niffweed and ILIs

[anndelise]

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?

heh, it was no more "defensive" nor a "lash out" than you're claiming that those who say that these impulses (emotions) are never wrong (such as liveandletlive and I say) are making themselves a slave to animal instincts and the silliest of superstitions...

hmmm, or maybe i was wrong, maybe your comment about the slave thing really WAS a lash out against L&LL and I. I hadn't initially interpreted it that way, but maybe I was wrong.
Nah, not from you.


btw, regarding the "why" part of the above question: I gave you my reason already...you dismissed it ..something about a ranting blather response and being irrelevant. Why did you even bother to ask why when the reason was already given you? Nevermind, don't bother answering ...I've a feeling we both just want to wash our hands of this. heh.

[liveandletlive]

(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).

just so you know, i wouldn't just ignore someone because of a single, isolated incident nor if someone were to question my knowledge of socionics... i mean u do that to me all that time niffweed it's been several incidences with the same results, so yeah i am basically fed up with him.

[anndelise]

(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).

eh, i have no clue about her and gilly's interactions
the only reason i stepped in was to let her know that I understood what she was saying and where she was coming from
(and because i'd hate to see such a minor misunderstanding ruin the communications between you two... she's one of the few people that I've seen you take the time to talk to...though, i admit that i haven't read much of the communications between you two on here..only a few, enough to surprise me that you WOULD take that time/effort. :wink: )

the ambiguity and misunderstanding is, I think, now clearer

*goes off to stick her nose into someone else's business*
(*well, after a headsoaking first*)

[liveandletlive]

(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).

eh, i have no clue about her and gilly's interactions
the only reason i stepped in was to let her know that I understood what she was saying and where she was coming from
(and because i'd hate to see such a minor misunderstanding ruin the communications between you two... she's one of the few people that I've seen you take the time to talk to...though, i admit that i haven't read much of the communications between you two on here..only a few, enough to surprise me that you WOULD take that time/effort. :wink: )

the ambiguity and misunderstanding is, I think, now clearer

*goes off to stick her nose into someone else's business*
(*well, after a headsoaking first*)

hey ann! yeah u def cleared stuff up for me on my end. You IEE are so good at that whole understanding of others thing

[Logos]

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?

heh, it was no more "defensive" nor a "lash out" than you're claiming that those who say that these impulses (emotions) are never wrong (such as liveandletlive and I say) are making themselves a slave to animal instincts and the silliest of superstitions...

hmmm, or maybe i was wrong, maybe your comment about the slave thing really WAS a lash out against L&LL and I. I hadn't initially interpreted it that way, but maybe I was wrong.
Nah, not from you.

Do you need to read my post again? But I would recommend reading the bottom paragraph...again.

btw, regarding the "why" part of the above question: I gave you my reason already...you dismissed it ..something about a ranting blather response and being irrelevant. Why did you even bother to ask why when the reason was already given you? Nevermind, don't bother answering ...I've a feeling we both just want to wash our hands of this. heh.

That part really did not answer the "why" at all.

[RSV3]

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).

Well said.

[Nexus]

It might be a conditioned predisposition in conjunction with the ILI Fe PoLR, among other things...

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

It does if you are using group theory: 3=4 (mod 1)

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.

Are you sure that you don't mean ? I see more as a holistic happy/sad/angry afterthought that is unlikely to change an animal's typical behavior (genetic or conditioned) with regard to survival and is more likely to focus their moods in a luxurious fashion; since is common it also serves as a method of showing dominance and submission in social rituals. Additionally, I see environmental signal reception and transduction more as .

Does anyone think that I could be ILI?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=19364

[Logos]

Are you sure that you don't mean ? I see more as a holistic happy/sad/angry afterthought that is unlikely to change an animal's typical behavior (genetic or conditioned) with regard to survival and is more likely to focus their moods in a luxurious fashion; since is common it also serves as a method of showing dominance and submission in social rituals. Additionally, I see environmental signal reception and transduction more as .

Yes.

[Nexus]

Yes.

Would you care to sing the Square AOL song?

[crazedrat]

Who does niffweed consider to be "real, actual ILIs?" Why does he not consider "phaedrus, dioklecian, jarno, [me], warlord, [or] crazedrat" to be ILI? And why is he so hostile towards us? I believe that this sort of behavior seems very much unlike that of an ILI. It's a shame niffweed has me on his ignore list, and is therefore unwilling to discuss this issue, like a mature adult.

because he is an idiot.
there you go

[crazedrat]

i really don't understand this kind of reaction. based on my initial observations of you, i didn't think you were SEE, and said so. how is this a crime? would you rather i lied to you?

it would be better if you realized it is stupid to form an opinion so quickly based on severely limited information. the stupidity is what is offensive, along with the impression the opinion formed in stupidity is being used as a way to label and dismiss peoples credibility.
kind of like bill oreilly.

[tcaudilllg]

Yes- you questioned my conclusion to my type. Coming to a conclusion about one's type is in the sense that this quality, this quality, and this quality interact to make you this type. is also used in typing someone such as looking at consistent and enduring behaviors, actions, and beliefs of a person in order to type someone. However, regarding the use of in typing someone, you obviously could not have had enough information about me, and my past in order to come to a conclusion about my type through it. All you had going for it were my posts which are a lousy indicator of type if you ask me. Also, if you did know me fairly well IRL and my past, etc. and you were to question my type through - meaning bringing up past behaviors, actions, mannerisims, etc. to go against my questionable typing, I would not be upset by this according to socionics, but in fact relieved, glad, and amused that you were doing this and would have reacted accordingly. Thus, you were not making an judgment in questioning my type.

In fact in asking me questions about me and my type were purely based on . Do you do this? What do you think of this? You left your questions with enough open-endedness in order to allow for the true depiction of type without making the questions showing obvious ESFp answers or yes/no responses. Hence, in you questioning my type you were solely shitting on my - cold-harded, analysis of my own person; how each trait works into every other trait resulting in the "system of each type." Does that make better sense?

BTW, Gilly you're officially on ignore so yap all you want

Actually I agree with about all of that. Sound thinking, good job. Try going a step further and thinking in +/- orientations next.