leaning towards ILI

[Warlord]

Based on what? If we take for example "democratic". You have to interpret that differently for alphas and gammas, so it even works in practice. That's not a working dichotomy. They seem more like something that needs to forcibly twist to make it work.

based on the 1:1 correspondence with the function preferences. which doesn't exist for aristocratic/democratic. you'd be right to suggest it's more ambiguous. i didn't bring it up though. although sometimes aristocratic/democratic is considered a quadra value it clearly wasn't what i referring to because i specified the 3rd tier.

No you didn't. This is the first time you even mention 3rd tier on this thread. Don't try to deny what you actually have said.

Even so. Do ESFp's really seem more serious than merry?

If those were reversed, I wouldn't find it suprising that people would just twist word "aristocratic" so that it would apply to Gammas just as well. Maybe people shouldn't advocate them over jungian foundation.

funny how that worked for MBTI.

What has quadras anything to do with MBTI?

How do you determine what makes a "veteran user" and what doesn't?

a lot of people have used his quadra value "tests" with reported success. his quadra decriptions on the wiki and rick's site seem to stand the test of public feedback. i don't know many other users who've stood through all that. what else more could we do to consider the source than start formal experiments?

That doesn't answer the question at all.

lol no I haven't. I've even said how it acts on the dual-seeker.

only indirectly though. and without good reason, as far as i can tell, for not acting directly on the dual, as they do on other people/things. seems like an arbitrary distinction.

What makes what I said supposedly "indirect". The rest what you say is just nonsense again.

Just having the quadra-values doesn't explain much. If that was the case, also ISFj's and ENTj's would be ESFp's duals.

i think it works much the same in activity relations, just different timings/quantities. if you read the wiki, ISj also gives an ENj a "push" sometimes.

Like I said: If that was the case, also ISFj's and ENTj's would be ESFp's duals.

No wonder you are so terribly lost.

Push-and-pull is entirely different concept than the one I've been talking about...

could you elaborate?

The latter part was an extra sentence part of something I was about to write, but decided to remove entirely. I removed that sentence already, right after I posted the message.

Do you have any idea what push-and-pull is? How do I elaborate that banana isn't a dog?

Writing some pointless crap isn't making a proper hypothesis. Even hypothesises are built on solid ground. The string theory is a hypothesis.

string theory... do you know how many variations they've had of it?

That has any relevance to anything we are talking about? Get a clue.

hypothesis-testing can be messy where evidence is scant. it's not easy to do empirical research yet in western socionics. hit or miss, although judging from the feedback he hit the ISFp correlation pretty well.

lol. Maybe you just shouldn't use the word hypothesis at all, if you want to be taken even remotely seriously.

After all information had been provided, there was nothing left of her point.

maybe it was just "too much work."

Or maybe she isn't so stupid, that she would desperately keep on going, after she finds out that she has been wrong. Apparently that doesn't stop other people from doing that.

That was even more stupid. INTp's have Fi HA, and I rated Fe even lower.

but how you assess yourself is of limited value to us if we distrust your ability to assess. for example, it's been suggested that Phaedrus is an Fe-ego type claiming to have an Fe POLR.

Phaedrus is Phaedrus. I'm not him.

That's not a emotional "analysis". I asked or hinted her about it, she didn't respond = she didn't want to say what it was.

maybe there wasn't anything,

You make lot of pointless maybes. Maybe she had cramp on her fingers, and couldn't type. Maybe the MIB blanked her mind. Or maybe she would have said it, if there wasn't anything else.

None of that has anything to do with, what you claimed first.

If I had the tendency to make emotional "analysises", don't you think I would avoid writing something in sig, that could potentially upset other people. I didn't even consider that as a possibility. Since you read the thread. You missed something totally obvious and relevant, like that I despise all emotionality. And instead you pick there something that couldn't be any more pointless and far-fetching.

do ENFj's worry about "upsetting other people"? not necessarily an Fe trait (nor an Fi one.) probably depends on other function blocings and the circumstances. by emotional analysis, i meant you seemed to freely assume someone else's motives without objective evidence or without being close to them.

Go ask the ENFj's From my point of view they do. And from the description of ENFj's seems like they do.

How is that "emotional analysis", or even remotely point out to feeler? It was based on past experiences with women.

That's just bullcrap. People who haven't been able type themselves are always also the ones that make the crappiest typings.

You can't type yourself. Even less you can find out what's relevant about other peoples external behaviour.

i've had some typings others really took to. how we just typed Mr. T, for example. (seems i may have been off on letterman though. i'm not claiming perfection.)

I don't follow you around and look at what people you have typed. I don't know what you typed him as. Or who the "others" were. Maybe someone else just foolish as you said "I agree", and you took that as your big typing victory. Mister T's type might actually be a big suprise, depending how much you know about him. First impression of him is very different from what he is really like.

"Half" of what you say, just comes out so messy, so that's probably why I misintrepret you.

you changed part of your own story too though in the example.

What example you are now talking about?

Your reply doesn't seem to have nothing to do with what I said.

The point was don't take every word I said literally, concentrate on what's the meaning behind the words.

There's never been any problem with my facts. You haven't actually pointed out any incident, where anything factual I have said has been wrong. You just take information too literally, and miss what's actually meant.

i thought it really changed the context. i was trying to make conservative statements restraining your absolutes and then you seemed to try and turn that around. also in such a way that would seem to devalue giving empirical examples.

What's the point in giving you emperical evidence. When you are just going dismiss it just as an emperical evidence

Being factual" isn't about writing literal facts especially trivia facts. That's more of a sign of Ti. By that I mean, the person probably has Te as 7th or 8th function.

but consider the context i mentioned in response to the last quote. criticizing absolutes as i have is sometimes attributed to Ti as an id function. :wink:

The context was that you can tell apart being factual from written instances of facts.

Conclusion: Overall you are now just trying retort with something... anything. It's becoming desperate and sad from your part.

[Warlord]

No you didn't. This is the first time you even mention 3rd tier on this thread. Don't try to deny what you actually have said.

read it and weep buddy:

Page 3, 1:31 am post, second paragraph

Ok, my bad. But you have to note, that when you spoke about 3rd tier. It was a reply to something else, not to what we were talking about in that part.

Jesus wept

i'm pretty sure i've figured out the "Einstein" dilemma now.

The monkey isn't supposed to figure it out

I've figured out that you are quite lost in some things, and there's lot to improve in your english, and writing. And that's why lot of what you write just comes out as garble, with the sentences actually ending up meaning nothing.

[Warlord]

who makes claims about "the first time even mentioning [XYZ] on this thread" without verifying it? furthermore, it calls into question whether you were on the same page at all on the point since.

Actually I thought I had it verified, by searching tier on the pages. I guess I did a sloppy job.

btw, in spite of his "grumpy face", Expat has Augusto Pinochet typed as Fe-creative.

Do you have everyones sigs memorized, or are just stalking me Are you stalking Expat also?

[Warlord]

Actually I thought I had it verified, by searching tier on the pages. I guess I did a sloppy job.

although i frequently double-check these things, i frequently find that i didn't have to. presumably, every point of yours after my "3rd reinin tier" post, in reference to that point, was made with an inaccurate conception of my point in mind.

Your 3rd tier reply had nothing to do with the issue, where you mentioned you were actually talking about 3rd tier all of the sudden (because my random pick happened to be 2nd tier). If it was, then you would have been talking 3rd tier dichotomies, you weren't there.

And where you used your 3rd tier reply. It was completely beside the point, and wasn't even a proper reply to what I had said before. And you stopped talking about 3rd tier also in the replies that followed from there. And you were just confusing yourself, with the quadra values in general.

moreover, if i did something that incompetent myself, i doubt i'd be smiling.

I'm smiling at concept that you even assume I'm replying to your comments even half-seriously. They've lost any point and light of thought long time ago. You just desperately try find some small error, doesn't matter how insignificant it is. Just so that you can be right, at least about something.

Great now you have found one, I accidentaly skipped page 3 when I was using find. How can I bare to live with this grave incompetence!!!

Do you have everyones sigs memorized, or are just stalking me Are you stalking Expat also?

i must say, i found the Pinochet quote funny and that's probably why it stuck in my mind. but as for Expat, i would think good Te would keep informed on that sort of thing before arguing extensively on the forums. (not every typing made here, but a decent-sized catalog of them is good to have in mind.)

Eh. Well, you just keep doing that

[Expat]

I'm not really following this discussion, but this called my attention --

btw, in spite of his "grumpy face", Expat has Augusto Pinochet typed as Fe-creative.

And how many different videos, or even pictures, have you seen of Pinochet, pray tell? Do you think that he had a "grumpy face" all the time?

On the contrary, in the period after he left the presidency but remained commander of the army, he was reported to be quite a jolly fellow when traveling more or less in cognito to other South American countries, doing things like casually dancing with ladies at bars, where everybody was dancing; on one occasion, such a lady, being told after the event that the guy was Pinochet, she said she had no idea, but he had been friendly, nice, fun, etc. In fact, in pictures of this period - that is, after the presidency but before the London "crisis", he was often anything but grumpy.

So get your facts straight.

[Warlord]

Your 3rd tier reply had nothing to do with the issue, where you mentioned you were actually talking about 3rd tier all of the sudden (because my random pick happened to be 2nd tier). If it was, then you would have been talking 3rd tier dichotomies, you weren't there.

And you were just confusing yourself, with the quadra values in general.

i have always had the merry/serious, judicious/resolute dichotomies in mind. and it checks out with everything i've said about tiers, 1:1 relationships to the functions and quadra-valued duality. that democratic/aristocratic was a possible pick shows you misunderstood the extent of the reinin dichotomies i was referring to. and that's a problem when the issue at hand is separating the credibility of some dichotomies from others.

Only after I had used the democratic as an example. Until that point you were just talking about all of them, in every message before that concerning that part of conversation. Clear evidence of this is the confidence value that you wrote, wich was about all reinin dichotomies, not even just the quadra ones. Even there you showed poor evalution on what kind of number would be confident, and what questionable. You just made the whole 3rd tier thing up, simply out of desperation. Even trying to wiggle out of it doesn't work in the end, because the same critizism applies to merry/serious just as well. And the dual-theory, and intertype relations in general aren't based on reinin dichotomies. Whole talk about reinin dichotomies is pretty pointless in itself, concerning the issue at hand. Your real point has been dead already long time ago, you are just trying to obfuscate that fact, by branching out to something inrelative.

[Expat]

i know most about Pinochete from when a few years after the coup, his administration worked with the "Chicago Boys" trained by Milton Friedman's school to liberalize Chilean economics. from the pictures i saw of him around then, he could put on a stern face at least for ceremony. i think this one here was taken shortly after the coup against Allende's government.

The real question is how much Pinochet understood, or got involved in, or even cared about, the specific details of the policies of the so-called Chicago Boys. The answer is, by all accounts: nearly zero. His attitude was, I don't care about this stuff, you do it.

and here's a quote from a New York Times article published around his death:

The images that most shaped the outside world’s low opinion of the military regime were scenes of Santiago’s main sports stadium filled with prisoners, and by the public appearances of General Pinochet, his eyes hidden behind dark glasses, his face set in a scowl, his arms folded defiantly across his chest. Although a majority of executions, jailings and cases of torture took place shortly after the 1973 coup, serious human rights abuses waxed and waned over the next 17 years.

Yes, and that's precisely the same picture the article is referring to, isn't it? It's a bit circular.

[Expat]

I have posted a "non-grumpy" picture of Pinochet in his thread -- let's not duplicate the discussion here.

[Expat]

but the point was just that Fe-ego types might act in ways "upsetting other people" (contrary to what Warlord suggested). i was also playing off my point that Phaedrus might be Fe-ego acting like Fe-POLR.

Of course Fe-ego types may act in ways that upset others -- either because they are upset themselves, or because they want to get an "upset" reaction from others.

And the Beta NF kind of Fe is even less concerned with "not upsetting" others.

[Expat]

but i wanted to show the extent that Pinochete could convince people, even those responsible for writing internationally-distributed news, that he was an unfriendly character.

How much "convincing" does it take if that is his most widely-known picture, and if he was a dictator responsible for people being killed and kidnapped?

[Expat]

i wanted to make its fame clear. you're not the only person i'm trying to make the case to. maybe someone else might write off the picture as irrelevant to or unusual of what image Pinochete tried to portray.

That picture is not irrelevant; the issue is that, when referring to my typing of him, you were indirectly saying (and yes, you were) that that picture, and the connected image, was the only evidence available. Of course in that picture he was trying to convey a "grumpy" image, but I try to type persons, not the image they are trying to project.

Rather than saying, "Expat typed Pinochet as SEI despite his being grumpy", the correct reference would be, "Expat knows that there is much more information on Pinochet than that one picture, he wouldn't base his typing on one sigle, obviously posed, picture".

[Expat]

if that's how my post reads it was a mistake. all along i've simply been trying to demonstrate that it's plausible for Fe types to not care about their act "upsetting other people" (as you say, they may even want to.)

Ok it's fine.

Regarding Fe (or even Fi) types not wanting to "upset other people", now and then some people say that (here, usually Rocky), because that's more or less how Jung portrays "Feeling types" in his studies, and perhaps also Myers-Briggs. That is not how socionics sees Fe, however.

i never said he was "being grumpy" (as you say i do in the previous quote.) i said "in spite of his grumpy face". the image was what i was going after, in the vein of what i said about Phaedrus.

Ok then I was wrong.

I'm not going to discuss Phaedrus's type here, but especially in the case of INFps it's a big mistake to assume that their creative Fe would make them unwilling to upset others emotionally. Just wait until they see you as an enemy, or even someone who "it's useless" to try to be in friendly terms with. Then they don't give a damn about not upsetting people; the posters here who remember the now-banned krae will know what I mean.

[strrrng]

My own impression from this thread:

Warlord has way too much Extraverted Feeling to be an ILI (please note that I am not making any alternate suggestions so please don't jump to that conclusion, Warlord), and seems to display confidence in making emotional -- yes, emotional -- assessments about the motivations of others, and downplaying what people actually say in favour of their reasons for saying it. He also seems to simply not care about factual accuracy as long as he is "winning".

That and his understanding of quadra values is not particularly sophisticated.

this thread is about.....ME!

[Warlord]

i can't say i've read much about how Pinochet danced or was at bars though. but the point was just that Fe-ego types might act in ways "upsetting other people" (contrary to what Warlord suggested).

Never suggested exactly that. It's evident from how I described it, is that the reason why they would upset other people, isn't simply because they ignore . They can upset can upset people for other reasons.

ifmd95 prev[/i]]you never addressed my point that the quadra values are some of the more accurate reinin dichotomies. even veteran users like Expat use them. around here they're frequently advocated over the jungian foundation even.

...and 2nd tier quadra values are part of all reinin dichotomic quadra values, are they not?

My point is still valid, you only changed it to 3rd tier only after I had used a 2nd tier example, in that part of the discussion. If you are going to speak about 3rd tier reinin dichotomies in spesific, then speak about 3rd tier reinin dichotomies, and not about quadra values in general.

And there's still claims in your quote, that you haven't been able to validate.

i tried to show the quadra value dichotomies are even more reliable than some of the rest yet.

And were unable to.

[Warlord]

and seems to display confidence in making emotional -- yes, emotional -- assessments about the motivations of others

That's just your assessment in turn.

...and downplaying what people actually say in favour of their reasons for saying it. He also seems to simply not care about factual accuracy...

Sticking to what's relevant is factual accuracy. ifmd95 has major problems with that (notice above, also expat points that out). The reasons for what ifmd95 was saying became more important than the content, because he wasn't even talking anything remotely relevant to the issue. From my point of view, that's the same as having no content at all in the messages. Wich rises the question about his motives of talking about something else, and it becomes more important than the content. Also ifmd95 ignores the factual content of my messages, I'm just returning the favor. It would be pointless to even try keep that kind of conversation on with him. Plus the guy(?) can hardly write coherent sentences. I don't know even why I even bother to reply back to him.

Figuring out peoples motives is not same as . Neither is using the word "desperation" in few instances, any kind of emotional assessment, especially since the attempt isn't even a serious one. More of a comment, that his writing has no point. Neither is using the word "sad" an emotional assessment, that's just lingo. Shows not so sophisticated understanding of from your part.

That and his understanding of quadra values is not particularly sophisticated.

Now you are downplaying what people actually say. And you have been concentrating on the reasons of saying in all of your message.

Your claim is hardly true. And can you point anything that I have said about them, that would actually be factually wrong?

I was critizing the reinin dichotomies, starting with the inaccuracy how they are named. And does their naming have any relevance what the dichotomy is about. And how sloppily people in general use them, further increasing the problems in using them to anything. Since he pointed out that, "some people in here" favor them.

My point is that, it's very easy pick the same things from so short piece of your writing, that you just picked from mine.

[FDG]

Let people be whatever fuck type they want to be.

[FDG]

What is the point in that?

Only a person knows his life history, his real-life behavior, his thoughts. If somebody starts a topic asking for feedback, then it's obvious that he'll have to expect answers that do not align with his perceptions. But otherwise, I don't see it as plausible to claim to have a better knowledge of one's personality over the person that actually lives with the personality.

[Warlord]

and seems to display confidence in making emotional -- yes, emotional -- assessments about the motivations of others

That's just your assessment in turn.

Sure, but the issue is confidence.

Whatever "confidence" that required, I can be just as confident about using any function. And as I said earlier, they weren't really emotional assessment, they might just seem that way. Especially if someone wants to see them that way.

And being inconfident about evaluating inner feelings and emotional states of inviduals would be PoLR, since I can't see the expressions and external actions people make when they write on this board. If we assume as you seem to do, that Super-Ego block is only source of inconfidence.

And if we speak about real people, and not theoretical models. People usually aren't that inconfident even about their PoLR.

If I was at all confident in it I would have been more bold than the dismiss my own thoughts as merely an impression, don't you think?

But still you were confident enough to write them down, even when they could be put under question.

Sticking to what's relevant is factual accuracy.

That's debatable. There are plenty of people who downplay the importance of factual accuracy as "irrelevant" because they think some other aspect is important.

Depends on what the other aspect is. But if the conversation is supposed to be about one spesific topic, things that only have remotely to do with the metatopic at hand and that don't deal with the spesific topic, they really have no relevance.

Regardless of what ifmd95 does, you've actually just illustrated my point -- you're placing more importance on his "intentions"/etc.. Perhaps it is relevant, I won't enter into a debate about that, but it is not factual accuracy.

Very much like you are now handling my post, instead of concentrating on the information contained: my explanation on the matter.

You seem to be very quick at jumping to conclusions. I wasn't very specific (though perhaps I should have been), how would you know whether I was talking about "desperation" and "sad" or whatever? I don't even remember you saying that specifically.

So have you been. Those were the only "emotional assessements" I could think of. You didn't say any, again it was your message that lacked the factual content. When there's none, I can't address it. And again what I said above, also applies to this.

The issue is not so much that you consider peoples' motives in the first place, but that you use these invisible motives to dismiss what people are saying. This is a characteristic of Fe/Ti valuing types.

I wasn't dismissing them on the basis of invisible motives, the reason why I dismissed them is written before. I brought the "motive" up only to terminate the extra lines of conversation, because it was consuming both our time, and didn't look like it was going to ever end, if we were continuing the same we had been so far.

For example -- some reasons for challenging the typings of others, from forum members with generally accepted types

Referring to "generally accepted types" could also be taken as / -valuing. Nothing factual about stament like that. Just a construct based on peoples impressions about people.

From what I have seen of you, you more often use quasi-arguments such as the Blaze/Gilly example. They may be relevant, but it's still suggests that Fe is not, of all things, your vulnerable function!

To that I answered in the beginning of this message.

Now, I get into my area of uncertainty again so I would rather not debate on this particular point but my impression is that you have quite a bit more confidence in making emotional assessments than I do, and if we are both typed correctly then I would have rather higher Fe than you, yes?

Theoretically yes, but the lives we live probably have huge influence on what we are really like. There can be lot of variance between inviduals. And as I pointed out earlier, from my point my assessments haven't really been emotional. And I could tell it apart.

That and his understanding of quadra values is not particularly sophisticated.

Now you are downplaying what people actually say. And you have been concentrating on the reasons of saying in all of your message.

Did you read the whole sentence?

That's the point I was making to you. Because that seems like, how you ended up with your initial conclusion. By just dismissing what I had written, and what were my explanations. There was nothing concrete that you said to validate your statement.

You could only make an argument for me doing precisely this from things completely in your imagination (or perhaps just by taking my words out of context, as you have done just now).

More of the same point.

Furthermore, how can you come to this conclusion when I was so non-specific? I didn't actually say anything about why I think your understanding is not sophisticated. For the record, it is precisely what you say about it, and I can't imagine any other way I would measure this sort of thing, can you?

As I stated above. You too have jumped to conclusions too fast.

You responded (in this thread) to Joy's claim that you had a lot of that she didn't make sense because Se is a quadra value. IM elements in the superid are not in abundance, they are weak functions. An ILI with "too much Se" is probably not an ILI if that assessment is accurate.

She thought I have too much on the basis that I value it and so on, not on the basis that I actually showed having any. This has been gone over twice. If I made assumptions about people just based on their avatars, lot of people here would seem like they are about 12 years old.

you seemed to miss even the immediate context of my words? It's baffling.

Yet you are unable to say how I missed the context... yes, I'm speaking about the factual content.

I was critizing the reinin dichotomies, starting with the inaccuracy how they are named. And does their naming have any relevance what the dichotomy is about. And how sloppily people in general use them, further increasing the problems in using them to anything. Since he pointed out that, "some people in here" favor them.

Relevance?

Was actually talking about the content of your message. And howcome you don't see the relevance about the actual content of the message? That's the place where I was talking about the quadra values. Unless you have the tiers messed up. If you can't actually state how my "understanding of quadra values is not particularly sophisticated", and the following argument to be factual. How can you even critize me about it, it could be just as well be, that it is you that lacks understanding of the quadra values. And considering your critizism, it just might be the case. There are examples of it above.

What are you trying to achieve with the tu quoque, anyway? I can't imagine how it's relevant.

Just a plan to get you say something akin to uttering the words "tu quoque".

I can find you doing the very same thing, as you say that I do. Only difference is that I did it on purpose now. You just see what you want to see, and dismiss everything contrary, at least in this case. Because I can point out the same critizism about you, means that we neccessarily aren't that different. Wich basically means that you are inconsistent and confused about who values / and who doesn't. You are just mistaken about what IM elements I actually value. You don't even know anything about me.

And btw. if there's some "factual content" that I don't answer to. There's a good chance that I just agreed with it, I find it redundant to write "I agree".

[Warlord]

I don't have time to respond in detail right now but -- if I am truly acting in the way that I describe Fe/Ti types -- then I probably am a Fe/Ti type, regardless of how I have typed myself.

Well no need really to respond. It would just waste both of our time.

My point is: Anyone can be seen just about as any type, or not to be some type, when we just want to see it that way. And pick only things that would point to that way. Especially when the information about them is limited.

Also we aren't complete "victims" of our types, incapable doing anything beyond, than what the theoretical model says taken in a very strict sense. And it's possible for people for push their boundaries of confidence further to some extent.

And also that people shouldn't jump to conclusions about peoples types, based on very shady evidence.

[FDG]

Also we aren't complete "victims" of our types, incapable doing anything beyond, than what the theoretical model says taken in a very strict sense. And it's possible for people for push their boundaries of confidence further to some extent.

I completely agree. Individuals also have the capability of purposefully altering one's behavior only for the fun of it, or for being able to encompass a different set of experiences. Taking a person's nickname and trying to infer from it a preference for a function would be akin to trying to infer function from the way a person dresses: the measure is not ergodic.

[leckysupport]

I 've only read to the first page and the last, so I'm not sure if what I am about to say has been mentioned.

Anyway I've always thought strrrrg is a LIE ever since we had a little exchange months ago.

[strrrng]

I don't think anyone claims to know a poster's personality better, only that they think their socionics interpretation is more accurate.

you can't have a more accurate interpretation if you don't understand the full picture of a person's personality. your socionics interpretation of the information they've given you may be more accurate, but they know themselves better and may not divulge everything immediately, for whatever reasons.

[FDG]

why can't, as i suggested earlier, one form of understanding outweigh the other?

Gary Kasparov might still beat you at chess without him seeing the entire board.

Yet could you know the color of my eyes by only looking at 1% of their surface?

[FDG]

and possibly a better guess than you, if you have any colorblindness.

And how could you deduce I have colorblindness just by looking at my eye? This seems to be the situation with type-calling.

[Warlord]

And how could you deduce I have colorblindness just by looking at my eye? This seems to be the situation with type-calling.

if you tell me it's grey and instead to me it looks green. and if i have pretty good experience picking out green in the past.

And what if he tells you that they are azure, but to you it's only blue, and therefore draw the conclusion he must be colorblind.

[lefty]

i would weigh the confidence of my conclusions accordingly as well as any actions based on them.

if say rewarding a job reading an instrumentation panel to an applicant depended on their ability to normally distinguish color, we would probably perform a much more rigorous test than the silly example i gave FDG.

however, i might not ask the person in my silly example to color-coordinate my living room. (if and when i have a living room.)

How dare you say "rewarding a job reading an instrumentation panel," this topic has gone on for 8 pages...I demand a lock. Haha.

[FDG]

i would weigh the confidence of my conclusions accordingly as well as any actions based on them.

if say rewarding a job reading an instrumentation panel to an applicant depended on their ability to normally distinguish color, we would probably perform a much more rigorous test than the silly example i gave FDG.

however, i might not ask the person in my silly example to color-coordinate my living room. (if and when i have a living room.)

So uhm, how long is my penis? You should know after last night...

[Ms. Kensington]

INTps and INTjs both have very low Se but ILIs react better to "pushing" (it generally activates them). INTjs have a veeeery bad reaction when someone tries to push them to do things. Perhaps this might help in deciding between those types.

yes, exactly.

[Phaedrus]

INTps and INTjs both have very low Se but ILIs react better to "pushing" (it generally activates them). INTjs have a veeeery bad reaction when someone tries to push them to do things. Perhaps this might help in deciding between those types.

No. That is not correct. None of those two types like to be pushed, but the IP temperament is the most negative of all in that regard. INTjs are better suited to take on responsibilities, whereas the INTp is more inclined to avoid being an integrated part of a social group (which can sometimes be only two persons) that expect you to act in certain ways. The INTp probably has the most negative reaction to being pushed to do things of those two types.

[liveandletlive]

No. That is not correct. None of those two types like to be pushed, but the IP temperament is the most negative of all in that regard. INTjs are better suited to take on responsibilities, whereas the INTp is more inclined to avoid being an integrated part of a social group (which can sometimes be only two persons) that expect you to act in certain ways. The INTp probably has the most negative reaction to being pushed to do things of those two types.

no xox is right.

[Phaedrus]

no xox is right.

Why? Argue for your claim, please.

[liveandletlive]

Why? Argue for your claim, please.

just think about an polr vs. d-s function. an intp is attracted to my demanding and forceful nature and usually eventually caves in (also shows aggressor-infantile style). but with intjs, the more u push the more it angers them and they'll do things out of their way to not do even if they no its right just because i said it.

[Expat]

XoX, liveandletlive and Ms K are right.

The nature of the Se dominant - Se dual-seeking duality is that the Se EP pushes the Ni IP into doing things; however, only in things that the Ni IP in the end agrees that they should or could be doing, but aren't. Obviously nobody likes to be forced into doing what they've decided they don't want to do. It's the Ni IP "borrowing the will" of the Se EP, just like the Ni IP acts as a "brake" on the Se EP's impulsiveness.

LIIs, with Se PoLR, don't want to even acknowledge things like someone else's "pushiness" - they tend to ignore it, or eventually freak out when it becomes too much.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that IPs are more negative to being pushed than IJs. You don't even have to go into functions for that. Consider:

IPs are irrational, IJs are rational: irrationals are more flexible and welcoming to change, so they will welcome an unexpected change - as in someone "pushing" them to do something - more than an IJ, who's more likely to want to stick to what they decided (in practice, of course, it gets blurrier since even IJs will care with varying degree about specific decisions).

[Phaedrus]

The nature of the Se dominant - Se dual-seeking duality is that the Se EP pushes the Ni IP into doing things; however, only in things that the Ni IP in the end agrees that they should or could be doing, but aren't. Obviously nobody likes to be forced into doing what they've decided they don't want to do. It's the Ni IP "borrowing the will" of the Se EP, just like the Ni IP acts as a "brake" on the Se EP's impulsiveness.

We agree on that, but that means that XoX's suggested "method" is rather useless as a general method. We can't use someone's negative reaction to being pushed as an indication of LII>ILI -- and that was my point.

Also, to "push" someone can mean different things in different contexts. IJs are more likely to accept being "pushed" if the person trying to persuade them succeeds in convincing the IJ that it is his or her duty to do it. An IP, on the other hand, might refuse to do it anyway, for no particular reason other than that they don't want to do it.

[Ms. Kensington]

We agree on that, but that means that XoX's suggested "method" is rather useless as a general method. We can't use someone's negative reaction to being pushed as an indication of LII>ILI -- and that was my point.

Also, to "push" someone can mean different things in different contexts. IJs are more likely to accept being "pushed" if the person trying to persuade them succeeds in convincing the IJ that it is his or her duty to do it. An IP, on the other hand, might refuse to do it anyway, for no particular reason other than that they don't want to do it.

i also thought about that but i dont think that what the LII responds to is pushing so much as reminding or slight nagging, or as you said convincing. Convincing someone implies that they decided on their own, or at least are made to feel that way.. very different from pushing someone, imo.

[Phaedrus]

i also thought about that but i dont think that what the LII responds to is pushing so much as reminding or slight nagging, or as you said convincing. Convincing someone implies that they decided on their own, or at least are made to feel that way.. very different from pushing someone, imo.

So then we both agree that XoX's claim about the LII's and the ILI's attitudes to being "pushed" are in fact useless and does NOT "help in deciding between those types" -- is that correct? And the only thing we may, or may not, disagree on is the use of some words?