Offensive descriptions of types

[Phaedrus]

How can you first identify groups without definitions? HOW ARE YOU GROUPING THESE PEOPLE?!?!?!

You see a pattern. You notice that some people share some characteristics with each other that they don't share with other people, and you notice the differences between them and others. First you see, then you start to think about what it is that you are seeing. At this stage you might try to come with ideas on what the criteria are for belonging to group A instead of group B. But you don't have to be aware of which criteria you are actually using when you differentiate them. And you might realize after a while that your proposed criteria were wrong and should be replaced with other criteria that are better suited to capture the essence of each of the groups that you have already identified without any consciously chosen criteria. The criteria for disinguishing intertype relations, for example, were not invented before but after Augusta had identified the types in the first place. First the types, then the intertype relations.

[Gilly]

Phaedrus, mate, listen:

YOU AREN'T TALKING ABOUT SOCIONICS ANY MORE

[Expat]

But you don't have to be aware of which criteria you are actually using when you differentiate them.

Sooooo -- you advocate doing things without being aware of exactly why? As in being in an automatic pilot? "I have no idea of why precisely those two people are ILIs, I just know that they are"?

The criteria for disinguishing intertype relations, for example, were not invented before but after Augusta had identified the types in the first place. First the types, then the intertype relations.

Rubbish. She did not identify the types and then noticed, "hmm, these people seem to interact differently". She started seeing the types due to the difference in intertype relationships. She noticed that two couples of apparently very similar people could have extremely different relationships, so she deduced that at least two of those people were very similar superficially but very different internally, which she later called quasi-identicals. Only because she noticed the difference between duality and conflict did she start thinking about types at all. And that's why her types - Socionics types - were built around relationships, and can't exist without them.

Or, as Gilly said, you're not talking of socionics anymore.

[Gilly]

This is definitely up there as one of the most blatant logical pwnages that has ever occurred on this forum.

qft

[Phaedrus]

When you type people - by VI or however - you are also using criteria, whether you are aware of them or not.

Exactly. And that's why your remarks on XoX's > preference are irrelevant. We don't see the functions directly. What we see if we meet XoX in person is his behaviours, we see his body type and his facial structure, and we hear him talking. But we don't see the functions that may, or may not, exist somewhere inside his skull. We identify his type without seeing the functions. The functional explanations always come after a type identification has already been made by other means.

In fact, that's the reason why there are generally disagreements on typing - because people disagree on which criteria to use.

Yes, but that is another thing completely. Your correct type is inborn, remember? It is what it is even if we never come across Socionics. And therefore the type is independent on which criteria we use to identify it. The inborn structure is there regardless of which critera we decide to use in a typing process.

When typing, it's not self-evident at all that you're typing correctly.

In some cases it is self-evident.

Just look at Diocklecian. It's not clear at all, to him, that he's fallen on his face many times.

He has made the wrong assumptions, so we should expect him to make incorrect typings. And some people will never get it, no matter how hard they try.

The use of type descriptions is also a set of criteria. You use VI to type. That's also a set of criteria, even if difficult to put on paper.

Yes, we agree on that. And the point is that we don't have to be aware of which criteria we are using in order to make correct typings.

The same "objective reality" is that there are different types of people. Fine. But the precise groupings - the precise points where to draw the line - are not preset. They have to be defined.

It is a good thing to try to define the borders between the types, yes. But we observe the types first -- with or without a theory. And Socionics and MBTT agree on what they observe, even though they don't agree on how to explain what they observe theoretically.

[Kristiina]

Phaedrus makes my dual seeking bang its head against the wall in despair. I wonder what it means in socionics terms.

[Phaedrus]

"First we identify the groups (the types)"

And -- how do you do that without some definitions in the first place?

I refer to Kripke's causal theory of reference. The descriptive theory of names, which your arguments are based on, leads inevitably to a dead end.

[Phaedrus]

Sooooo -- you advocate doing things without being aware of exactly why? As in being in an automatic pilot? "I have no idea of why precisely those two people are ILIs, I just know that they are"?

No, I don't recommend it. In contrast you to you, I am saying that it is not necessary.

[Expat]

When you type people - by VI or however - you are also using criteria, whether you are aware of them or not.

Exactly. And that's why your remarks on XoX's > preference are irrelevant. We don't see the functions directly. What we see if we meet XoX in person is his behaviours, we see his body type and his facial structure, and we hear him talking. But we don't see the functions that may, or may not, exist somewhere inside his skull. We identify his type without seeing the functions. The functional explanations always come after a type identification has already been made by other means.

First, when I made that remark you just quoted, I said "you", meaning just you, Phaedrus, because you were saying that criteria were irrelevant. Not "you" generally. You said that criteria were irrelevant, I say that you also use them.

Second, what you then say is valid for you, Phaedrus, because you are not able to spot the functions individually. I, and many others here, do not need at all to identify a type and then explain the functions retroactively. When I met electric in London, I wasn't sure what type he was (I didn't remember if he had ever said it in the forum), but I was sure that he had near-zero . Later, he confirmed that he thought his type was SLI. So I did not have at all that type him first and then explain the functions backwards.

We can't see the functions in any biological way, but they are reflected in how people interact with one another. Which is the whole origin of all bloody socionics.

[Expat]

Phaedrus makes my dual seeking bang its head against the wall in despair. I wonder what it means in socionics terms.

It means that you recognize crappy and that disturbs you deeply, since that's what you rely most on others for. It's like the ultimate disappointment.

[Phaedrus]

I, and many others here, do not need at all to identify a type and then explain the functions retroactively. When I met electric in London, I wasn't sure what type he was (I didn't remember if he had ever said it in the forum), but I was sure that he had near-zero . Later, he confirmed that he thought his type was SLI. So I did not have at all that type him first and then explain the functions backwards.

We can't see the functions in any biological way, but they are reflected in how people interact with one another. Which is the whole origin of all bloody socionics.

As I have said all the way long: We may use different typing methods, but in the end we identify the same groups of people as a certain type. If functions analysis work for you, then feel free to use it. I think that it is less reliable than other typing methods, but you seem to be better at it than many others, and you usually end up with the same type as I do by other means.

[Expat]

How can you logically reconcile the statement you just made with this one?

And that's why your remarks on XoX's > preference are irrelevant. We don't see the functions directly. What we see if we meet XoX in person is his behaviours, we see his body type and his facial structure, and we hear him talking. But we don't see the functions that may, or may not, exist somewhere inside his skull. We identify his type without seeing the functions. The functional explanations always come after a type identification has already been made by other means.

They are totally contradictory.

[Gilly]

This is almost painful...it's like a cat playing with one of those swinging toys: it just keeps coming back

[Phaedrus]

How can you logically reconcile the statement you just made with this one?

And that's why your remarks on XoX's > preference are irrelevant. We don't see the functions directly. What we see if we meet XoX in person is his behaviours, we see his body type and his facial structure, and we hear him talking. But we don't see the functions that may, or may not, exist somewhere inside his skull. We identify his type without seeing the functions. The functional explanations always come after a type identification has already been made by other means.

They are totally contradictory.

They are not contradictory. Something is wrong with your use of conceptual logic, if you think that they are.

You said that you were "sure that he [electric] had near-zero ". That is an interpretation of your observations, it is a conclusion you draw after having observed his behaviour. That is something you admit yourself when you say that "We can't see the functions in any biological way, but they are reflected in how people interact with one another." That is exactly my point.

We observe people's behaviours, and from that we draw conslusions about what functions they use. You prefer to articulate your observations in a "functions language". That is a technique, it is your preferred terminology to express the same things as I am often inclined to express in a more non-technical language. We talk about the same objects (the same referents) but we use different "languages", different words, in doing so.

I said that "If functions analysis work for you, then feel free to use it." A function analysis is not the same thing as a direct observation of a function. First comes your observation of a certain kind of behaviour, then comes your analysis of that behaviour.

[Expat]

Ok, that is better.

But rather than blame my "poor conceptual logic", you might be more careful about your phrasing:

We identify his type without seeing the functions. The functional explanations always come after a type identification has already been made by other means.

You said "type identification" and "identify his type". Unless you want to say that "type" is just a "word", the only way to interpret this statement is that I'd have to first type him as SLI, and then go back to seeing his functions.

A function analysis is not the same thing as a direct observation of a function. First comes your observation of a certain kind of behaviour, then comes your analysis of that behaviour.

"A certain kind of behavior" is not the same thing as a "type", is it now?

Read closely what you yourself write.

[Rocky]

How can you first identify groups without definitions? HOW ARE YOU GROUPING THESE PEOPLE?!?!?!

You see a pattern. You notice that some people share some characteristics with each other that they don't share with other people, and you notice the differences between them and others. First you see, then you start to think about what it is that you are seeing. At this stage you might try to come with ideas on what the criteria are for belonging to group A instead of group B. But you don't have to be aware of which criteria you are actually using when you differentiate them. And you might realize after a while that your proposed criteria were wrong and should be replaced with other criteria that are better suited to capture the essence of each of the groups that you have already identified without any consciously chosen criteria. The criteria for disinguishing intertype relations, for example, were not invented before but after Augusta had identified the types in the first place. First the types, then the intertype relations.

Expat was right in saying you are mixing up criteria with theory.

I'll say what I said before, that you need some criteria to have a group of something. A group is a bunch of things related in some way. Before you can have a group, you have to decided what things it is that seperates them. It is not as obvious as just "seeing" things and knowing.

For example, are dogs and buffalo the same "thing" or different "thing"? Well, they're the same in that they are both mammals; the both have brains, lungs, hearts, mammalian reproductive organs, two eyes, and on and on. But then they have a bunch of physical characteristics that also put them in different groups; one a bovine and the other a canine. See? If you name criteria for one thing, they are the same, with different criteria, they are different.

You seem to think that people are all inheriently different in some way, and you group them some how, yet you don't even know what the differences are? How is that possible? It isn't. You can't seem to accept that maybe your criteria for grouping people is different from others. You can't get over the fact that other people "see" different things to you, and may group people into types differently. But at the same time critizing them for grouping people wrong. WTH happened?

Don't bother responded to this if you're just going to say "but I know there are certain types that exist blah blah blah" because then you don't get it. So if you're thinking that, just shut up. If you can't get over a simple concept like this, then there's really no point in arguing anymore.

[Expat]

Furthermore, how can you then say this:

And that's why your remarks on XoX's > preference are irrelevant. We don't see the functions directly. What we see if we meet XoX in person is his behaviours, we see his body type and his facial structure, and we hear him talking. But we don't see the functions that may, or may not, exist somewhere inside his skull. We identify his type without seeing the functions. The functional explanations always come after a type identification has already been made by other means.

You have just admitted that functional analysis in electric's case - I saw that he had low , so, for instance, that already eliminated ego types - was a legitimate way for typing him.

How can you then say that the same kind of observations in XoX's case are "irrelevant"? Just because I haven't met him personally? Well then, then everything that you (or anyone else) say about types of people we just know online is also irrelevant? Even your own observations on seeing XoX and Jonathan as very possible identicals to yourself?

And if you acknowledge that you can observe behavior patterns online and you recognize that I can detect preference, as in electric's case, then you can't just brush aside the fact that I recognized strong preference in XoX's case. Just like I eliminated Fe Ego types for electric, I eliminated ILI (and SLI for that matter) for XoX.

[Expat]

Everyone, please read Rocky's excellent to-the-point post just above, and then this:

Your arguments for saying that XoX couldn't be ILI are irrelevant. And it is also irrelevant if our criteria for typing correspond or not. I know that we are talking about the same set of objects when we use the expression "ILI" because I have read what you have said about "ILIs" on this forum. I have also read what you have said about the other types, and from that I can tell for sure that everything suggests that we have the same groups of people in mind. And that has nothing to do with definitions or criteria.

What to make of that?

And then this:

The same "objective reality" is that there are different types of people. Fine. But the precise groupings - the precise points where to draw the line - are not preset. They have to be defined.

It is a good thing to try to define the borders between the types, yes. But we observe the types first -- with or without a theory. And Socionics and MBTT agree on what they observe, even though they don't agree on how to explain what they observe theoretically.

So, Phaedrus, are you just contradicting yourself or you were indeed just confusing "criteria" and "theory"?

[Expat]

And, Phaedrus, I notice that you just skipped over this point?

The criteria for disinguishing intertype relations, for example, were not invented before but after Augusta had identified the types in the first place. First the types, then the intertype relations.

Rubbish. She did not identify the types and then noticed, "hmm, these people seem to interact differently". She started seeing the types due to the difference in intertype relationships. She noticed that two couples of apparently very similar people could have extremely different relationships, so she deduced that at least two of those people were very similar superficially but very different internally, which she later called quasi-identicals. Only because she noticed the difference between duality and conflict did she start thinking about types at all. And that's why her types - Socionics types - were built around relationships, and can't exist without them.
.

So, do you disagree with the factual accuracy of what I said, or are you going to say that it's "irrelevant"? Or that those who base socionics types on their intertype relationships are "deluded", as you said a few days ago? Or was Augusta herself "deluded"?

[Expat]

Since the subject was raised, I might as well put the second graph here:




These are the results of socionists giving their own type in socionics, and which of the Keirsey/MBTT types they thought fit them best.

You have some fair ABCD=ABCd results for ILE, IEI, SEI and LSE.

But you also have "oddities" like the SLEs and LIEs thinking they were INTJ and none thinking they were ESTP or ENTJ, respectively.

The EIEs thinking they were ENFP and none thinking they were ENFJ.

And the ILIs and LIIs all across the board.

My point, as previously, is not to say that this study proves anything definitely -- we don't know the quality of the actual descriptions Lytov handed out. The whole point is that ABCD=ABCd, as some sort of rule, is definitely not Lytov's stated view, to the point that he has even stated anything (and of course I speak under correction should he ever read this).

Phaedrus asked Rocky, "well, do you have a better theory than ABCD=ABCd"? Do we even need a theory? Whoever said that there has to be a theory connecting them logically?

My own theory is that yes, people have different types and socionics comes closest to drawing the precise criteria. MBTT attempted the same but has imperfect criteria, so its types overlap with socionics's to some, even large extent, but they are not going to group precisely the same individuals together.

[Phaedrus]

We identify his type without seeing the functions. The functional explanations always come after a type identification has already been made by other means.

You said "type identification" and "identify his type". Unless you want to say that "type" is just a "word", the only way to interpret this statement is that I'd have to first type him as SLI, and then go back to seeing his functions.

A function analysis is not the same thing as a direct observation of a function. First comes your observation of a certain kind of behaviour, then comes your analysis of that behaviour.

"A certain kind of behavior" is not the same thing as a "type", is it now?

Read closely what you yourself write.

That's a good point. I agree with you that a certain kind of behaviour is not the same thing as a type, and that it is possible to analyze a certain kind of behaviour in a functional perspective without reference to a type. But then we should keep in mind that by doing that we haven't established the person's type. And it is easy to get the impression from some of your posts that you are sometimes inclined to make that mistake. For example, you analyzed XoX's behaviour in writing and seemed to conclude that an INTp could not express such an attitude. My objection to that kind of analysis is that you cannot determine a person's type on such a tiny basis. It is theoretically possible, given the assumption that a certain kind of behaviour is not necessarily linked to a certain type, that XoX could behave in a non-INTp typical way and still be an INTp.

Your type is not defined by your use of one or several functions, since any type can use any function occasionally. Your type is determined by the structure of your brain, but we identify a person's type by observing his behaviour, his body type, his facial structure, etc., etc.

[Rocky]

How can you first identify groups without definitions? HOW ARE YOU GROUPING THESE PEOPLE?!?!?!

You see a pattern. You notice that some people share some characteristics with each other that they don't share with other people, and you notice the differences between them and others. First you see, then you start to think about what it is that you are seeing. At this stage you might try to come with ideas on what the criteria are for belonging to group A instead of group B. But you don't have to be aware of which criteria you are actually using when you differentiate them. And you might realize after a while that your proposed criteria were wrong and should be replaced with other criteria that are better suited to capture the essence of each of the groups that you have already identified without any consciously chosen criteria. The criteria for disinguishing intertype relations, for example, were not invented before but after Augusta had identified the types in the first place. First the types, then the intertype relations.

Expat was right in saying you are mixing up criteria with theory.

I'll say what I said before, that you need some criteria to have a group of something. A group is a bunch of things related in some way. Before you can have a group, you have to decided what things it is that seperates them. It is not as obvious as just "seeing" things and knowing.

For example, are dogs and buffalo the same "thing" or different "thing"? Well, they're the same in that they are both mammals; the both have brains, lungs, hearts, mammalian reproductive organs, two eyes, and on and on. But then they have a bunch of physical characteristics that also put them in different groups; one a bovine and the other a canine. See? If you name criteria for one thing, they are the same, with different criteria, they are different.

You seem to think that people are all inheriently different in some way, and you group them some how, yet you don't even know what the differences are? How is that possible? It isn't. You can't seem to accept that maybe your criteria for grouping people is different from others. You can't get over the fact that other people "see" different things to you, and may group people into types differently. But at the same time critizing them for grouping people wrong. WTH happened?

Don't bother responded to this if you're just going to say "but I know there are certain types that exist blah blah blah" because then you don't get it. So if you're thinking that, just shut up. If you can't get over a simple concept like this, then there's really no point in arguing anymore.

Your type is not defined by your use of one or several functions, since any type can use any function occasionally. Your type is determined by the structure of your brain,

Ahh, see but that is "criteria".

This is a different definition of a "type" then some other people may have (Expat, for instance). You are telling him he is wrong, while at the same time saying that the 16 types are somewhat omnipresently-known. See the problem? This is why you needs rules to have groups.

Expat saying a certain person cannot be a certain type because of some behavior fits in with his groupings, but your groupings (which seem to be of mental processes and less on behavior) are different. So someone can be one type to Expat, but another to you.

Personally I agree with the brain-functioning thing, though reading your posts I probably disagree about a lot of your definitions of the functions.

I hope you can understand this.

[Expat]

It is theoretically possible, given the assumption that a certain kind of behaviour is not necessarily linked to a certain type, that XoX could behave in a non-INTp typical way and still be an INTp.

If someone behaves - consistently, clearly - in a Fe>Fi way, that someone will not have ESFj as conflictor and ESFp as dual, and hence, according to socionics criteria, not an INTp.

You want to call someone who shows clear Fe>Fi behavior an "INTp", fine. You can call him whatever you like. Just don't pretend that it is the same as an INTp as defined by classical socionics.

[Phaedrus]

I'll say what I said before, that you need some criteria to have a group of something. A group is a bunch of things related in some way. Before you can have a group, you have to decided what things it is that seperates them. It is not as obvious as just "seeing" things and knowing.

For example, are dogs and buffalo the same "thing" or different "thing"? Well, they're the same in that they are both mammals; the both have brains, lungs, hearts, mammalian reproductive organs, two eyes, and on and on. But then they have a bunch of physical characteristics that also put them in different groups; one a bovine and the other a canine. See? If you name criteria for one thing, they are the same, with different criteria, they are different.

Like Expat, you seem to be reasoning from descriptive theory of meaning perspective. A common example to illustrate what would be different in a causal theory of mening perspective is the nature of water.

"Water" is a name. It has been used long before chemistry was a branch of the natural sciences to designate a certain kind of (chemical) substance, usually as a liquid. Most people think that they can identify water just by looking at it, even though they in some cases might have to taste it too. In normal circumstances that would suffice to be able to correctly identify something as "water".

Now, according to the theory of causal reference "water" is a rigid name. It refers to that kind of liquid (and I am now pointing to an instance of it in the glass I have in front of me on my desk). Of course we can describe the liquid we have chosen to call "water" by listing a set of characteristics, but we don't define "water" that way. In fact, there is no need to define exactly what we mean by "water" until we have found its true nature. Water has an essential structure, and we now think that we know what that structure is (dihydrogen monoxide). Water has always had that structure, and it has had it even during those times when people didn't know that it had that structure. They were still able to identify, correctly, a substance as water, even though they didn't know that it was in fact dihydrogen monoxide.

It's the same with, for example, intelligence. Some people are sometimes questioning that we know what we are talking about when we use the word "intelligence" on the grounds that we don't know how to define it. But the fact is that we don't need to define it in any other way than as "whatever it is that we measure with the help of intelligence tests". We have access to a identification method, but we still don't know the exact, essential nature of the phenomenon intelligence. We have some ideas, and some strong hypotheses, but we haven't found the structure yet. But intelligence has a structure, just like every type has a certain structure, and that structure is the essential, defining nature of intelligence.

You seem to think that people are all inheriently different in some way, and you group them some how, yet you don't even know what the differences are?

In a sense, yes. We can identify water without knowing its essential structure, and we can identify a certain type without knowing its essential structure. We can agree on what type a person is, without agreeing on how to define that type. That would be the case if a good socionist met a good MBTI practiotioner. If they met me, the the socionist would say that I am an ILI and perhaps add that that type can also be named INTp.

"Okay", says the MBTT guy, "then we agree, because I can see that this person is an INTP, which means that he has introverted thinking as dominant function and extraverted intuition as auxiliar..."

"Wait a minute!" the socionist protests. "What are you saying? An INTp has introverted intuition as leading function, not introverted thinking. You are talking about an INTj."

They would agree on which type I am, but they would not agree on how that type is defined, because MBTT and Socionics define them differently. But what the example is supposed to illustrate is that it is not necessary to know the theory behind the types to be able to correctly identify what type a person is.

[Expat]

You're still confusing criteria with theory, Phaedrus.

It's hopeless.

[Rocky]

They would agree on which type I am, but they would not agree on how that type is defined,

Oh, so you know this would happen, do you?

[Phaedrus]

It is theoretically possible, given the assumption that a certain kind of behaviour is not necessarily linked to a certain type, that XoX could behave in a non-INTp typical way and still be an INTp.

If someone behaves - consistently, clearly - in a Fe>Fi way, that someone will not have ESFj as conflictor and ESFp as dual, and hence, according to socionics criteria, not an INTp.

You want to call someone who shows clear Fe>Fi behavior an "INTp", fine. You can call him whatever you like. Just don't pretend that it is the same as an INTp as defined by classical socionics.

My point all along has been that it doesn't matter what anyone of us believes XoX's true type to be. In the future we will (hopefully) have found the essential structure of INTps. When we know what that structure is, and how to determine its existence or non-existence in individuals, we could perhaps scan XoX's brain and find out for sure whether he is an INTp or not. Until then we can only speculate and often make up strong hypotheses.

I have said more than once that what we actually are disagreeing on is the reliability of different typing methods. You talk about how INTps are defined by classical Socionics, but what you really are talking about is a typing method. You use a functions analysis to type XoX, and you may be right about his type, but you don't know for sure that you have typed him correctly, because XoX's true type is not dependent on yours or any one else's interpretation of his behaviours. His type is dependent on his brain structure.

[Phaedrus]

They would agree on which type I am, but they would not agree on how that type is defined,

Oh, so you know this would happen, do you?

Yes, I would. But only, as I said, if they were good.

[Expat]

They would agree on which type I am, but they would not agree on how that type is defined,

Oh, so you know this would happen, do you?

Yes, I would. But only, as I said, if they were good.

And there you have it. That's your answer to everything. Those who don't reach the same conclusions as you are either incompetent or not good. Because if they were competent or good they would agree with you, wouldn't they?

[Rocky]

They would agree on which type I am, but they would not agree on how that type is defined,

Oh, so you know this would happen, do you?

Yes, I would. But only, as I said, if they were good.

And there you have it. That's your answer to everything. Those who don't reach the same conclusions as you are either incompetent or not good. Because if they were competent or good they would agree with you, wouldn't they?

QFT!


This thread should be over.

[Phaedrus]

They would agree on which type I am, but they would not agree on how that type is defined,

Oh, so you know this would happen, do you?

Yes, I would. But only, as I said, if they were good.

And there you have it. That's your answer to everything. Those who don't reach the same conclusions as you are either incompetent or not good. Because if they were competent or good they would agree with you, wouldn't they?

Not in general, but in this particular case -- yes. If they would type me as any other type than ILI if they they met me in person, I would know that they were incompetent.

[Rocky]

They would agree on which type I am, but they would not agree on how that type is defined,

Oh, so you know this would happen, do you?

Yes, I would. But only, as I said, if they were good.

And there you have it. That's your answer to everything. Those who don't reach the same conclusions as you are either incompetent or not good. Because if they were competent or good they would agree with you, wouldn't they?

Not in general, but in this particular case -- yes. If they would type me as any other type than ILI if they they met me in person, I would know that they were incompetent.

Right, but you yourself can't explain how, say, a function of Ni is present in your behavior. Or how *any* perceiving function is present at all. You just know it's true, because you are an MBTI INTP, and that MUST translate into an ILI. Without even knowing why it would. It just does. And because you fit the "P" type definitions in MBTI, that means you have to have a dominant perceiving function (even though that's NOT what those "P" type descriptions are supposed to mean). But you are sure of all this based on your grand ability to instinctivly "know" what type a person is (without any basis for typing them), and to "know" that anyone who has ever used Jungian functions is talking about the same exact thing and has the same interpretation.

The ultimate rule of the universe- you are always right.

Phaedrus is infalliable.

I'm glad I know now.

[mikemex]

I find it interesting that you don't notice that there is no point being discussed here. Phaedrus is not a T type. He's most likely a T PoLR type, thus, either ENFp or INFp. I tend to believe that he's INFp due his own claim of being Ni dominant and the fact that he discusses much more with Expat and Rocky (Te) than with Gilly or FDG (Ti).

It's very painful to be hit in the PoLR so he's trying to defend himself from it. You guys should realize that the only thing you're doing with the discussion is stressing him a lot. He's not going to agree with you, because you're discussing different things and he's failing to express it in a proper way. I'm sure there is something in his arguments by the way, but you have to give him a bit of time to cool down and order his ideas.

[Expat]

I find it interesting that you don't notice that there is no point being discussed here. Phaedrus is not a T type. He's most likely a T PoLR type, thus, either ENFp or INFp. I tend to believe that he's INFp due his own claim of being Ni dominant and the fact that he discusses much more with Expat and Rocky (Te) than with Gilly or FDG (Ti).

I think that Gilly and FDG just can't be bothered to have real discussions with him, so it's not necessarily that they conflict less functionally if that's what you mean.

And it's not that I don't notice the point you raised.

It's very painful to be hit in the PoLR so he's trying to defend himself from it. You guys should realize that the only thing you're doing with the discussion is stressing him a lot. He's not going to agree with you, because you're discussing different things and he's failing to express it in a proper way. I'm sure there is something in his arguments by the way, but you have to give him a bit of time to cool down and order his ideas.

I know the essence of his arguments, and honestly I do-not-care if I'm stressing him a lot or not; it's his decision - as in everyone's case - to continue to participate in a discussion or not. I got into this discussion to challenge the points he made regarding that other socionists (Lytov, Smilingeyes, Filatova, etc) directly or indirectly supported his view and that if he was wrong, so were they and me as well, etc, compounded by the absurdity of his comments on that ABCD=ABCd study by Lytov - a study that HE was the first one to bring into the discussion, because he thought that it supported his thesis. After I clearly demonstrated that it doesn't, he alternates between saying that that study is "irrelevant" and, absurdly, saying that "it is in agreement" and "in no way contradicts" his thesis. But should that study clearly support his thesis, however precariously, he would not even think about calling it "irrelevant".

This is Bizarro-world stuff, presented as if it was the obvious truth. Which I'd rather challenge than leave alone.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus is not a T type. He's most likely a T PoLR type, thus, either ENFp or INFp. I tend to believe that he's INFp due his own claim of being Ni dominant and the fact that he discusses much more with Expat and Rocky (Te) than with Gilly or FDG (Ti).

That's an interesting argument that I don't think I have seen before. Do you see that as a general pattern on this forum? That for example Expat would have a similar preference for discussing with ISXps and ESXjs, or FDG for disussing with IXFjs and EXFps?

You guys should realize that the only thing you're doing with the discussion is stressing him a lot.

You don't have to worry about that. Based on the reactions I usually see in the replies to my posts, I am probably less stressed by these discussions than others -- with the exception of Expat, who seems to be about as calm as I am.

[Expat]

It's very painful to be hit in the PoLR so he's trying to defend himself from it. You guys should realize that the only thing you're doing with the discussion is stressing him a lot.

Not quite. A PoLR "hit" is not necessarily stressful per se. What is stressful is if you're forced to deal with it against your will, and if you're in a situation where you're evaluated according to your PoLR; that's what's stressful. In a voluntary forum discussion, nobody's forcing you to focus on your PoLR against your will. Your reaction to those focusing on your PoLR function is simply that they're focusing on totally the wrong things.

Phaedrus's PoLR in this thread is not visible in what's supposedly stressing him. It's visible in what he thinks is irrelevant, or that the others are focusing on the wrong things, or points that he simply refuses to address, or does not see the point in addressing. It is in what you think is irrelevant, in a "how can anyone care about this stuff" way, that you see the PoLR or perhaps the role function, up to a point.

Others using your PoLR in a voluntary discussion does not stress you - it exasperates you. Which is what we're seeing.

[Slacker]

I still think Phaedrus is an ISTj. He isn't flexible enough to be an ENFp by a long shot. He is so set in his ways, completely unable or unwilling to see or understand the other side of things.

[Phaedrus]

He isn't flexible enough to be an ENFp by a long shot.

That is one thing you are right about, Slacker Mom. So there might still be some hope for you. Maybe you will put all the pieces together some day.

[Slacker]

He isn't flexible enough to be an ENFp by a long shot.

That is one thing you are right about, Slacker Mom. So there might still be some hope for you. Maybe you will put all the pieces together some day.

HAHA. You are hilarious.

I am now reconsidering that you might be ESFp. I read why people don't think you're a T type and perhaps you do have a Ti PoLR, but you sure as hell don't have Ne.

[Phaedrus]

He isn't flexible enough to be an ENFp by a long shot.

That is one thing you are right about, Slacker Mom. So there might still be some hope for you. Maybe you will put all the pieces together some day.

HAHA. You are hilarious.

I am now reconsidering that you might be ESFp. I read why people don't think you're a T type and perhaps you do have a Ti PoLR, but you sure as hell don't have Ne.

You are making progress, you are making progress ... No in the ego block ... that's right ...