How do you think the Board views your type?

[Ezra]

i understand Te by considering how the Te types will make fewer Ne or Se evaluations and instead more Si or Ni.

Yes - for the LIE it is Ni: "how much money can I make? Let's look to the future" and for the LSE it is Si - "how can I make this comfortable or pleasurable?"

finally, i think Ezra himself, if he is a logical type, is probably ETp because of his tendency to "shoot first" and then very actively ask questions later, or engage in conversation that amounts to such.

I've realised how shit I am at objectively analysing myself. I can do it brilliantly with others, but not myself.

[Logos]

Ti is more about trying to determine the structure in which the world of objects exist as well as the nature of the relationships which exist between objects, facts, and events. So in some ways it deals more with trying to find the underlying phenomenon of the situation. (This, however, should not be confused with the perception of connectivity that is represented by Ni.) It is also responsible for analyzing and breaking apart these systems of understanding into its base parts or units as well as aiding in their construction. This is why INTjs in particular have a reputation for being systems generalists and reductionists, because although they do understand the Te, their goal deals primarily with that underlying phenomenon through the construction and deconstruction of the base parts of the underlying system. And keep in mind that those with strong Ti do have strong Te, it is just that it is not their primary concern of importance or relevance.

[aka-kitsune]

yes... yes... yes... actually I don't know what type Auto or Bionic are... I agree with INTj for Logos though. As for me... I am so neurotic really that people might think anything... And I have definitely noticed that sometimes there seems to be this underlying thing that Ti is somehow inferior to Te... I can't tell if that is just how it seems though or how it actually is.

Not so much about what people on the forum think about you, but about perceptions regarding your type or just certain types in particular. For example in your case, how do you think that the forum generally views INFps?

I can say that I get the general impression that the "thinkers" on the board view IEI as a kind of dumping ground. Like a default type when you're not even really trying. Really, the typing of Phaedrus, Rush Limbaugh (!!) and others so obviously not IEI are sometimes far into the realm of the ridiculous. There's an overall unspoken "Blah, blah, blah... but it could be worse, I could be an IEI!"

I don't feel that some types and their functions are very well understood, IEI being one of them.

[Expat]

I can say that I get the general impression that the "thinkers" on the board view IEI as a kind of dumping ground. Like a default type when you're not even really trying. Really, the typing of Phaedrus, Rush Limbaugh (!!) and others so obviously not IEI are sometimes far into the realm of the ridiculous. There's an overall unspoken "Blah, blah, blah... but it could be worse, I could be an IEI!"

That's a good example of Fe-Ti analysis. You are not really analyzing the individual cases people make for those typings (some of which may indeed be poor), you are assuming that "thinkers" have something against IEIs.

[aestrivex]

I can say that I get the general impression that the "thinkers" on the board view IEI as a kind of dumping ground. Like a default type when you're not even really trying. Really, the typing of Phaedrus, Rush Limbaugh (!!) and others so obviously not IEI are sometimes far into the realm of the ridiculous. There's an overall unspoken "Blah, blah, blah... but it could be worse, I could be an IEI!"

That's a good example of Fe-Ti analysis. You are not really analyzing the individual cases people make for those typings (some of which may indeed be poor), you are assuming that "thinkers" have something against IEIs.

how does that make it Ti/Fe? are you suggesting that the analysis is implicitly Ti/Fe because it is wrong?

[Expat]

how does that make it Ti/Fe? are you suggesting that the analysis is implicitly Ti/Fe because it is wrong?

Of course not.

The analysis is Fe-Ti because it focuses on the supposed emotional stance of posters towards IEIs as a "dumping ground". This kind of analysis is obviously not always wrong, and it may be even right in some cases here (that's not my strong point).

[Logos]

but Logos, reductionism and holism i think are both potential Ti territory. for example i think some alpha NT philosophers, say idealists like our favorite overused example Immanuel Kant, have amalgamated phenomenon into holistic structures, from atoms to individuals and their perceptions. rather than the other way around like alpha NT's in natural sciences do. likewise, i'd say an ESTp wielding the base function in office politics does much of the same.

"generalization" however does seem to be a common thread. a Te type is going to pay specific attention to the outside algorithms and facts. realizing their Ni imaginations or Si habits greatly depends on retaining the specifics of them. in the case of Ti however i look at it as sifting through the facts (some are retained others discarded) for Ne generalizations which are their own reward. or for generalizations which facilitate one's frequent acquisition of Se.

Exactly.

[aka-kitsune]

I can say that I get the general impression that the "thinkers" on the board view IEI as a kind of dumping ground. Like a default type when you're not even really trying. Really, the typing of Phaedrus, Rush Limbaugh (!!) and others so obviously not IEI are sometimes far into the realm of the ridiculous. There's an overall unspoken "Blah, blah, blah... but it could be worse, I could be an IEI!"

That's a good example of Fe-Ti analysis. You are not really analyzing the individual cases people make for those typings (some of which may indeed be poor), you are assuming that "thinkers" have something against IEIs.

Hey, this thread was about "How we feel others view our type". That's how I feel. In general, I tend to get the impression that logic is valued over ethic here. Fe is batted around and immediately ascribed to every overdramatic histrionic known, so naturally, an Fe-valuing type might feel devalued. I don't think I'm the only "feeler" to sense that T-types often tend to think that most emotional expression is unnecessary and superfluous.

How many Ts here have at some time expressed that they're generally uncomfortable with emotional content, someone expressing feelings, etc.??

[Ezra]

sounds like induction/deduction to me

They're two different things.

[Ms. Kensington]

There's an overall unspoken "Blah, blah, blah... but it could be worse, I could be an IEI!"

????

IEI is like the most loved type

[Elro]

There's an overall unspoken "Blah, blah, blah... but it could be worse, I could be an IEI!"

????

IEI is like the most loved type

No they aren't. Didn't you get my memo? We hatesss them. Every last one of them.

[marooned]

I want to say this before I say everything else: my main motive for this is that I have questions... I can't seem to resist my questions.

but i don't see what's so problematic about that Phaedrus typing. the Ni+Fe of an autistic chess enthusiast is after all probably going to strike most other INFp's as unusual.

Hmm. Sorry, Phaedrus, for using you as an example. I personally have at times thought ILI, LSI, or LII for Phaedrus, with ILI being the top prospect. I didn't really consisder IEI until I noticed others pointing it out... and then I thought, well, I suppose IEI is possible... and if he's Ni dominant and autistic... well... it might be difficult to differentiate ILI from IEI.

It's not that IEI is not possible. It's more that I don't see why it is more likely than ILI. I don't have a reason to think something other than ILI at the moment. I think this is because I don't know anything for certain here, and since Phaedrus himself is certain of ILI, then fine. I don't see any blatant contradictions right now that make ILI unlikely. But I am also rather ignorant.

I have found that "arguments" with Phaedrus tend to be circular sometimes. He seems to stick to his views and is convinced they are correct. If evidence is presented to the contrary and does not change his views, that could mean that he is set in those views, or doesn't think the evidence is sufficient to challenge or derail the view, or it's one big communication problem... well, really, it could mean anything. Is it indicative of Te PoLR? I don't see why.

I thought Ms. Kensington described Te PoLR rather well when she said:

My own experiences with INFps and what i think is Te polr is when they have to run an organization or project or something, and someone points out to them, "why are you doing it that way, you don't need to do that." the Polr is hit, faces turn red. Or, the INFp in the same situation rambles with their Ti HA, trying to place their to do lists into logical order. Out loud.

Expounding upon this example... In this case, the INFp was apparently doing something in a way that was unnecessarily complex or involved because it simply didn't occur to him/her that there's a more effective appraoch. It didn't occur to him/her (assuming Te PoLR is at work here) because the INFp is probably focusing on other functions and was ignoring Te (like a blind spot). Once it's pointed out to the INFp, however, s/he becomes embarrassed about it and then tries to compensate with Ti. The INFp doesn't deny all evidence that there is a simpler way and then continue to insist upon it even when it's obvious that the INFp's chosen method is ineffective. Had the INFp done that, it would mean s/he was possibly being unreasonable (and all people can be unreasonable).

If the "error" occurred due to neglecting Te and the person continually demonstrates this sort of thing, then that could be seen as evidence of Te PoLR. If the person just did this once, that doesn't necessarily mean Te PoLR. If someone insists upon doing a single task in an ineffective way over and over again (despite being aware there is a simpler way), that doesn't necessarily mean Te PoLR either though... it could mean they're being stubborn. All types are capable of being stubborn, whether they have a Te PoLR or not, *even* logical types.

I do not know if Phaedrus denies the "obvious" as I don't think I have enough knowledge to know... I have not thoroughly studied MBTT (not in the slightest), nor am I adept at Socionics. I simply do not know. But let's pretend Phaedrus is denying the obvious, that despite all reasonable arguments to the contrary he insists on holding onto an "obviously" incorrect belief system... Does that mean he has Te PoLR? Or could there be other explanations? And if there are other possible explanations, then why are they less likely than the Te PoLR explanation?

BTW, one of the issues with my whole statement here is that it rests upon the reasoning that Phaedrus might be declared as IEI>ILI by some due to evidence of Te PoLR. But no one draws a conclusion just from a single point of evidence. In other words there may be (and likely are) other reasons behind thinking IEI>ILI.

Another issue with my statement is that it is unwise. I'm not sure much good will come of saying what I have said.

Actually, another thing I recall... Anndelise mentioned:

Symbolic logic says p and ~p is false.
NFs (at least NFps) say if we have p and ~p then maybe q (with q allowing for p and ~p)...and then look for conditions in which p, and conditions in which ~p, and that gets us a better understanding of q.
black and white thinking just seems so...off...to us.

is starting to make sense to me and take a form that I can rather recognize sometimes... Anndelise's remark here seems rather Fi-oriented. Anndelise also said:

Type descriptions focus NFs as being people oriented, and conventiently ignore the sheer amount of work and problem solving that's required in order to be "good with people". People aren't closed systems in and of themselves. They contian so many variables that'd it'd be next to impossible to know 50-75% of those variables and how they'll affect other variables.

NT's as analysts prefer to work with systems that contain limited variables and can easily be externally controlled.
NF's as "analysts" prefer to work with more complex systems that contain unlimited variables and aren't so easily controlled. (I mean, if it's easy to control, how fucking boring is THAT?)

So NFs have a natural method of dealing with these complex problems and juggling numerous variables, etc.
But that doesn't mean that that natural method is limited to just people. That same method, those same skills, can be used for non-people oriented tasks as well.

By asking the NF to define what they do, you are asking them, in essence, to T it for you. You are asking them to limit it in such a way that for communication purposes, they have to ignore much of what they do and scratch out some of the variables that are involved, etc. Basically...when an NF attempts to describe what they are doing....by default you are going to get a very cheap-ass simplistic "model". But if the NF spends time and energy to create a more accurate model, it's automatically assumed by some people that the NF is actually an NT. Well duh!! If you ask for NT info and they take the time to translate into NT language...then of course it's going to come out sounding like they are NT.

I do not know if these are thoroughly "correct" explanations of F or NF, but I rather thought they seemed to resonate as "true" somewhere inside my mind. They at least remain there as things that quite possibly factor into everything... Currently they are sitting in my mind not doing much, less faint than other possibilities. I used these examples because I thought they were pretty good. I do apologize to Anndelise, Ms. Kensington, and Phaedrus for sort of using things they have said as examples (or as example themselves) in my own statements here, as that might be somewhat inappropriate.

One thing that does seem to be clear in what Phaedrus posts is that he does seem to limit the # of variables. Does he reason as an NT or an NF? I don't have anything terribly concrete to say here... but from Phaedrus' posts I don't seem to see much Fi. As for whether there is Fe data being analyzed by Ti, I have no idea.

My other motivation for posting this is that there might be a tendency to attribute Te PoLR to things it need not be attributed to. This ties back into board views of types. I was also thinking about what Aka-kitsune mentioned about IEI being used as a "dumping ground." If there is a route

Person A is "unreasonable /illogical /not listening /denying /over-systemitizing "
---------------> therefore Te PoLR
---------------> therefore IEI or SEI

then perhaps IEI and SEI could be forum dumping grounds... ?

Of course it could also be that an F type is more likely to think about the emotional implications of what they post, and will be more "careful" where as the emotional implications of statement might sometimes not enter a T type's radar as much. So then F types could view T types as having a bias, and T types could view F types as being unreasonable for thinking so.

I need some coffee.

[aka-kitsune]

There's an overall unspoken "Blah, blah, blah... but it could be worse, I could be an IEI!"

????

IEI is like the most loved type

Maybe by other IEIs... (we certainly are fans of identicals--like admiring yourself in a mirror!) :wink:

[aka-kitsune]

(I hate to say it because people will call it name dropping, but professional ones.)

bullshit. that's relevant information. i mean when Phaedrus name-drops about stuff like the chess club.

??

I don't see where "name-dropping" about the chess club is explained in terms of IEI functioning. I also don't really see "emotionally manipulative" for Phaedrus. He's just a brick wall. There was a poster on the EI that shared the same kind of flatline reductionism when it came to disagreements.

I see such a dearth of emotional content, hard-headed and I always think "IxTj-type".

[marooned]

Meh. I looked at the Dawkins thread again. And this is what I think:

1. Was that really emotional manipulation? And if so, was it deliberate?

I mean, everyone has feelings, and if you hit a soft spot, they might react in an emotionally "manipulative" way. I thought some soft spots were being hit on that last page... that's all.

2. Surely Fe-types aren't the only people who can be emotionally manipulative even if one needs to use Fe to manipulate emotionally.

3. @Hkkmr... So if I say that pigs can fly and if you don't agree with me you're an idiot. And after all, Jan, Bob, and Sue, prominent pigologists agree with me, so you are a moron if you can't see that the lot of us are correct... Is that me using ? Is that a form of emotional manipulation? How is that even emotional? Isn't it a bit too blatant to be effective? A bit too obvious? So obvious and non-subtle that it isn't really emotional manipulation?

???

[aka-kitsune]

i'm not saying that beta NF's characteristically try to pretend to be intelligent (i admit i know INFp's IRL who are a lot smarter than me.) or that they pretend to be anything for that matter. what i am saying though is to pull that off (and invest time into pulling it off) typically requires some grasp of Fe and for one to not use the thinking functions as much.

I don't see how using "thinking" functions must always imply accurate logic. It just doesn't. In many cases, the logic is simply flawed, and despite that, the individual just bulldozes through anyone who offers an alternate theory.

And in the case of IEI/INFp, I'd dare think many are = 4w5s or 4s in the enneagram system. 4s are the type most likely to not pretend to be anything. In fact, they're usually overly concerned with authenticity, and that applies to their feelings and thoughts. (Albeit expressed in a poetic/aesthetic manner).

No offense at all intended toward Phaedrus, but he's lacking an aesthetic, let alone a "poetic".

[aka-kitsune]

So if I say that pigs can fly and if you don't agree with me you're an idiot. And after all, Jan, Bob, and Sue, prominent pigologists agree with me, so you are a moron if you can't see that the lot of us are correct...

Ahem, that would be "porcinologists"... :wink:

[marooned]

So if I say that pigs can fly and if you don't agree with me you're an idiot. And after all, Jan, Bob, and Sue, prominent pigologists agree with me, so you are a moron if you can't see that the lot of us are correct...

Ahem, that would be "porcinologists"... :wink:

I stand corrected then. *cough*

[marooned]

Stalemate. I have to reflect more (later).

[Phaedrus]

This concerns my perception of ... it's like Phaedrus is mostly saying , "You're stupid because you don't agree with me." over and over again and the only way to stop me from saying this is to agree with him.

It's curious how people misunderstand my position. My reasoning goes like this: A (hypothetical) person must be stupid, because the person does not agree with the facts (as I see them), despite the facts being so obvious to anyone who has bothered to study them, that there doesn't seem to be any other option left but to consider the person stupid. If two people disagree on something that seems to be obviously true to both of them, both persons must regard the other person as stupid -- that's the only consequential thing to do after you have spent considerable time analyzing and rechecking every aspect of the problem and still reach the same conclusion. At least one of the person's must be stupid in a sense, and if you have strong evidence for thinking that the stupid person is not yourself, it must be the other peson that is stupid. Why does not everyone agree with this reasoning?

[aka-kitsune]

what if an E4 is convinced they're some sort of great thinker type of person? and if they aren't, it might be difficult for them to read the writing on the wall (written in all the logical arguments they've failed at.) and if you're convinced your this great thinker person the aesthetic you go for might be more pretension than poetry. and i left the door open for ENFj which could be an E3 case. right?? (i only have modest knowledge of enneagram..)

My argument is not only predicated on the point about enneagram-4s desiring to be authentic, but also that IEIs share with 4s, tend to create an "aesthetic" as part of their persona. It's almost always an emotional aesthetic. Sometimes barren and nihilistic, sometimes romantic. But always -laden. I disagree that Phaedrus expresses ANY emotional content in his posts. Whatever he writes, it's dry and bereft of feeling content.

Provoking emotional reactions in others doesn't necessarily indicate , methinks. Rational/thinking stubbornness tends to infuriate me -- sometimes this is just a matter of logic conflicting with ethic. The logical individual may become harsh and insistent whereas the ethical one may become emotionally reactive. I see Phaedrus as a logical type, not because his logic is always correct, but rather because he relies on logic as the basis of his arguments. As an ethical type, I have learned to steer clear of logical arguments when I'm invested emotionally, because I quickly become irrational. I'm just too subjective to argue dispassionately about anything that matters to me.

[aka-kitsune]

1. I think his behavior provokes a more emotional response then logical one. Also look at what he says, is there logic involved? He rejects everything we say to him, and instead assume a single response, almost ritualistic response.
2. Anyone can do this, but he does it first rather then last. You might have a different view on emotional manipulation, if I scream obscenities at you, that's also emotional manipulation. I think you're mistaking behavior for metabolism. It's not neccessary for you to agree with his behavior for him to be ego.

I don't think he intentionally provokes an emotional response at all. He doesn't seem secretly thrilled that he's infuriating people with his impenetrable mindset (I could be wrong and he dances around the room whenever someone finally gives up and hurls objects at their computer screen). He really believes his logic is accurate. He's not moved or swayed by yours. How is that emotional manipulation? How is that ?? Wouldn't he make any kind of emotional appeal or attempt to convince anyone? But he's not. He's just repeating the same line, world without end, Amen.

He's also NOT screaming obscenities, nor is he even yelling IN CAPITAL LETTERS to convince you. A "ritualistic response" also doesn't seem to smack of , which I'd daresay is dynamic. I think Phaedrus is a static type, for what that's worth.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to read up on what that means.

[Khamelion]

hey! look! its a ...no can't be....oh shit its a thread! not about phaedrus!

[marooned]

I am rather to blame for that.

[Logos]

Anyway to put this thread back on topic, it seems as if to be considered a "true LII" by this forum at times I somehow required to provide some crazy-ass theory that is detached from reality. This is apparently the criteria for judging the LIIness of LIIs.

[aut0]

Anyway to put this thread back on topic, it seems as if to be considered a "true LII" by this forum at times I somehow required to provide some crazy-ass theory that is detached from reality. This is apparently the criteria for judging the LIIness of LIIs.

*Looks at Logo's picture*

*Reads thread complaining about people thinking LII's are crazy*

*Looks at Logo's picture again*

Hm, right, carry on then

[Logos]

Logos, you have a box on your head.

That's what on the mind will do for you.

[aut0]

That's actually clever, I just thought it was weird, funny, but still weird.

[Expat]

Ti is more about trying to determine the structure in which the world of objects exist as well as the nature of the relationships which exist between objects, facts, and events. So in some ways it deals more with trying to find the underlying phenomenon of the situation. (This, however, should not be confused with the perception of connectivity that is represented by Ni.) It is also responsible for analyzing and breaking apart these systems of understanding into its base parts or units as well as aiding in their construction. This is why INTjs in particular have a reputation for being systems generalists and reductionists, because although they do understand the Te, their goal deals primarily with that underlying phenomenon through the construction and deconstruction of the base parts of the underlying system. And keep in mind that those with strong Ti do have strong Te, it is just that it is not their primary concern of importance or relevance.

I agree with everything here.

Regarding the topic, I think there is still a confusion, that is resurrected with some frequency, that LIEs are inclined to rely on Se to defend their arguments.