gulenko or Augusta wrote shouldn't be seen as infallible fact, either. Or Jung.

On the wiki, I think people should be offering input and trying to help out... but at the same time, I'm hesitant to do so myself because I wouldn't want to be in the position you're in... I wouldn't want to have to defend it against people who are taking what's written there as objective fact when really it's no different than a carefully thought through post... it's a person doing his/her best to be objective, but at the end of the day, it's still his/her own understanding of something, not objective FACT. In order to make it more objective, many people of all types from different cultures and age groups and whatnot who have their own set of experiences would have to help add to and revise it.

Sure it's not objective fact. But, FWIW, if it's in the wiki it's because the main contributors - Rick, thehotelambush, Bionicgoat, Jonathan, niffweed17, myself - at least haven't objected strongly to it. So it has input from most quadras, and we'd be glad for more input from Beta, as Kristiina and raisonpure have already offered to some extent.

[Ezra]

Stop using it as a Bible, interpreting it in ways that are convenient for you and then using them as infallible reasons to support your arguments.

Joy, that is not what I'm doing. I'm not interpreting; I'm using my understanding as objectively as humanly possible to back up my points, as anyone in an argument would. They're also not infallible reasons - they're quite valid and sound, but yes, there are flaws.

I take the rest of what you said on board.

[Ezra]

I think you've done a lot of good work with the wiki, and I think it's a valuable tool... but it bothers me to see people taking it as FACT. I don't think anything should be taken as infallible FACT, and in this situation we've got someone taking it as fact to the extent that they're willing to argue with the author over the meaning of what's written there.

Joy, you must understand that this is a tactic I use so as to further my understanding of what is written. If I get what the author meant from the author himself, then I have no reason to further debate a given point.

On the wiki, I think people should be offering input and trying to help out... but at the same time, I'm hesitant to do so myself because I wouldn't want to be in the position you're in... I wouldn't want to have to defend it against people who are taking what's written there as objective fact when really it's no different than a carefully thought through post... it's a person doing his/her best to be objective, but at the end of the day, it's still his/her own understanding of something, not objective FACT. In order to make it more objective, many people of all types from different cultures and age groups and whatnot who have their own set of experiences would have to help add to and revise it.

I agree. And this is why debate concerning this kind of topic is so important - it opens doors and sheds new light on matters, producing understanding for all, including those most versed in socionics theory.

[Ezra]

I could be ENTp no problem for me really. I think it's a rather shunned type in socionics. However I came here as ENTP and quickly realized how the descriptions didn't fit me, so the option has already been considered.

I thought you came as ESTP? I've little doubt you're ESTP in MBTI terms. But you could still be ENTp in socionics terms. Just look at me - there's no chance I'm ESTP MBTI (I'm ENTJ) but in socionics, I'm most likely ESTp.

[Ezra]

And of course, what Filatova or Stratievskaya or Gulenko or Augusta wrote shouldn't be seen as infallible fact, either. Or Jung.

Definitely. After all, they're psychologists and psychoanalysts, not scientists.

[Gilly]

People are silly. Since when are there any "facts" in Socionics beyond written observations?

[Ezra]

Gilly, you decided you might not be ILE after all, nor 7w6?