niffweed and ILIs

[FlameReborn]

I'm surprised that people take Niff so seriously. i haven't really seen that much of him, but he amuses me, in a dry sort of way. then again, most things amuse me, in a dry sort of way. Like the fact that LaL appears to have smoke rising from her rear, and that this thread has gone from a complaint about Niff to a complaint about someone's poor, bruised PoLR.

i really think the guy acts hostile on purpose to 1) amuse himself, and 2) take even more amusement from being absolutely hated. i do this elsewhere, in certain contexts. I actually tend to respect thhose who can see past this, not to say it is the same for him.

Liveandletlive, one of these days we should talk on IM. you dispense quite a bit of interesting babble. One of these days. Maybe. perhaps. probably. and others.

[Joy]

I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but it makes perfect sense of a Ti super ego type be be upset by someone challenging their type. (Not that all would or only Ti super ego types do, buttheads.) Socionics is largely a Ti theory. Finding your place in the Socion by identifying your functions in model A and understanding intertype relations is most certainly a Ti prospect, but most don't do it like like (not initially at least). They read a few descriptions and then, based on their self-knowledge, decide which makes the most sense. If they type a few of the people they're closest to and then read intertype relations and it makes sense to them, that makes their "self-typing" even more strong to them.

Saying they've mistyped themselves is, from one perspective, telling them that all of their Fi (self knowledge and understanding and understanding those who they're closest to) is shit and pales in comparison to your supreme Ti, even though you don't know them and haven't put time and effort into reading descriptions of types and intertype relations with them and their loved ones in mind.

Obviously there's more to it and every situation is different, but I think Fi ego types are often rather insulted when you tell them that they've mistyped themselves (particularly if they've put a lot of thought into their typing).

[FDG]

I don't know about mistyping. Reality is reality, whatever labels we give to it, It'll always end the same.

[Logos]

I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but it makes perfect sense of a Ti super ego type be be upset by someone challenging their type. (Not that all would or only Ti super ego types do, buttheads.) Socionics is largely a Ti theory. Finding your place in the Socion by identifying your functions in model A and understanding intertype relations is most certainly a Ti prospect, but most don't do it like like (not initially at least). They read a few descriptions and then, based on their self-knowledge, decide which makes the most sense. If they type a few of the people they're closest to and then read intertype relations and it makes sense to them, that makes their "self-typing" even more strong to them.

Saying they've mistyped themselves is, from one perspective, telling them that all of their Fi (self knowledge and understanding and understanding those who they're closest to) is shit and pales in comparison to your supreme Ti, even though you don't know them and haven't put time and effort into reading descriptions of types and intertype relations with them and their loved ones in mind.

Obviously there's more to it and every situation is different, but I think Fi ego types are often rather insulted when you tell them that they've mistyped themselves (particularly if they've put a lot of thought into their typing).

I thought you were dominant. Stop pulling unfounded shit out of your ass. Niffweed (the ILI God remember?) is the one who questioned liveandletlive's type.

[Joy]

I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but it makes perfect sense of a Ti super ego type be be upset by someone challenging their type. (Not that all would or only Ti super ego types do, buttheads.) Socionics is largely a Ti theory. Finding your place in the Socion by identifying your functions in model A and understanding intertype relations is most certainly a Ti prospect, but most don't do it like like (not initially at least). They read a few descriptions and then, based on their self-knowledge, decide which makes the most sense. If they type a few of the people they're closest to and then read intertype relations and it makes sense to them, that makes their "self-typing" even more strong to them.

Saying they've mistyped themselves is, from one perspective, telling them that all of their Fi (self knowledge and understanding and understanding those who they're closest to) is shit and pales in comparison to your supreme Ti, even though you don't know them and haven't put time and effort into reading descriptions of types and intertype relations with them and their loved ones in mind.

Obviously there's more to it and every situation is different, but I think Fi ego types are often rather insulted when you tell them that they've mistyped themselves (particularly if they've put a lot of thought into their typing).

I thought you were dominant. Stop pulling unfounded shit out of your ass. Niffweed (the ILI God remember?) is the one who questioned liveandletlive's type.

I know.

We all use all of our functions. It's possible for any type to hit someone's PoLR (though obviously some types are more likely to do so and conflicts are more quickly and easily resolved with others). Because Socionics is largely Ti in nature, any suggestion that they don't understand it well enough to type themselves is both an insult to their Fi and an implication that they have weak Ti, regardless of the type of the person questioning the Fi individual's type.

[Logos]

Truth knows no kindness.

[Joy]

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't say something when they think someone is mistyped. I'm just explaining my opinion on why some people take it as an insult. This is based on my understanding of the theory and my observations.

[FlameReborn]

I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but it makes perfect sense of a Ti super ego type be be upset by someone challenging their type. (Not that all would or only Ti super ego types do, buttheads.) Socionics is largely a Ti theory. Finding your place in the Socion by identifying your functions in model A and understanding intertype relations is most certainly a Ti prospect, but most don't do it like like (not initially at least). They read a few descriptions and then, based on their self-knowledge, decide which makes the most sense. If they type a few of the people they're closest to and then read intertype relations and it makes sense to them, that makes their "self-typing" even more strong to them.

I would caution you against dubbing Socionics a "largely Ti theory". That claim is intensely debatable. In fact, i might have heard it fought out somewhere before... my grasp of typology is still slippery at best, but I would think, on a vague hunch, that there was more in this than just Ti... Ti strikes me as a steel framework, or the wiring inside a machine. What fills in the spaces? From whence does the power come? :: If that makes you want to kill me, LIE, time and place. I'll get on YIM.

To the rest, I don't have a fully formed opinion.

[FDG]

It's funny how somebody that has the largest amount of posts on this website and claims to be a Te type, also claims that the subject the website is centered on is largely composed by Ti.

[Joy]

I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but it makes perfect sense of a Ti super ego type be be upset by someone challenging their type. (Not that all would or only Ti super ego types do, buttheads.) Socionics is largely a Ti theory. Finding your place in the Socion by identifying your functions in model A and understanding intertype relations is most certainly a Ti prospect, but most don't do it like like (not initially at least). They read a few descriptions and then, based on their self-knowledge, decide which makes the most sense. If they type a few of the people they're closest to and then read intertype relations and it makes sense to them, that makes their "self-typing" even more strong to them.

I would caution you against dubbing Socionics a "largely Ti theory". That claim is intensely debatable. In fact, i might have heard it fought out somewhere before... my grasp of typology is still slippery at best, but I would think, on a vague hunch, that there was more in this than just Ti... Ti strikes me as a steel framework, or the wiring inside a machine. What fills in the spaces? From whence does the power come? :: If that makes you want to kill me, LIE, time and place. I'll get on YIM.

To the rest, I don't have a fully formed opinion.

There are obviously other aspects to the theory, but the models and definitions and intertype relations are still "largely Ti". I'll start a thread about it so as not to hijack this thread.

[Ezra]

i don't know what this is and i don't care.

Then why reply?

[BLauritson]

Personally I thought the image that went with it was somewhat amusing in context.

I have to say, and this is based purely on my interactions with niffweed17, I've actually found him to be a pretty reasonable person. I'm aware of his hostilities with other forum users, however they are none of my business and I therefore make no judgements on them.

[aestrivex]

Introverted logic is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty.

So in using in typings... say you are faced with a complete stranger (which I basically when you first questioned my self-typing of a SEE) and you have to type them. In asking them questions regarding their personality, it would be most effective to ask open-ended somewhat ambiguous questions in order to "recognize logical consistency and correctness" among the responses to the questions. The more yes/no questions, or obvious questions in which you can answer as a SEE, or any other proclaimed self-typing would would make your own conclusions about this stranger less than 100% true and accurate and your ability to "generate and apply classifications and systems" would be compromised somewhat in trying to classify them as a type based on their answers. So by asking me the open-ended, ambiguous questions you did in attempting to verify my self-typing, you were using . In listening and analyzing my responses to your open-ended questions and seeing the "logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations)" you were thus able to reach your own conclusions about my type through "means of instinctive feelings of validity..." or by both your own knowledge of socionics in theory and also your RL experiences with other SEEs(accounting for the "instinctive feelings").

this is total bullshit and is not even remotely accurate. what even makes you think i was looking for "logical consistency or correctness?" my questions were intended to have you talk about yourself and to see what kind of information elements you responded with and which ones you ignored. if you want to call this "logical consistency and correctness," be my guest. Te would not exist either without "logical consistency and correctness."


asking lots of yes/no questions is not remotely objective and is a terrible way to type oneself. if you want yes/no questions, take some test. the fact is that not all SEEs say things like "my favorite color is blue." if you have some kind of system that says that "all SEEs have their favorite color as blue, in addition to these other traits" you have a Ti kind of system based on purely categorical information. IMO you have a failed system. if you think i was working within the confines of such a system than you understand less than i thought you did.

Here's the wikisocion definition of :

Introverted intuition is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.

So in typing someone using ... it would be more effective to have had an established relationship with the person of whom you're typing- the longer and more intensive the relationship is, the better. This would be because the more prior knowledge and understanding of the events and situations facing the person you are typing allows the to be more reliable in its "ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery..." In me criticizing your questioning of my self-typing ("You don't know me"!), I was thus criticizing in part, your lack of information of my past and thus future behaviors which is obviously useful in typing someone. By applying your knowledge of socionics and types to someone's past behaviors, events, and situations you are able to get a better "mental image" of how they are in the present, and also the future. By creating these connections between past, present, and future behaviors of an individual, you are therefore able to see the consistent behaviors, actions, mannerisms, etc. that can help you determine someone's type. So here's an example- say you're trying to refute me being a SEE not directly to my face, but rather in your mind. Assume that we've been good friends for a while too. Say we're at a bar and some girl who I've had beef with comes up to me, taps me on the shoulder and says "Just so you know- I think you're a bitch." By you seeing how I've acted in past maybe similar confrontations and my beef with this girl through , you can come up with a pretty good idea of how I'm most likely going to react to her tapping me on the shoulder and calling me a bitch. This becomes a stronger prediction when applying your knowledge of socionics- is she a SEE? If she's a SEE she'll probably react _____, but if she's an IEE she may react by ______. This IRL example, would help for you to solidify your conclusion regarding my type. So because all you had going on were my posts and not my accounts or first-hand experience (for the most part) of the events and situations of my past, you would not have been able to generate a "mental image" of how I may react. Although you did have some ideas of how a typical SEE may react, without knowledge of my own unique and specific past behaviors, reactions, situations, etc. you would not have been able to type me as an individual.

again, you're basing this on misinterpretations of information and using information where it doesn't belong. obviously, if i were to talk to you over a long period of time, i would have a greater understanding of you and would be able to type you better. but the idea if i have Ni in my ego block that i can't type you without this information is ridiculous. i can notice tendencies of what kind of information you use without having to grok every aspect of your being beforehand.


your definitions are not the problem here. the way you're rampantly applying them in poor context and applying them on an essentially universal level in accordance with model A is bad socionics that demonstrates that, even if you know what the information elements are, you don't know what they mean.

and i still have no idea at all why my telling you that i believe you to be some type other than the one you think you are is offensive. saying that "its a polr hit" is not a sufficient explanation, especially since i would categorically reject the assumption that i gave you any Ti to work with at all.

[aestrivex]

Regardless of what type Gilly was I would have reacted to his comment the same way. Although it should not be of concern to anyone, I blocked Gilly because of several, incessant slammings of my own person and knowledge of socionics which is actually counterproductive. He has never once attempted to clarify what he may perceive as my misunderstandings, but rather wasted both the time it took for him to call me a dumbass (never directly, but you get the idea) and for me to read it. I also have yet to read something of substance or enlightening at all regarding socionics which further contributes to wasting my time. Not to say that I have, but rather it just supports my decision.

this is fair game but it doesn't stop you from being wrong.

[aestrivex]

I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, but it makes perfect sense of a Ti super ego type be be upset by someone challenging their type. (Not that all would or only Ti super ego types do, buttheads.) Socionics is largely a Ti theory. Finding your place in the Socion by identifying your functions in model A and understanding intertype relations is most certainly a Ti prospect, but most don't do it like like (not initially at least). They read a few descriptions and then, based on their self-knowledge, decide which makes the most sense. If they type a few of the people they're closest to and then read intertype relations and it makes sense to them, that makes their "self-typing" even more strong to them.

Saying they've mistyped themselves is, from one perspective, telling them that all of their Fi (self knowledge and understanding and understanding those who they're closest to) is shit and pales in comparison to your supreme Ti, even though you don't know them and haven't put time and effort into reading descriptions of types and intertype relations with them and their loved ones in mind.

Obviously there's more to it and every situation is different, but I think Fi ego types are often rather insulted when you tell them that they've mistyped themselves (particularly if they've put a lot of thought into their typing).

i think you're playing with bad assumptions and are failing to recognize the fact that Te and Fi are very different IM elements with very different ways of operating that don't always necessarily mesh together.

[aestrivex]

i really think the guy acts hostile on purpose to 1) amuse himself, and 2) take even more amusement from being absolutely hated.

why do people find the need to make arcane, off-the-wall assumptions like this in order to justify my behavior?


i don't require a moral justification from anyone, and for the most part i don't find telling idiots that they're idiots to be amusing at all.

[liveandletlive]

Introverted logic is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty.

So in using in typings... say you are faced with a complete stranger (which I basically when you first questioned my self-typing of a SEE) and you have to type them. In asking them questions regarding their personality, it would be most effective to ask open-ended somewhat ambiguous questions in order to "recognize logical consistency and correctness" among the responses to the questions. The more yes/no questions, or obvious questions in which you can answer as a SEE, or any other proclaimed self-typing would would make your own conclusions about this stranger less than 100% true and accurate and your ability to "generate and apply classifications and systems" would be compromised somewhat in trying to classify them as a type based on their answers. So by asking me the open-ended, ambiguous questions you did in attempting to verify my self-typing, you were using . In listening and analyzing my responses to your open-ended questions and seeing the "logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations)" you were thus able to reach your own conclusions about my type through "means of instinctive feelings of validity..." or by both your own knowledge of socionics in theory and also your RL experiences with other SEEs(accounting for the "instinctive feelings").

this is total bullshit and is not even remotely accurate. what even makes you think i was looking for "logical consistency or correctness?" my questions were intended to have you talk about yourself and to see what kind of information elements you responded with and which ones you ignored. if you want to call this "logical consistency and correctness," be my guest. Te would not exist either without "logical consistency and correctness."


asking lots of yes/no questions is not remotely objective and is a terrible way to type oneself. if you want yes/no questions, take some test. the fact is that not all SEEs say things like "my favorite color is blue." if you have some kind of system that says that "all SEEs have their favorite color as blue, in addition to these other traits" you have a Ti kind of system based on purely categorical information. IMO you have a failed system. if you think i was working within the confines of such a system than you understand less than i thought you did.

Here's the wikisocion definition of :

Introverted intuition is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.

So in typing someone using ... it would be more effective to have had an established relationship with the person of whom you're typing- the longer and more intensive the relationship is, the better. This would be because the more prior knowledge and understanding of the events and situations facing the person you are typing allows the to be more reliable in its "ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery..." In me criticizing your questioning of my self-typing ("You don't know me"!), I was thus criticizing in part, your lack of information of my past and thus future behaviors which is obviously useful in typing someone. By applying your knowledge of socionics and types to someone's past behaviors, events, and situations you are able to get a better "mental image" of how they are in the present, and also the future. By creating these connections between past, present, and future behaviors of an individual, you are therefore able to see the consistent behaviors, actions, mannerisms, etc. that can help you determine someone's type. So here's an example- say you're trying to refute me being a SEE not directly to my face, but rather in your mind. Assume that we've been good friends for a while too. Say we're at a bar and some girl who I've had beef with comes up to me, taps me on the shoulder and says "Just so you know- I think you're a bitch." By you seeing how I've acted in past maybe similar confrontations and my beef with this girl through , you can come up with a pretty good idea of how I'm most likely going to react to her tapping me on the shoulder and calling me a bitch. This becomes a stronger prediction when applying your knowledge of socionics- is she a SEE? If she's a SEE she'll probably react _____, but if she's an IEE she may react by ______. This IRL example, would help for you to solidify your conclusion regarding my type. So because all you had going on were my posts and not my accounts or first-hand experience (for the most part) of the events and situations of my past, you would not have been able to generate a "mental image" of how I may react. Although you did have some ideas of how a typical SEE may react, without knowledge of my own unique and specific past behaviors, reactions, situations, etc. you would not have been able to type me as an individual.

again, you're basing this on misinterpretations of information and using information where it doesn't belong. obviously, if i were to talk to you over a long period of time, i would have a greater understanding of you and would be able to type you better. but the idea if i have Ni in my ego block that i can't type you without this information is ridiculous. i can notice tendencies of what kind of information you use without having to grok every aspect of your being beforehand.


your definitions are not the problem here. the way you're rampantly applying them in poor context and applying them on an essentially universal level in accordance with model A is bad socionics that demonstrates that, even if you know what the information elements are, you don't know what they mean.

and i still have no idea at all why my telling you that i believe you to be some type other than the one you think you are is offensive. saying that "its a polr hit" is not a sufficient explanation, especially since i would categorically reject the assumption that i gave you any Ti to work with at all.

ok well it was just a guesstimate... i did feel like it was a PoLR hit though in both how i felt and reacted... wierd. I agree with what Joy said though... i think it still got hit even though my argument was off... haha i just like fighting to the death... im a gamma what can i say??

[liveandletlive]

Regardless of what type Gilly was I would have reacted to his comment the same way. Although it should not be of concern to anyone, I blocked Gilly because of several, incessant slammings of my own person and knowledge of socionics which is actually counterproductive. He has never once attempted to clarify what he may perceive as my misunderstandings, but rather wasted both the time it took for him to call me a dumbass (never directly, but you get the idea) and for me to read it. I also have yet to read something of substance or enlightening at all regarding socionics which further contributes to wasting my time. Not to say that I have, but rather it just supports my decision.

this is fair game but it doesn't stop you from being wrong.

IMO, if someone feels something then it is never wrong. Feelings aren't a black and white nor can they be determined as wrong or right, they just are. Thanks for the advice though.

[xyz]

I'm surprised you're even giving this as much attention as you are, livenletlive.

[Logos]

Regardless of what type Gilly was I would have reacted to his comment the same way. Although it should not be of concern to anyone, I blocked Gilly because of several, incessant slammings of my own person and knowledge of socionics which is actually counterproductive. He has never once attempted to clarify what he may perceive as my misunderstandings, but rather wasted both the time it took for him to call me a dumbass (never directly, but you get the idea) and for me to read it. I also have yet to read something of substance or enlightening at all regarding socionics which further contributes to wasting my time. Not to say that I have, but rather it just supports my decision.

this is fair game but it doesn't stop you from being wrong.

IMO, if someone feels something then it is never wrong. Feelings aren't a black and white nor can they be determined as wrong or right, they just are. Thanks for the advice though.

Really?

[anndelise]

Regardless of what type Gilly was I would have reacted to his comment the same way. Although it should not be of concern to anyone, I blocked Gilly because of several, incessant slammings of my own person and knowledge of socionics which is actually counterproductive. He has never once attempted to clarify what he may perceive as my misunderstandings, but rather wasted both the time it took for him to call me a dumbass (never directly, but you get the idea) and for me to read it. I also have yet to read something of substance or enlightening at all regarding socionics which further contributes to wasting my time. Not to say that I have, but rather it just supports my decision.

this is fair game but it doesn't stop you from being wrong.

IMO, if someone feels something then it is never wrong. Feelings aren't a black and white nor can they be determined as wrong or right, they just are. Thanks for the advice though.

Really?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question you are posing to liveandletlive or if you're attempting to point out some kind of error...or perhaps just being flip.

If the middle, then I agree with her, people's feelings are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they just "are".
We can work around them, take them into account, attempt to suppress them, attempt to ignore them, and even attempt to change them...we can like the feelings we feel....or dislike them...but none of that suggests that those feelings were right or wrong.

Whether she is right or wrong in her interpretations and/or perceptions of Gilly's actions regarding her, however, may be a different matter. But the feelings she has regarding her interpretations/perceptions are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they just "are".

Really.

[Logos]

I'm not sure if this is a serious question you are posing to liveandletlive or if you're attempting to point out some kind of error...or perhaps just being flip.

If the middle, then I agree with her, people's feelings are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they just "are".
We can work around them, take them into account, attempt to suppress them, attempt to ignore them, and even attempt to change them...we can like the feelings we feel....or dislike them...but none of that suggests that those feelings were right or wrong.

Whether she is right or wrong in her interpretations and/or perceptions of Gilly's actions regarding her, however, may be a different matter. But the feelings she has regarding her interpretations/perceptions are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they just "are".

Really.

Really?

[anndelise]

I'm not sure if this is a serious question you are posing to liveandletlive or if you're attempting to point out some kind of error...or perhaps just being flip.

If the middle, then I agree with her, people's feelings are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they just "are".
We can work around them, take them into account, attempt to suppress them, attempt to ignore them, and even attempt to change them...we can like the feelings we feel....or dislike them...but none of that suggests that those feelings were right or wrong.

Whether she is right or wrong in her interpretations and/or perceptions of Gilly's actions regarding her, however, may be a different matter. But the feelings she has regarding her interpretations/perceptions are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they just "are".

Really.

Really?

Yep! :wink:

[Joy]

Regardless of what type Gilly was I would have reacted to his comment the same way. Although it should not be of concern to anyone, I blocked Gilly because of several, incessant slammings of my own person and knowledge of socionics which is actually counterproductive. He has never once attempted to clarify what he may perceive as my misunderstandings, but rather wasted both the time it took for him to call me a dumbass (never directly, but you get the idea) and for me to read it. I also have yet to read something of substance or enlightening at all regarding socionics which further contributes to wasting my time. Not to say that I have, but rather it just supports my decision.

this is fair game but it doesn't stop you from being wrong.

IMO, if someone feels something then it is never wrong. Feelings aren't a black and white nor can they be determined as wrong or right, they just are. Thanks for the advice though.

Really?

In the context that she said that, yes.

[aestrivex]

IMO, if someone feels something then it is never wrong. Feelings aren't a black and white nor can they be determined as wrong or right, they just are. Thanks for the advice though.

you can feel as hard as you want that 3 = 4. does that make it true?

[Joy]

that's obviously not the type of "feeling" she's talking about

[aestrivex]

that's obviously not the type of "feeling" she's talking about

i see your point but i tend to feel rather vociferously that it's not true. sorry.

[liveandletlive]

I'm surprised you're even giving this as much attention as you are, livenletlive.

what?

[liveandletlive]

hmmm i find it interesting that Logos and niffweed think that emotions can be right and wrong- is that correct? Please explain why you feel this way, that's a very foreign and bizzare concept to me. Idk, maybe Ann and I are just coming at it from a perspective. Yes the actions and behaviors as a consequence of your emotions can possibly be classified as right or wrong, but the actual emotions that you produce... I find hard to believe that they could be construed as right or wrong.

[Logos]

hmmm i find it interesting that Logos and niffweed think that emotions can be right and wrong- is that correct? Please explain why you feel this way, that's a very foreign and bizzare concept to me. Idk, maybe Ann and I are just coming at it from a perspective. Yes the actions and behaviors as a consequence of your emotions can possibly be classified as right or wrong, but the actual emotions that you produce... I find hard to believe that they could be construed as right or wrong.

Yes the products and solution as a consequence of an incorrect formula can be classified as right or wrong, but the actual numbers...I find hard to believe that they could be construed as right or wrong. Yes, emotions are never "wrong" in their own right since they are merely chemical and hormonal responses to the external environment in your body sending signals to your brain along neural pathways, but to say that these impulses are never wrong is to make yourself a slave to animal instincts and the silliest of superstitions.

[anndelise]

hmmm i find it interesting that Logos and niffweed think that emotions can be right and wrong- is that correct? Please explain why you feel this way, that's a very foreign and bizzare concept to me. Idk, maybe Ann and I are just coming at it from a perspective. Yes the actions and behaviors as a consequence of your emotions can possibly be classified as right or wrong, but the actual emotions that you produce... I find hard to believe that they could be construed as right or wrong.

Yes the products and solution as a consequence of an incorrect formula can be classified as right or wrong, but the actual numbers...I find hard to believe that they could be construed as right or wrong. Yes, emotions are never "wrong" in their own right since they are merely chemical and hormonal responses to the external environment in your body sending signals to your brain along neural pathways, but to say that these impulses are never wrong is to make yourself a slave to animal instincts and the silliest of superstitions.

you can have emotions and not be a slave to them.
in fact, they are quite useful for maneuvering in the real world,
as well as for reasoning things out...
as long as you know how to use them.
which i'm guessing...neither you nor niffweed know how to do

"logic" certainly isn't the end all be all of humanity...nor reasoning abilities
despite what some of you may wish to be.

[xyz]

I'm surprised you're even giving this as much attention as you are, livenletlive.

what?

I just thought you'd have better things to get ready for on a friday night than argue with dillweed.

[Logos]

you can have emotions and not be a slave to them.
in fact, they are quite useful for maneuvering in the real world,

No, really? This time I mean it. What the hell are you talking about? Did I even say anything to the contrary?

as well as for reasoning things out...
as long as you know how to use them.
which i'm guessing...neither you nor niffweed know how to do

And here is another "WTF?" moment. Why are you being so defensive? You're a riot.

"logic" certainly isn't the end all be all of humanity...nor reasoning abilities
despite what some of you may wish to be.

Okay. Who would have thought that "logic" isn't the end all be all of humanity from a -seeking individuals like myself?

[aestrivex]

you can have emotions and not be a slave to them.
in fact, they are quite useful for maneuvering in the real world,
as well as for reasoning things out...
as long as you know how to use them.
which i'm guessing...neither you nor niffweed know how to do

"logic" certainly isn't the end all be all of humanity...nor reasoning abilities
despite what some of you may wish to be.

can you elaborate? i don't really know what you mean.

[aestrivex]

hmmm i find it interesting that Logos and niffweed think that emotions can be right and wrong- is that correct? Please explain why you feel this way, that's a very foreign and bizzare concept to me. Idk, maybe Ann and I are just coming at it from a perspective. Yes the actions and behaviors as a consequence of your emotions can possibly be classified as right or wrong, but the actual emotions that you produce... I find hard to believe that they could be construed as right or wrong.

emotions cannot be inherently wrong, per se; that doesn't even make sense.

[anndelise]

you can have emotions and not be a slave to them.
in fact, they are quite useful for maneuvering in the real world,

No, really? This time I mean it. What the hell are you talking about? Did I even say anything to the contrary?

pretty much when you said "...but to say that these impulses are never wrong is to make yourself a slave to animal instincts and the silliest of superstitions." (emphasis mine)

as well as for reasoning things out...
as long as you know how to use them.
which i'm guessing...neither you nor niffweed know how to do

And here is another "WTF?" moment. Why are you being so defensive? You're a riot.

you're pretty riotous yourself. particularly since that hadn't been a defensive comment.

the point was that it's highly unlikely that a person who knows how to use their emotions to maneuver around in real life as well as in reasoning would ever suggest that emotions themselves are right/wrong...nor that they should be labeled right/wrong.

nor is it likely that a person who uses their emotions for maneuvering and reasoning would make a statement such as yours about not labeling them right/wrong means being a slave to animal instincts and silly superstitions.

hence it seemed pretty safe to say that you're not that skilled/knowing in how to use emotions as i mentioned.

"logic" certainly isn't the end all be all of humanity...nor reasoning abilities
despite what some of you may wish to be.

Okay. Who would have thought that "logic" isn't the end all be all of humanity from a -seeking individuals like myself?

i wasn't aware that Fe labels emotions as right/wrong either. well, maybe FeXi's that i've known do...but i'm not sure that's a type thing. I'm pretty sure that they learned to do so from their parents/religion (ESFj's parents were both T's and both had issues in dealing with emotional content) (ENFj grew up in a very strict religion...near cultlike)

and yeah, i'm aware that i just now seemingly contradicted myself.
(however, neither was skilled at using their emotions...probably because they grew up with the teachings that certain emotions were wrong :wink: )

[anndelise]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that niffweed is responding with something differently in mind that liveandletlive and I are.

He does agree that the feelings themselves aren't inherently wrong.
He does believe that something about the following paragraph or something said elsewhere is "wrong".

Regardless of what type Gilly was I would have reacted to his comment the same way. Although it should not be of concern to anyone, I blocked Gilly because of several, incessant slammings of my own person and knowledge of socionics which is actually counterproductive. He has never once attempted to clarify what he may perceive as my misunderstandings, but rather wasted both the time it took for him to call me a dumbass (never directly, but you get the idea) and for me to read it. I also have yet to read something of substance or enlightening at all regarding socionics which further contributes to wasting my time. Not to say that I have, but rather it just supports my decision.

In the above quote, my understanding is that liveandletlive was expressing
a) her feelings regarding gilly
b) her reasons for ignoring gilly which included
B1) she perceives gilly's non-responseness to herself as being counterproductive to her efforts
B2) she perceives gilly's non-responsiveness to herself as being a waste of her own time as well as his
B3) she feels that she doesn't get anything out of gilly's (non)responses to her

Niffweed tells her that she is wrong.
But all she did was express how she felt about it. Thus her response that feelings aren't right/wrong..feelings just are.

I read in some logic book that you can't really argue that someone doesn't have the opinion that they have
Nor the feelings that they have. Inadvertently, I believe that this is what is happening here.
Whether Niffweed meant to or not, he stated that her feelings were wrong. Yet he himself stated agreement that feelings themselves are neither right/wrong. Hence, my belief that there is a misunderstanding happening.


(lol, clear this up you two so I can go soak my poor head )

[Logos]

you can have emotions and not be a slave to them.
in fact, they are quite useful for maneuvering in the real world,

No, really? This time I mean it. What the hell are you talking about? Did I even say anything to the contrary?

pretty much when you said "...but to say that these impulses are never wrong is to make yourself a slave to animal instincts and the silliest of superstitions." (emphasis mine)

Then you are reading what I wrote incorrectly as you sidestepped the conditional in bold. Emphasis mine.

as well as for reasoning things out...
as long as you know how to use them.
which i'm guessing...neither you nor niffweed know how to do

And here is another "WTF?" moment. Why are you being so defensive? You're a riot.

you're pretty riotous yourself. particularly since that hadn't been a defensive comment.

If it wasn't defensive why did you feel compelled to lash out with your accusatory "which i'm guessing...neither you nor niffweed know how to do" as you are somehow to shame us into being wrong routine?

the point was that it's highly unlikely that a person who knows how to use their emotions to maneuver around in real life as well as in reasoning would ever suggest that emotions themselves are right/wrong...nor that they should be labeled right/wrong.

nor is it likely that a person who uses their emotions for maneuvering and reasoning would make a statement such as yours about not labeling them right/wrong means being a slave to animal instincts and silly superstitions.

hence it seemed pretty safe to say that you're not that skilled/knowing in how to use emotions as i mentioned.

i wasn't aware that Fe labels emotions as right/wrong either. well, maybe FeXi's that i've known do...but i'm not sure that's a type thing. I'm pretty sure that they learned to do so from their parents/religion (ESFj's parents were both T's and both had issues in dealing with emotional content) (ENFj grew up in a very strict religion...near cultlike)

and yeah, i'm aware that i just now seemingly contradicted myself.
(however, neither was skilled at using their emotions...probably because they grew up with the teachings that certain emotions were wrong :wink: )

Hence your showing evidence that while you are reading my posts, you are not actually taking the time to comprehend them. Because if you had, you would not have posted this irrelevant nonsense. I hate to dismiss all of this, but since this is a ranting blather response (seemingly maintained just so that you can continue to argue and save face) caused by your misunderstanding of my post it pretty much is irrelevant. I'm sorry. I really do like you anndelise and while you often do seem actually understand me, this time you seem to be failing.

Let me spell it out for you again, but I'll do it slowly this time for the reading comprehension impaired (not necessarily you, but we can never be too careful for whomever else may be reading). I'm a logical type, and I am saying that logic is not "the end all be all of humanity" of a function, not by a long shot. Because I also think that the reciprocity of emotions and feelings are essential in order to be a functional human being in society as well as an animal on the evolutionary level (the animal instinct). We need emotions to survive. None of what I have said in prior has contradicted this. But I am also saying that we (as in everyone) should not be slaves (and surrender our reason) to our emotions as they can send incorrect signals about our environment. No emotions can not be wrong any more than a digit can be wrong; it simply is (which is a fairly dumb ontological argument to begin with, but I'll indulge you). But just as numbers, while not inherently wrong in their being, can be miscalculated and misinterpreted, so can the chemical and hormonal responses to our environment which our brains interpret as emotions. We have evolved this way, and as such, they are survival mechanisms that are part of our DNA. But when our environments change these evolutionary mechanisms may no longer have a place despite being present, though they still may be advantageous traits to have (i.e. fight or flight), they can still backfire on us when they are misinterpreted and prove to be unfounded (the silly superstitions). This is why feelings and emotions can be "wrong." Now, if you two -HA crack whores would like more where that came from, I'll be in Alpha Quadra.

[aestrivex]

(lol, clear this up you two so I can go soak my poor head )

i didn't state that her feelings were wrong. what i did do was rather ambiguous perhaps, but basically what i intended to say was essentially that her response to gilly was counterproductive. gilly has been, for the most part, telling her the truth about her interpretation in socionics and that she was foolish to ignore it without cause. (looking back at it, he didn't actually say anything in this thread, making me wonder if i misinterpreted his remarks. i may have; i'm not certain of how much gilly and liveandletlive have interacted on this outside this thread).

[liveandletlive]

I'm surprised you're even giving this as much attention as you are, livenletlive.

what?

I just thought you'd have better things to get ready for on a friday night than argue with dillweed.

haha i wish! i have so much school work it's actually insane... friggin finals...