yes i spose saving face could be seen that way in an intellectual argument such as the one you are/were having with phaedrus.
but you get the idea....there's alternative interpretations.
yes i spose saving face could be seen that way in an intellectual argument such as the one you are/were having with phaedrus.
but you get the idea....there's alternative interpretations.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
No, I was thinking the LII actually. The LII's dominant function isOriginally Posted by Phaedrus
And which type is more likely to be obsessed with correct logic -- the LII or the ILI? Definitely the ILI. That is absolutely clear if you look at the empirical evidence for such a claim.. It is the 8th function of the ILI. You are more like an LII than an ILI, because
.
I am completely with you on that one, Blaze.
No, I was thinking the LII actually. The LII's dominant function isYou seem to have gotten something backwards here.
Maybe I should have been more clear about this. I am not questioning Expat's logic in general. He committed a logical fallacy recently, but that is no big deal. I am, however, questioning his assumptions. Since he starts with false assumptions he arrives at a false conclusion. And I know that because I know that the conclusion is false. If you know that the conclusion is false, you also know that either at least one of the assumptions is false, or that there is something wrong with the logic.
Hm do you disagree with what Phaedrus prescribes as Ti and Te?What systems have you compared? What commonalities and differences have you found? What patterns have you found thus far?We have talked about this before, haven't we? I thought you understood the differences between a bottom-up and a top-down approach, and that you understood that a
I also agree with your later post that people who don't have Ti as an ego function spend more time and more effort delineating logical steps. It's simply not seen as necessary for people who have it in the ego block.
Shit, what have I missed? I thought Ti was LII's leading function, and Ni was ILI's. And that Ti was ILI's leading function. Am I wrong? Or about LII and Phaedrus?No, I was thinking the LII actually. The LII's dominant function is
Shit, what have I missed? I thought Ti was LII's leading function, and Ni was ILI's. And that Ti was ILI's leading function. Am I wrong? Or about LII and Phaedrus?No, I was thinking the LII actually. The LII's dominant function is
you have committed an obscene typographical error. it should be "you are more like an LII cuz you have Ti" rather than "you are more like an ILI."
you will now be sentenced to death for this intolerable infraction. expat will also be sentenced to death for having viewed such a logical fallacy; knowledge of those can be truly dangerous. joy will also be sentenced to death for no reason.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA correction made.
No, just with his possession of it.Hm do you disagree with what Phaedrus prescribes as Ti and Te?What systems have you compared? What commonalities and differences have you found? What patterns have you found thus far?We have talked about this before, haven't we? I thought you understood the differences between a bottom-up and a top-down approach, and that you understood that a
Agreed. Or to put it bluntly, if you are trying to be logical, it probably means that you are not logical, or otherwise you would not be trying, you just would be.I also agree with your later post that people who don't have Ti as an ego function spend more time and more effort delineating logical steps. It's simply not seen as necessary for people who have it in the ego block.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
That's an excellent way of putting it.
Something else on this .
I think I have already written on this elsewhere. This can be applied to any type trying to look like their hidden agenda is an ego function, although this is often visible only to those who do have it as ego function.
So, for instance, a true Se ego type is best positioned to spot whether someone is being naturally assertive or is trying too hard; a Fe ego type is best positioned to spot whether someone is attention-whoring.
Te ego types are best positioned to spot whether someone actually uses external information judiciously, or just quote every possible piece of information indiscriminately.
And Ti ego types are best positioned to spot whether someone is being naturally logically consistent, or is just using ostentatiously logical arguments, while at the same time droning on, "I am so logical, you are so illogical" to defend deep-held, self-contained beliefs.
And, as always, the broader socionics point is this.
How can someone who takes refuge in pointing out the supposed "logical fallacies" of others possibly be the dual of the
Phaedrus and ESFp:
Phaedrus: "You're so illogical! Because bla bla bla bla -- if you disagree with me you are necessarily wrong".
ESFp: "Stop talking such nonsense, asshole. Who cares about that?"
Phaedrus and ESTp:
Phaedrus: "You're so illogical! Because bla bla bla bla -- if you disagree with me you are necessarily wrong".
ESTp: (smiling indulgently) "yeah that's cute, honey".
One more thing i forgot to type. When Phaedrus said that Expat had recently committed a logical fallacy, I thought that was really funny. I wasn't laughing at Phaedrus, but rather I was amused that it's quite true that logical types (thinkers) can make logical mistakes and yet this has no bearing whatsoever on their types being logical types. Which is very interesting, once you think about it.
(conversely a say, ethical type can, with conscientious effort make not a single logical mistake for extended periods of time, precisely due to his conscientiousness).
Yes I have thought this too.. though due to some reactions from people who i've discussed it with I tended to think I had a decidedly Ti way of thinking about it. Like, an ISxp can judge "real" Si because he knows the "real" Si; there are plato(nist?) essences that exist and that those dominant in that corresponding function are the accurate judges of those essences..
@ Ms. Kensington
This is an incorrect analysis of the situation:
While it is true that LIIs, with their acceptingPrecisely.Agreed. Or to put it bluntly, if you are trying to be logical, it probably means that you are not logical, or otherwise you would not be trying, you just would be.
What is amazing is that he can't see how he all but admits to mostly ignoring
A correct analysis of my recent confrontations with Expat is provided by Smilingeyes at page 19 of his Si column thread in the Delta quadra forum.
Is there a way this can be resolved emotionally even if it can never be resolved logically?
Phaedrus, your logic is skewered. Ti is what gives you your fixation on 'logical correctness', and it is not because of Te as 'creating function'. The reason is that you are Ti, not Ni (!), leading.While it is true that LIIs, with their accepting
Ezra, a visible preference for a function does not necessarily mean that that function is the base one. It does mean that it's a quadra value.
Biggest misconception in all of socionics.Ti is what gives you your fixation on 'logical correctness'
So if Phaedrus uses Ti, which he does, he is Alpha or Beta. Thus, he cannot be ILI. I couldn't see him as an Extraverted type (is this a possibility nonetheless?), which leaves SEI, LII, LSI, and IEI. It's 90% likely he doesn't have Sensing as either a first or second function, leaving SEI and LSI out of the question. Besides, he's most likely a Rational (NT) (as most on this site are). He is also most reminiscent of the IJ temperament. I think LII is the most likely type for Phaedrus, but I could be wrong. He has said before that he believes the only possible type for him, ILI aside, is IEI. This, I believe, is because his mind is focused on the IP temperament.Ezra, a visible preference for a function does not necessarily mean that that function is the base one. It does mean that it's a quadra value.
Phaedrus, what do you think about LII as a potential type?
Perhaps you could explain why.
Should I? The only person on this forum who takes an anal retentive stance to logical correctness claims to be an INTP. The real Ti types are either theorizing wildly or debating in a more or less argumentative way that has a more 'common sense' ish or consensus invoking bent to it than logical. Where are those Ti types that correct others' logic? You can name me even one?
For some odd reason people on this forum think they can make the intuitive jump from "He is a man of developed logical faculty" to "He is a pedantic ass who checks the mistakes in your logic whenever you say something", all the while not realizing that the latter tag is closer to how INTp's are being described even in the socionics' profiles.
Flawless.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
So Phaedrus is more ILI, despite the fact that in the ILI:
"The individual has a preference for factual accuracy over ideological consistency, and for objective, "harsh" communication over careful words that avoid a negative atmosphere. A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to his well-being and sense of inner peace, but he does not feel a pressing need for being proactive himself in that area." -Wikisocion
Is that incorrect, or does Phaedrus not care for logic?
Look at some real people. Look at some INTJ's. Notice that the pedantic focus on logic in conversation is not there. That's all I'm saying.
Profiles are flawed by definition. You can't describe something as abstract as a socionics function.
You can to a point, but the further you analyze the more blurred it becomes.
Agreed.Flawless.
Of course you can, which does not mean that any single description will be accurate.
Socionics functions are merely ways to try to pin down what is it that a person does, or wants, or gives priority to (etc etc) that is incomprehensible to others, while at the same time agreeable to yet others.
So if we go for Ti (or any other function), Ti has to be something that it's the primary focus of a LII and the main reason to make the LII the best companion of the ESE, while the most annoying companion of the SEE.
Anything you say about Ti that does not meet these criteria - even for one's one concept of ESEs and SEEs - already steps outside socionics.
My point is: person A has an understanding of what an ESE is, of what an SEE is, and what a LII is. If Ti-according-to-A is not built upon preferences that explain the relationships with SEE-according-to-A and ESE-according-to-A, then person A is not talking of socionics.
Person A may be talking of some typology, which may even be a good one. But not socionics.
But is a "pedantic focus on logic in conversation" characteristic of ILIs - if that's what you're saying? Is that something that a SEE would appreciate in another person? I'd like to see a case for that, if your point is that a "pedantic focus on logic in conversation" is a characteristic of ILIs.
For the record, I agree that a "pedantic focus on logic in conversation" is not a characteristic of LIIs, either. I don't think it's a typical characteristic of any type.
Does that necessarily mean that that particular behavior is characteristic of INTps? For instance, if we go for benchmarking, is that the same kind of behavior that niffweed17 demonstrates?
Every time I useSo if Phaedrus uses Ti, which he does, he is Alpha or Beta. Thus, he cannot be ILI.Ezra, a visible preference for a function does not necessarily mean that that function is the base one. It does mean that it's a quadra value.
No, that is not a (factual) possibility. I am, without any shred of a doubt, an Introverted type.
No, it's closer to 100 % certain.
Correct.
How the hell do you determine that? Are you spying on me from on of the trees outside my window in Sweden or something? Have you talked to my friends in real life?
You certainly can.
Don't you think that I have investigated that possibiliy? I was fooled in the same way a lot of people -- including you -- have been fooled when they come from MBTT to Socionics and read about the functions. I knew that I was an INTP in MBTT, and it was of course natural for me to assume that I would be an LII in Socionics, since
Now I know what was wrong with my initial analysis of my type. I had wrongly assumed that the functions were identical in both models, and now I also know from several real life encounters that ESEs are my Conflictors and that SEEs are my Duals.
On Friday night this weekend I talked to a male SEE for a couple of hours, and right from the start our relation felt comfortable with our communication flowing harmoniously in the typical dual way. When, in the end, I had analysed him enough by using the technique of asking focused questions and observing his behaviour to say that he was almost definitely an SEE, I finally mentioned that there are 16 types. He immediately responded by saying that he had taken two licensed MBTI tests on two different occasions (about 2 years apart).
"And you got the result ESFP, didn't you?" I said.
"Yes, on both occasions", he said.
He was also a typical night owl like me.
On Saturday, the day after, I had a much more unpleasant discussion with a leadingwoman (probably EIE). When you have observed and analysed several such encounters with real life people, whom you also have been able to type with near certainty using other typing methods, you sooner or later reach a point when you become certain that you are right. The pattern is so obvious. I am definitely not seeking
Right, okay, people, based on that, can you not see that Phaedrus has presented a logically-sound, plausible piece about his experience with other types? Does this not give you a good enough explanation as to why he thinks he is and why he could well be an ILI?
That's because you used VI and the j/p dichotomy to type yourself, instead of looking at the functions. You said 'I cannot be a rational type, because a) I don't look like one using VI, and b) I have read about js and ps, and I don't fit js, hence I must be p (this in itself a mistake, as you are using process of elimination to determine your type, rather than solid reasoning).
Are you positive you typed them correctly?I also know from several real life encounters that ESEs are my Conflictors and that SEEs are my Duals.
Do you realise this could be essentially contradicting your initial proposal that you "had wrongly assumed that the functions were identical in both models"? How do you know that Se is described differently in MBTI and socionics? Do you really know? What about Fi? Could that have been described differently? Perhaps if this ESFP man had been more enlightened in socionics, he would have decided that He was not Se-leading after all, as he found in MBTI, Se was explained in a more light-hearted, playful way, and in socionics, it showed a more power-fixated function, which he did not relate with. This may have in turn leaded him to consider another function. Is this possible, Phaedrus?He immediately responded by saying that he had taken two licensed MBTI tests on two different occasions (about 2 years apart).
"And you got the result ESFP, didn't you?" I said.
"Yes, on both occasions", he said.
He was also a typical night owl like me.
On Saturday, the day after, I had a much more unpleasant discussion with a leading
Read what I wrote again, please. I looked at the functions. And they suggested that I would be an LII, because if you don't take a very close look at how the functions are described it is natural to assume that Socionics and MBTT are talking about the same function when they talk aboutThat's because you used VI and the j/p dichotomy to type yourself, instead of looking at the functions. You said 'I cannot be a rational type, because a) I don't look like one using VI, and b) I have read about js and ps, and I don't fit js, hence I must be p (this in itself a mistake, as you are using process of elimination to determine your type, rather than solid reasoning).
All the pieces must fit to a reasonable degree. I should not accept that I am an LII if I don't fit the criteria for rational J behaviour and don't look like an LII on V.I. My reasoning on that point is extremely solid and justified. Remember that everything now fits the hypothesis that I am an ILI, and I mean everything. The functions fit, my temperament fits, my socionic club (NT) fits, V.I. fits, my intertype relations fit, the Reinin dichotomies fit, the ILI type descriptions fit, the Gamma quadra fits, the test results fit ...
Yes, 100 % positive. Everything fits for them too, when I analyze their possible types from as many different angles as possible, including test results, V.I., body types, type descriptions, temperaments, clubs, quadras, Reinin dichotomies, intertype relations ...
Se is described differently in MBTT thanDo you realise this could be essentially contradicting your initial proposal that you "had wrongly assumed that the functions were identical in both models"? How do you know that Se is described differently in MBTI and socionics? Do you really know? What about Fi? Could that have been described differently? Perhaps if this ESFP man had been more enlightened in socionics, he would have decided that He was not Se-leading after all, as he found in MBTI, Se was explained in a more light-hearted, playful way, and in socionics, it showed a more power-fixated function, which he did not relate with. This may have in turn leaded him to consider another function. Is this possible, Phaedrus?He immediately responded by saying that he had taken two licensed MBTI tests on two different occasions (about 2 years apart).
"And you got the result ESFP, didn't you?" I said.
"Yes, on both occasions", he said.
He was also a typical night owl like me.
On Saturday, the day after, I had a much more unpleasant discussion with a leadingin Socionics. Fi is also described differently than
. He had taken two MBTI tests on two different occasions and got the same result -- ESFP -- on both, but of course he hadn't analyzed his own type in depth by looking at functions. I did type him as an SEE independently of his test result, which only happened to coincide with the result of my typing of him, because if you are an SEE you should get the result ESFP on an MBTI test if you have a correct understanding of yourself and answer the test questions accordingly. There are differences between how SEEs are described in Socionics and how ESFPs are described in MBTT, but they are still talking about the same people, the same type.
Alright, so how would this correlate to me, for example? There is no way I am ESTP in MBTI - I stay focused and am very good at following through, I am not 'fun-loving', I have no problem with routine work, I am a shite salesman, I never have had trouble in school or education, and I trust my instincts. So how could I possibly be an SLE?
Based on what you say here it is not very likely that you are an SLE. And if "there is no way" you are an ESTP in MBTT, then I would say that it is impossible that you are an SLE. But I don't know why you are so 100 % certain that you are not an ESTP in MBTT but an ENTJ. How can you possibly know that for sure and yet be so uncertain of your type in Socionics?
I'm not 100% certain that I'm ENTJ in MBTI. In past tests, I've come out as an ESTJ (many, many times), an ENTJ, an INTJ, an ISTJ and an ESTP. It's pretty safe to assume from that that I'm a Thinking type (and, hence, in socionics, a Logical type). Judging/Rationality is also highly probable. I originally would have argued that Extraversion is the likelihood for me, but some tests (especially recent ones) have shown otherwise.
As for socionics, I've always been fervent that I identify most strongly with both Te and Se, and that the quadras that value these functions I am likely to be a representative of. It so happens that Gamma values include both Te and Se. After having looked at the various quadras for the one that holds the most values I use and prefer most, I find that Gamma is the quadra that does so. As well as Te and Se (which I believe are of higher value than both Ti and Si respectively), there is Fi and Ni, which, incidentally, I see as more useful than their extraverted counterparts - Fe and Ne.
You can read about Jung's understanding of the differences between Extraversion and Introversion here:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
It's a must read for anyone with a serious interest in understanding the types and the extraversion/introversion phenomenon in general.
That is not the best way to identify your type. I identify with
What do you mean?
Useful? I suggest that you concentrate more on other aspects of your type before you go astray and get completely lost in your typing process.
I'll read it now then give feedback.
It is important to consider, nonetheless. I still think LII is a possibility for you Phaedrus, regardless of how adamant you are that it isn't.That is not the best way to identify your type. I identify with
Also, you have provided me with more ammunition; you say Se is weak in you - well, perhaps it is your PoLR. For in both the EII and the LII, this is so.
I corrected the mistake.What do you mean?
Yes, Phaedrus, useful. Dominant and leading functions are only that because they are valued. Being valued means that the valuer is not only adept in them, but also perceives them to be useful. Why do you think types find their PoLR useless? It is their PoLR because they a) don't use it and b) see little or no need for it.Useful? I suggest that you concentrate more on other aspects of your type before you go astray and get completely lost in your typing process.
Sick have I become. Old and weak. When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not. Hmm? Soon will I rest. Yes, forever sleep. Earned it, I have.
I'm sorry, but that article is just too long.
Perhaps you could paraphrase for me what it concerns.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote