One person's take on different people's ideas on the forum

[Jonathan]

By not "being the same," I'm acknowledging what you said about how Tcaud sees it as a "new type" whereas you don't, or that Tcaud in his conception attributed the apparent weakness or lack of skillfull display of either Te or Fe as "undifferentiation" whereas you see it as Te PoLR and Fe not appearing "strong" for some other reasons.

Jonathan, stop misrepresenting my views. I have said very clearly why I see Te PoLR, as well as strong Fe (as creative Beta Fe, for that matter).

If you do not agree, it's fine; but if you are going to write about what I have written, don't misrepresent it. Unless you are unable to understand it, in which case you should add a disclaimer to the effect "I don't understand why Expat says they have strong Fe".

Sorry, despite my general disclaimers, I made the same mistake I've accused others of in terms of not clearly distinguishing my perception of a point of view from that point of view itself. I stand corrected on that.

As to Fe in IEI, my understanding is that it would typically be expressed not only in the passive way you describe, but also in a more active way as a "creative function"....not in terms of controlling the emotional environment to the extent of acc-Fe, but still coming out as a certain expressiveness, or "output" based on the direction from the accepting function. That may be a misperception on my part regarding the relation of acc/crea, but I thought that typically there's a flow of information from acc-to-crea....or at least in both directions.

The other issue here is that even if we accept Fe in IEI in terms of mainly interpreting the emotional environment, knowing who one's friends are, having the awareness to make good decisions related to the emotional environment, then there's clearly a disagreement on the forum regarding whether some of the people you mention as IEI would still fit that. It's that disagreement that leads some to think that some of these people are showing Fe-valuing but not strong Fe.

[consentingadult]

Here's to another visit by consentingadult who pops up on occasion just to make again his point that this is some kind of deluded sect, etc.

Man -- we do get your point. Is it necessary to show up here every 2 months or so just to repeat it?

Yes, it is

[Expat]

As to Fe in IEI, my understanding is that it would typically be expressed not only in the passive way you describe, but also in a more active way as a "creative function"....not in terms of controlling the emotional environment to the extent of acc-Fe, but still coming out as a certain expressiveness, or "output" based on the direction from the accepting function. That may be a misperception on my part regarding the relation of acc/crea, but I thought that typically there's a flow of information from acc-to-crea....or at least in both directions.

I fully agree that a person showing Fe in the way you described would be more readily typed as IEI. The issue then is whether not acting like that necessarily disqualifies the person from being IEI, given all other evidence.

Perhaps we're having here a Positivism vs Negativism argument. Or not.

The other issue here is that even if we accept Fe in IEI in terms of mainly interpreting the emotional environment, knowing who one's friends are, having the awareness to make good decisions related to the emotional environment, then there's clearly a disagreement on the forum regarding whether some of the people you mention as IEI would still fit that. It's that disagreement that leads some to think that some of these people are showing Fe-valuing but not strong Fe.

Ok, that's a discussion worth having then, with that aspect being seen in the context of all other functions, including what I see as "too weak and unvalued Te for LII". If some are saying that they are not strong in Fe, I am saying they are not strong in Te.

Another point is then what each individual is trying to achieve in the present social environment ie this forum. Fe types who are not particularly interested in interacting is others here in any social way will not care much about this here - not necessarily elsewhere.

[misutii]

This thread is a Te-circle jerk lol

so I'll just add that Phaedrus is definitely not IEI, I get no Fe vibe from him what-so-ever and I've read quite a few of his posts. While my opinion may be omitted due to not making sense, (Fe vibe what's that?) it should be noted that only logical types with weak ethical functions will be the ones omitting it.

I still think he's ILI, hence his relatively civil behaviour in this Te'ish thread and the fact that he's still willing to allow others to try to convince him what type he is. I'm IEI and if someone said that I wasn't or that there was a strong "possibility" that I was actually another type, and I came to this forum around once a week for at least a year, and I had to put up with as much shit as Phaedrus does about what type he is, then I can assure you that I'd decorate a thread like this as a German WW2 jewish ghetto in Dresden (first before, then after the fire bombing)

I sometimes find it difficult to know whether to take ENTjs (or Te types in general) seriously in what they're saying, especially in regards to "possibilities", i.e. My ENTj uncle and his INTp brother are reknowned for having little Te wars whereby they try to convince each other that the other has some neurological disorder and observing such an argument one would think they were actually trying to destroy each other where as in reality that is how they "play".

[aestrivex]

i haven't fully grokked the idea of phaedrus as an Fe type, even as expat explains it; expat's arguments for an Fe-biased perspective make sense, but the way that phaedrus comports himself does not tend to suggest to me that he has any emotional awareness.

That's where I disagree.

i'm not saying i disagree with your interpretation here, but rather that i haven't been able to make enough sense of it yet to fully accept it.

[Phaedrus]

so I'll just add that Phaedrus is definitely not IEI, I get no Fe vibe from him what-so-ever and I've read quite a few of his posts. While my opinion may be omitted due to not making sense, (Fe vibe what's that?) it should be noted that only logical types with weak ethical functions will be the ones omitting it.

So, there is at least one person on this forum who is not blind and can interpret correctly what is in plain view to see.

[Jarno]

so I'll just add that Phaedrus is definitely not IEI, I get no Fe vibe from him what-so-ever and I've read quite a few of his posts. While my opinion may be omitted due to not making sense, (Fe vibe what's that?) it should be noted that only logical types with weak ethical functions will be the ones omitting it.

So, there is at least one person on this forum who is not blind and can interpret correctly what is in plain view to see.

yes, I'm starting to think that it's more easy for Fe types to spot an absence of Fe, then it is for Te types to see the presence of Fe.

as example I have Kristiina who noticed it and a friend of mine who is IEI who pointed it out to me even before I introduced him to socionics.

[Phaedrus]

yes, I'm starting to think that it's more easy for Fe types to spot an absence of Fe, then it is for Te types to see the presence of Fe.

as example I have Kristiina who noticed it and a friend of mine who is IEI who pointed it out to me even before I introduced him to socionics.

Yes, I don't doubt that Kristiina made a correct observation. But what I really want to understand is why Expat is still unable to see it, despite the fact that someone with his competence should be able to see it, especially when he has now met you IRL. Why doesn't he realize that there must be something wrong with his typing method?

[Jarno]

yes, I'm starting to think that it's more easy for Fe types to spot an absence of Fe, then it is for Te types to see the presence of Fe.

as example I have Kristiina who noticed it and a friend of mine who is IEI who pointed it out to me even before I introduced him to socionics.

Yes, I don't doubt that Kristiina made a correct observation. But what I really want to understand is why Expat is still unable to see it, despite the fact that someone with his competence should be able to see it, especially when he has now met you IRL. Why doesn't he realize that there must be something wrong with his typing method?

Not that I want to open a new debate on my type but...

In favor of expat, I haven't talked much at the meeting.

But on the other hand, I think it's true that there's sometimes to much emphasize on IM elements (I don't dispute they are the core of a person) and to little focus on other typical type characteristics (not just dichotomy's).

Looking at IM elements requires very much experience not to make a wrong interpretation, especially in regard to the lesser obvious second ego function.

[Expat]

I still think he's ILI, hence his relatively civil behaviour in this Te'ish thread and the fact that he's still willing to allow others to try to convince him what type he is. I'm IEI and if someone said that I wasn't or that there was a strong "possibility" that I was actually another type, and I came to this forum around once a week for at least a year, and I had to put up with as much shit as Phaedrus does about what type he is, then I can assure you that I'd decorate a thread like this as a German WW2 jewish ghetto in Dresden (first before, then after the fire bombing.

Precisely. Because you'd be acting as IEI, defending your self-typing as IEI. But that's not how ILIs are supposed to act - is it?

[Logos]

yes, I'm starting to think that it's more easy for Fe types to spot an absence of Fe, then it is for Te types to see the presence of Fe.

as example I have Kristiina who noticed it and a friend of mine who is IEI who pointed it out to me even before I introduced him to socionics.

Yes, I don't doubt that Kristiina made a correct observation. But what I really want to understand is why Expat is still unable to see it, despite the fact that someone with his competence should be able to see it, especially when he has now met you IRL. Why doesn't he realize that there must be something wrong with his typing method?

Not that I agree with either you or Expat, but based upon my observations on this forum you should never discount the possibility of Rule #5 (numbering subject to change) in the Idiot's Guide to Socionics Typing (to paraphrase): People have a tendency to type people they disagree and clash with outside of their own quadra as a means to psychologically establish a sense of order within their quadra.

[Expat]

yes, I'm starting to think that it's more easy for Fe types to spot an absence of Fe, then it is for Te types to see the presence of Fe.

as example I have Kristiina who noticed it and a friend of mine who is IEI who pointed it out to me even before I introduced him to socionics.

Yes, I don't doubt that Kristiina made a correct observation. But what I really want to understand is why Expat is still unable to see it, despite the fact that someone with his competence should be able to see it, especially when he has now met you IRL. Why doesn't he realize that there must be something wrong with his typing method?

Not that I want to open a new debate on my type but...

In favor of expat, I haven't talked much at the meeting.

But on the other hand, I think it's true that there's sometimes to much emphasize on IM elements (I don't dispute they are the core of a person) and to little focus on other typical type characteristics (not just dichotomy's).

Looking at IM elements requires very much experience not to make a wrong interpretation, especially in regard to the lesser obvious second ego function.

Well, since Jarno quoted an idiotic comment by Phaedrus, saying that there's something wrong with "my" typing method, let me state here that I wasn't by any means the only person to think that IEI was possible, even likely, for Jarno.

However, as Jarno said, and I also said when this matter was raised in the Germany thread, since he didn't talk much, much less asked his type to be discussed, there isn't really much more to be said, on that except, to emphasize the ignorance and idiocy of Phaedrus's comment, all the more since I also declined to make any firm comment on Jarno's type, one way or the other.

[Expat]

but based upon my observations on this forum you should never discount the possibility of Rule #5 (numbering subject to change) in the Idiot's Guide to Socionics Typing (to paraphrase): People have a tendency to type people they disagree and clash with outside of their own quadra as a means to psychologically establish a sense of order within their quadra.

Which is a wonderful way of neutralizing someone's typing without having to actually discuss it, isn't it? "Ah you're just saying that because you disagree with him". Are we in kindergarten, or what?

[Logos]

but based upon my observations on this forum you should never discount the possibility of Rule #5 (numbering subject to change) in the Idiot's Guide to Socionics Typing (to paraphrase): People have a tendency to type people they disagree and clash with outside of their own quadra as a means to psychologically establish a sense of order within their quadra.

Which is a wonderful way of neutralizing someone's typing without having to actually discuss it, isn't it? "Ah you're just saying that because you disagree with him".

Pointing out the phenomenon does not mean that one necessarily seeks to neutralize or choose not to rationally discuss what is happening within the phenomenon. This is just a typing tendency I have noticed before, and I have most likely subconsciously been a part of it myself. To put it simply: If you don't like them, ship 'em. If you want to then, I suppose you could call it a -thing, since these are the Quadras where the rejects are sent anyway. But this phenomenon could probably be easily observed or studied in other fields that deal with the psychological behaviors in group-identification.

Are we in kindergarten, or what?

If you come closer to name calling, it will be. So please do your best to behave with integrity. :wink:

[Expat]

ointing out the phenomenon does not mean that one necessarily seeks to neutralize the phenomenon. This is just a typing tendency I have noticed before, and I have subconsciously been a part of it myself. If you don't like them, ship 'em to where there is already a great amount of psychological resistance. If you want to then, I suppose you could call it a -thing, since these are the Quadras where the rejects are sent anyway. But this phenomenon could probably be easily observed or studied in in other fields that deal with the psychological behaviors in group-identification.

It's one thing to observe it, another to use it as a lazy way to dismiss people's typings. So anyone that, for instance, Joy types as belonging to a Ti quadra, it's just because she doesn't like the person or disagrees with them?

As for "these are the quadras where the rejects are sent anyway" - and then you consider my referring to "kindergarten" "name-calling"?

[Logos]

ointing out the phenomenon does not mean that one necessarily seeks to neutralize the phenomenon. This is just a typing tendency I have noticed before, and I have subconsciously been a part of it myself. If you don't like them, ship 'em to where there is already a great amount of psychological resistance. If you want to then, I suppose you could call it a -thing, since these are the Quadras where the rejects are sent anyway. But this phenomenon could probably be easily observed or studied in in other fields that deal with the psychological behaviors in group-identification.

It's one thing to observe it, another to use it as a lazy way to dismiss people's typings.

It is only lazy if there is no follow-through, and I have not suggested that typings should be dismissed without argumentation, and I hope that you are not suggesting that I am attempting to do so here. I am not trying to dismiss your typing, oh by the way. Phaedrus merely presented an opportunity for me to reveal an observation, and I took it.

So anyone that, for instance, Joy types as belonging to a Ti quadra, it's just because she doesn't like the person or disagrees with them?

Is it? Others have noted her tendency to dismiss people and ideas with a wave of her " That's definitely Ti" wand, so I would not be quick to dismiss this prevalence of this phenomenon amongst people just yet.

As for "these are the quadras where the rejects are sent anyway" - and then you consider my referring to "kindergarten" "name-calling"?

Wow, I just made an Expat joke of self-depreciation so funny that even Expat did not get it. Yeah, I think my true calling is as an ENTj comedian.

[Megan]

To put it simply: If you don't like them, ship 'em. If you want to then, I suppose you could call it a -thing, since these are the Quadras where the rejects are sent anyway. But this phenomenon could probably be easily observed or studied in other fields that deal with the psychological behaviors in group-identification.

That's interesting and probably true based on what is known about group dynamics generally, would you care to mention any specific examples of persons you have seen this happen to here?
nevermind it is probably not a good idea to answer that.

If you still have that INTp as your neighbour, Megan, and you two have not turned into enemies by now, you have an excellent opportunitiy to compare our writings with how he thinks, argues, and perhaps also writes. What does he identify with? Does he understand what we are talking about? Is there really anything in his ideas that does sound clearly less / and more / ?

we haven't turned into outright enemies yet, lol. Anyway, I would not really compare you to him as a way to find your type, amongst several reasons he is a far more blunt, straight and critical person in general than you appear to be when he isn't just passively floating along and you would probably not be the same subtype as him if it turns out that you are an INTp. Also, I am sure you can see why it is not really such a good idea to type others mainly based on their difference or similarity to another. I am on your side to the extent that I do not believe that you are an INFp based on what I said before and it does not seem that INFps see the strong in you. May I ask, in four sentences or less what makes you think you are Te creative? I think if you briefly stated that then at least everyone would have a more clear idea of why you believe what you very obviously believe and perhaps the people with some confidence in their knowledge of this theory can assess with an open mind again if there is anything to your point.

[Logos]

As for "these are the quadras where the rejects are sent anyway" - and then you consider my referring to "kindergarten" "name-calling"?

Wow, I just made an Expat joke of self-depreciation so funny that even Expat did not get it. Yeah, I think my true calling is as an ENTj comedian.

Those jokes always seem to fall flat unless you have some kind of close-ish friendship with the person you're joking with. Saying stuff like that only turns out funny if the other party knows that you wouldn't actually mean it (or at least mean it with that level of harshness).

I know this because it is the reason no one understands me. :wink:

(I realise that I've assumed a lot about your relationship, please excuse me)

Don't worry about it. Expat and I are just casually dating right now.

[hellothere]

One big and missing point of view here is mine.

I don't think socionics is true. By this I mean, the mind isn't composed by a set of predefined blocks that stack on top of each other in an specific way.

To explain why do I think so, we have to review two basic assumptions of socionics: that there is a certain amount of types and that everybody fits inside one of them.

Let's see the first assumption: there is a certain amount of types.

The main difference between a computer and a brain (not only human) is that a computer has a finite set of states, while a brain is in essence infinite.

This is because a computer is a static element which simulates dynamism. Although a computer can perform different operations, the truth is that the data buses, the logical and arithmetical units and other parts of a microprocessor are wired the same way always. So if you let a computer run forever, it will eventually reach all possibilities and start running in circles.

A brain, not only the human brain but all of them, has a characteristic that computers doesn't have: it's a truly dynamic element. A brain can do something a computer will never be able to: to process some information, rewire itself and process the same information yet getting different results.

To be explicit, a brain is a perpetual recycling machine. Each time it changes, a new set of possibilities is established and it never runs long enough to deplete it, because it changes again, over and over.

So, can you imagine a dynamic element structured like a static one? I can't. And I can't because it makes no sense. I can only explain such way of thinking by the abuse of statistics, like in many other areas of knowledge. Some people tends to believe that anything which is statistically significant has a direct correlation with reality, while in fact it doesn't.

The trick goes as follows: one can pick up any dichotomy, divide a large group into sections, then apply another dichotomy and further divide it and so. In the end we end up with smaller groups that share certain characteristics and that are ordered in an orthogonal way. So if you ask a member of a group to make a choice, you're likely to get the same response from other members. The degree of agreement will be in direct relationship of the "quality" of the dichotomies you used to build the group.

This explains the interrelationship aspect of socionics, but it proves nothing about the way we process information and it causes an endless (and useless) discussion on why members of a type are similar and different at the same time. Summarized, it goes like:

* The groups are only consistent to the degree of dichotomies applied to them. Outside the dichotomies the characteristics of an individual are in essence unpredictable.
* Given enough dichotomies one ends up with groups of a single individual (which is cycling thinking).

I'll add more later.

actually this is also something that troubles me about socionics... but i'm too lazy/not confident enough in my own reasoning to have come to a conclusion yet, so are there any threads where this point has been discussed?

[Expat]

As for "these are the quadras where the rejects are sent anyway" - and then you consider my referring to "kindergarten" "name-calling"?

Wow, I just made an Expat joke of self-depreciation so funny that even Expat did not get it. Yeah, I think my true calling is as an ENTj comedian.

Those jokes always seem to fall flat unless you have some kind of close-ish friendship with the person you're joking with. Saying stuff like that only turns out funny if the other party knows that you wouldn't actually mean it (or at least mean it with that level of harshness).

I know this because it is the reason no one understands me. :wink:

(I realise that I've assumed a lot about your relationship, please excuse me)

Don't worry about it. Expat and I are just casually dating right now.

Ok -- you pwn, or own, or whichever, me. Fair enough.

[snegledmaca]

Expat, one thing I'm curious though, have you found any other explanation for your observations? I'm not familiar with your reasoning for claiming phaedrus is IEI, but does it really *necessarily*, or with hight certainty, or something, follow from the interpretation of his actions that he is IEI? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you assuming motivation on his part? (Or is it that he actually proclaimed those motivations for action you state he has, or they can be show directly, or something, again, I'm not familiar with the situation)

[Expat]

Expat, one thing I'm curious though, have you found any other explanation for your observations? I'm not familiar with your reasoning for claiming phaedrus is IEI, but does it really *necessarily*, or with hight certainty, or something, follow from the interpretation of his actions that he is IEI? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you assuming motivation on his part? (Or is it that he actually proclaimed those motivations for action you state he has, or they can be show directly, or something, again, I'm not familiar with the situation)

Fair enough.

First, as should be obvious, I am not "sure" of anything. I am not on a "crusade" regarding anyone's type, here or elsewhere. However, if the issue is raised - as Jonathan did, not me, please note - and especially if my reasonings are misrepresented, as by Jonathan, then I will state my views. I got disgusted with discussing this issue with Phaedrus himself, which is one reason why I have him on ignore, but of course I will write about that whenever I feel like it or the matter is brought to my attention. Whether he wants me to write about it or not is a matter of no concern to me.

Second, as for "other explanations" -- like what? Of course there are other explanations, but I think IEI is the most likely one. Do you want me to tell you that I don't think it's the most likely one when I do think it is? If it turns out that that explanation is wrong, then ok, but I have yet to see convincing reasons for that, except the views of people who don't seem to otherwise know much about socionics.

Third, as for "assuming motivation" -- are you referring to my reply to misutii's post? I am suggesting an answer to misutii's question. I would agree that it's a bit lame, but, hell, nothing's perfect. The fact that Phaedrus does not behave in the same way as misutii says he would is one argument against IEI. There are others. I think the arguments against ILI are stronger.

Fourth, my typing of him as IEI is not based on "my interpretation of his actions" -- it is based on my realization, starting in the discussion in that hugely long XoX thread, that he is totally clueless about what makes someone an ILI or IEI, and that his arguments for being ILI actually show the opposite - and he doesn't even realize it!

Fifth - why is it that people act as if that was my idea? The first person to suggest it was actually Salawa, when I was unsure myself; and Logos also reached that conclusion independently. Have I "brainwashed" them, as Phaedus has liked to suggest?

One of them most idiotic ideas from Jonathan's post in this thread is the implication that seeing Phaedrus, and some others, as IEI is MY bullshit. Of course Phaedrus likes it to make it look that way (and that is not an interpretation, that's what he actually does), so that he can make it easy for himself and say that there is something wrong with "my" methods.

[Expat]

And to make something clear, hopefully once and for all --

Phaedrus mentions my meeting with Jarno as supposed evidence of the flaws in "my" typing method, as if, I have met Jarno, surely I should have typed him (supposedly correctly) as ILI?

Before the meeting, Jarno mentioned something in the forum about having his type as ILI supposedly "confirmed" by Rick and myself. However, Jarno did not raise this issue at all, neither during the meetings, nor during informal conversations. As he himself has said, he didn't participate all that much and remained in the peripheries of discussions (which is not a criticism -- often people like Rick, Igor Weisband, or myself were talking at length).

So Jarno did not really give us the opportunity (or we didn't give it to him) to discuss his type in an intelligent way. Not that it would have made any difference -- suppose that Rick, myself, and others, concluded that he's not ILI. Would Jarno have accepted it? I suspect not; after all, "he already discovered his type 5 years ago with MBTI and all his friends see him as INTP, so he knows all there is to know".

Anyway, in those circumstances, I would be irresponsible if I said, "I have met Jarno, so I can say I know his type" - whichever my opinion is. It would be silly to say that I now can say with "certainty" that he is or is not ILI, given the limited nature of the interaction. I have my opinion; but it would be unfair for me to use a brief meeting where he didn't talk much as a strong argument.

[Phaedrus]

If you still have that INTp as your neighbour, Megan, and you two have not turned into enemies by now, you have an excellent opportunitiy to compare our writings with how he thinks, argues, and perhaps also writes. What does he identify with? Does he understand what we are talking about? Is there really anything in his ideas that does sound clearly less / and more / ?

we haven't turned into outright enemies yet, lol. Anyway, I would not really compare you to him as a way to find your type, amongst several reasons he is a far more blunt, straight and critical person in general than you appear to be when he isn't just passively floating along and you would probably not be the same subtype as him if it turns out that you are an INTp.

So ... you think he is far more blunt, straight and critical than I appear to be ...? Well, I am not sure everyone on this forum agrees with you on that point. Is it even possible? Being blunt, straight and critical is what some people here are criticizing me for, and I can assure you that even more people are criticizing me for that IRL. And I am not asking for your help in typing me, I only thought that you would have an opportunity to empirically test your own hypothesis regarding what functions I use, since you seem convinced that your neighbout really is an INTp (and I agree with your typing of him).

[Jarno]

"he already discovered his type 5 years ago with MBTI and all his friends see him as INTP, so he knows all there is to know".

I confirmed my Socionics type by the relationships. That's my main argument. But nobody knows what i've done and experimented to find out my type. And I like to keep it that way. Cause I'm wasting my time on this subject.

[snegledmaca]

Second, as for "other explanations" -- like what?

Well, I don't know, be creative .

Of course there are other explanations, but I think IEI is the most likely one. Do you want me to tell you that I don't think it's the most likely one when I do think it is?

Uhm, no?

If it turns out that that explanation is wrong, then ok, but I have yet to see convincing reasons for that, except the views of people who don't seem to otherwise know much about socionics.

Well the thing is, you can explain it the way you did, and it makes sense, but what about herzy's explanation for example? That phaedrus is just an imbecile and that it has nothing to do with socionics? Although you may dispute it's not a socionics explanation it seems more "elegant" to me and more readily acceptable. I was kind of referring to that. Perhaps it just appears to be linked to socionics in a certain way while in reality because he is, and I'm not saying he is, just an imbecile it makes him appear to value and appear to have weak or . Like say, somebody who was raised in the country appearing to be more "grounded", or a sensor because of their upbringing. What about that as a possibility/explanation?

Third, as for "assuming motivation" -- are you referring to my reply to misutii's post? I am suggesting an answer to misutii's question. I would agree that it's a bit lame, but, hell, nothing's perfect. The fact that Phaedrus does not behave in the same way as misutii says he would is one argument against IEI. There are others. I think the arguments against ILI are stronger.

No, I was referring to this in your response to Jonathan

The individuals we have discussed are keen to attribute emotional, "political", motivations to those disagreeing with them, in order to dismiss or neutralize their arguments. That is a use of Fe: what is relevant is not what people are actually saying, but the hidden implications and motivations behind what people are saying. Both Phaedrus and hitta are quick - especially when feeling "cornered" - to do this, as in hitta's certainty that niffweed17's motivations are about "making an impression on the forum", which is the reason "why anyone does anything", and Phaedrus saying that the only possible motivation to question his type is to want to attack him, or his "lone wolf" delusions -- people "attack him" because he's a "lone wolf. That kind of thing, which he may think it's ILI behavior, but it's an use of Fe and Ti.

here, are you assuming the motivation on their part or did they actually state it?

Fourth, my typing of him as IEI is not based on "my interpretation of his actions" -- it is based on my realization, starting in the discussion in that hugely long XoX thread, that he is totally clueless about what makes someone an ILI or IEI, and that his arguments for being ILI actually show the opposite - and he doesn't even realize it!

Yeah, that's kinda what I meant, I should've said from your interaction with him or something like that. Generally from your exposure to him.

Fifth - why is it that people act as if that was my idea? The first person to suggest it was actually Salawa, when I was unsure myself; and Logos also reached that conclusion independently. Have I "brainwashed" them, as Phaedus has liked to suggest?

I think it may have something to do with that what you say has validity attached to it. For example, nobody says anything about when salawa or logos type people because nobody cares. They can claim anything in the world but nobody will listen, because they do not have validity to go along their claims. So in a sense it is your idea because you, unlike them, can validate it/stand behind it.

One of them most idiotic ideas from Jonathan's post in this thread is the implication that seeing Phaedrus, and some others, as IEI is MY bullshit. Of course Phaedrus likes it to make it look that way (and that is not an interpretation, that's what he actually does), so that he can make it easy for himself and say that there is something wrong with "my" methods.

Like I said above, I don't think it's about the seeing/opinion but about the arguments. I don't see anybody else making a socionically valid case even though they may share your opinion.

[Expat]

Well the thing is, you can explain it the way you did, and it makes sense, but what about herzy's explanation for example? That phaedrus is just an imbecile and that it has nothing to do with socionics?

That's of course also a possibility, and the two are not incompatible.

, just an imbecile it makes him appear to value and appear to have weak or . Like say, somebody who was raised in the country appearing to be more "grounded", or a sensor because of their upbringing. What about that as a possibility/explanation?

Hmm, I don't think so but who knows.

The individuals we have discussed are keen to attribute emotional, "political", motivations to those disagreeing with them, in order to dismiss or neutralize their arguments. That is a use of Fe: what is relevant is not what people are actually saying, but the hidden implications and motivations behind what people are saying. Both Phaedrus and hitta are quick - especially when feeling "cornered" - to do this, as in hitta's certainty that niffweed17's motivations are about "making an impression on the forum", which is the reason "why anyone does anything", and Phaedrus saying that the only possible motivation to question his type is to want to attack him, or his "lone wolf" delusions -- people "attack him" because he's a "lone wolf. That kind of thing, which he may think it's ILI behavior, but it's an use of Fe and Ti.

here, are you assuming the motivation on their part or did they actually state it?

In the examples I have cited, they have stated what I have described. Or as in Phaedrus's case, "why would you question my type if not to insult me?" So it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on observations.

I think it may have something to do with that what you say has validity attached to it. For example, nobody says anything about when salawa or logos type people because nobody cares. They can claim anything in the world but nobody will listen, because they do not have validity to go along their claims. So in a sense it is your idea because you, unlike them, can validate it/stand behind it.

Like I said above, I don't think it's about the seeing/opinion but about the arguments. I don't see anybody else making a socionically valid case even though they may share your opinion.

Logos has used pretty much the same arguments, but he (perhaps wisely) hasn't bothered with it very often.

[snegledmaca]

In the examples I have cited, they have stated what I have described. Or as in Phaedrus's case, "why would you question my type if not to insult me?"

That's what I was getting at. I asked because sometimes I perceive somethign while the otehr person perceives it completely different from myself. For example, on this site sometimes Joy will state somethign and I will perceive it as a total insult but in reality, or as she assures me, it totally wasn't like that, so I was wondering if perhaps the same thing was happening here.

So it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on observations.

And now I wonder again, you conclusions/interpretation of it or the objective truth/socionics truth? (As in, if I was some socionicis in god knows where and knew nothing of the situation I would reach the same conclusions when presented with the same proclamations)

Logos has used pretty much the same arguments, but he (perhaps wisely) hasn't bothered with it very often.

Well in that case, it really isn't you idea as there are other people who have arguments as well. Then I think it's just because you are willing to be bothered with it often. Perhaps if you were not willing to be bothered with it people would not claim it to be your idea.

[Logos]

As for "these are the quadras where the rejects are sent anyway" - and then you consider my referring to "kindergarten" "name-calling"?

Wow, I just made an Expat joke of self-depreciation so funny that even Expat did not get it. Yeah, I think my true calling is as an ENTj comedian.

Those jokes always seem to fall flat unless you have some kind of close-ish friendship with the person you're joking with. Saying stuff like that only turns out funny if the other party knows that you wouldn't actually mean it (or at least mean it with that level of harshness).

I know this because it is the reason no one understands me. :wink:

(I realise that I've assumed a lot about your relationship, please excuse me)

Don't worry about it. Expat and I are just casually dating right now.

Ok -- you pwn, or own, or whichever, me. Fair enough.

Well pwning or owning you was not my intention. But you know, I'v heard pwn as both owned and pawned so often that I honestly do not know which it it truly is anymore.

[Expat]

I'm IEI and if someone said that I wasn't or that there was a strong "possibility" that I was actually another type, and I came to this forum around once a week for at least a year, and I had to put up with as much shit as Phaedrus does about what type he is, then I can assure you that I'd decorate a thread like this as a German WW2 jewish ghetto in Dresden (first before, then after the fire bombing)

I just thought of something --

Read the paragraph above. That's a true IEI speaking. Then read the typical INFP descriptions. Is that really the same kind of person? Rubbish.

[Megan]

So ... you think he is far more blunt, straight and critical than I appear to be ...? Well, I am not sure everyone on this forum agrees with you on that point. Is it even possible? Being blunt, straight and critical is what some people here are criticizing me for, and I can assure you that even more people are criticizing me for that IRL. And I am not asking for your help in typing me...

Phaedrus, I think I am losing hope a little here. I wanted to know without reference to any other "INTp" here or elsewhere and preferably without reference to the INTp descriptions why exactly (and briefly) you think that you are an INTp with strong valued Te, I expected a socionics based answer. If I asked any of the INTps I know the same question I would get a straight answer provided they had a reasonable understanding of the theory.
I am not really that interested in anyone's type but I feel you have not really been treated that great here to put it mildly and much of what you have said has been deemed "rubbish". I hoped that you would be clearly able to concisely say again without reference or mention of anyone else what makes you think you are a Te type and an INTp.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I think I am losing hope a little here. I wanted to know without reference to any other "INTp" here or elsewhere and preferably without reference to the INTp descriptions why exactly (and briefly) you think that you are an INTp with strong valued Te, I expected a socionics based answer.

I have tried to explain that so many times by now that I have lost count. I am currently working on a longer exposition on what I now see even more clearly than before as the fundamental differences in world outlooks between Te and Ti, so I might come back to that.

If I asked any of the INTps I know the same question I would get a straight answer provided they had a reasonable understanding of the theory.

What kind of answer would satisfy you? Can you give a hypothetical example of what they would say?

I am not really that interested in anyone's type but I feel you have not really been treated that great here to put it mildly and much of what you have said has been deemed "rubbish". I hoped that you would be clearly able to concisely say again without reference or mention of anyone else what makes you think you are a Te type and an INTp.

My reluctance to answer is partly due to the fact that whatever I say on this forum, people either don't understand what I am saying or totally ignore it. So, what's the likelihood of me convincing you on this point?

As I said, I will perhaps come back to that later. But I am quite sure that you would also see yourself that I am a Te type based on both the content of my posts on this forum and their structure, if you analyzed them. There is plenty of material to study for those who are interested. (I can give you a hint: One of many keys to understand the philosophical and scientific differences between Te and Ti is to read what Jung says about their differences in Psychological Types, which is available online.)

[anndelise]

Phaedrus, Megan's question was pretty simple.
What of your actions/words do YOU see as being Te?
She's not concerning herself with other people's opinions...so stop referring to their arguments and povs.
She's not even all that concerned with her own pov....if she were then she'd spend the time/energy to "analyze" your posts.
She's not trying to say you are or are not something.
She's just asking you a simple question about YOUR OWN pov of what constitutes Te? What criteria do YOU personally use when determining if something is/isn't Te?
Sending her off to study something only sends her off to get her own subjective interpretations of what she reads....it says little of your own. (other than perhaps avoidance, laziness, and/or other in regards to answering the question)

(fwiw, i have seen that be asked of you quite a few times, and not once have you answered it. if you choose not to answer it again, perhaps you could look up and quote somewhere where you actually DID give your criteria of what = Te)

[Megan]

Phaedrus, Megan's question was pretty simple.
What of your actions/words do YOU see as being Te?
She's not concerning herself with other people's opinions...so stop referring to their arguments and povs.
She's not even all that concerned with her own pov....if she were then she'd spend the time/energy to "analyze" your posts.
She's not trying to say you are or are not something.
She's just asking you a simple question about YOUR OWN pov of what constitutes Te? What criteria do YOU personally use when determining if something is/isn't Te?
Sending her off to study something only sends her off to get her own subjective interpretations of what she reads....it says little of your own. (other than perhaps avoidance, laziness, and/or other in regards to answering the question)

(fwiw, i have seen that be asked of you quite a few times, and not once have you answered it. if you choose not to answer it again, perhaps you could look up and quote somewhere where you actually DID give your criteria of what = Te)

Phaedrus, the above is it basically, couldn't really have said it better myself. Hopefully if it is important to you that others believe you are the type you think you are then eventually you will enable them to understand your point.

[snegledmaca]

I think it may have something to do with that what you say has validity attached to it. For example, nobody says anything about when salawa or logos type people because nobody cares. They can claim anything in the world but nobody will listen, because they do not have validity to go along their claims. So in a sense it is your idea because you, unlike them, can validate it/stand behind it.

Pardon?

So, that I suggested it first, and argued with Expat about it for some time using the same arguments that he now uses for the typing does not count as validity? Are things only valid when Expat says them?

Certainly, no-one cares. Why am I even here?

Sorry, I did not know that. I guess it's only perseverance why people treat it like it's expat's then. (But to be honest, I don't remember ever seeing you, or logos, making a proclamation let alone an argument that phaedrus and those like him are IEI)

[UDP]

Salawa, don't even worry about it. You seem to be having a victim-type response here, looking for an smack in the ass so to say - yes, you're wanted on the forum.

I want you here on the forum, and I read your posts. Ok?

[misutii]

I still think he's ILI, hence his relatively civil behaviour in this Te'ish thread and the fact that he's still willing to allow others to try to convince him what type he is. I'm IEI and if someone said that I wasn't or that there was a strong "possibility" that I was actually another type, and I came to this forum around once a week for at least a year, and I had to put up with as much shit as Phaedrus does about what type he is, then I can assure you that I'd decorate a thread like this as a German WW2 jewish ghetto in Dresden (first before, then after the fire bombing.

Precisely. Because you'd be acting as IEI, defending your self-typing as IEI. But that's not how ILIs are supposed to act - is it?

I think I see where you're coming from. That being said I ask that you bare with me. I've thought about this issue and think I have something new to offer, some of it might be right, some of it might be wrong, but regardless I think it's something worth playing with:

I can understand your frustration with other people seeing this as you taking this as a "personal crusade". I agree that that's bullshit. In a funny way though it's indirectly a compliment. This discussion is seemingly dividing people into factions and people in the "Phaedrus not IEI" faction are impetuously labelling you as the "leader" of the "Phaedrus IEI" faction without realizing that you, in actuality, don't associate with any "factions" on this forum, you're not dismissing other's views because you know you're right and feel entitled to prove it again and again, you're doing so because no one has yet provided you with any original insights/information that you haven't already read and/or is substantial enough to modify your vewpoint.

-I think I've mostly kept up to date with this whole situation as it has progressed (or regressed lol) and here is what my is telling me.

-Phaedrus is most likely an ILI. Why?

a) You've spent a lot of time debating this issue with others on this forum and with Phaedrus himself. You're ENTj and have strong so you value your time. If Phaedrus was IEI I don't think you'd have spent as much time as you have trying to prove it because that would make him your supervisee. It's nothing personal, but I think we can agree that supervisors are relatively inclined to overlook their supervisees. By this I mean supervisors are less inclined to show sustained interest in their supervisee. This thread, like others, had people accusing you of "mis-typing" multiple people as IEI, these apparently included Kioshi, snegledmaca and Phaedrus. Like other threads, however, the main focus tends to always eventually focus on Phaedrus. Why? Because you were correct in typing Kioshi and snegledmaca as IEI and display confidence in such (and rightly so). But Phaedrus stands out, your reasons for typing him IEI are notably different and have no easily recognizable parallel... thus while no one, recently, in this thread has dared to properly dispute your validity in regards to Kioshi and snegledmaca, with regards to Phaedrus there's a visible 'kink' in your confidence.

b) This kink manifests itself through your consistent willingness to try to delve further into the topic of Phaedrus's type, it's as if you yourself can sense something is awry and so are purposefully keeping the subject open in the hopes that over time you'll have collected enough pieces to complete the puzzle. Your consistent fascination with Phaedrus seems to contradict your view that he is your supervisee...

c) If Phaedrus was ILI-Ni subtype it would mean that he'd be your mirror. But being that you're an ENTj-Te this "mirror" relation would appear semi-tainted compared to what you normally attribute mirror relations to be (to an ILI-Te subtype). Of course you can dismiss this as nonsense "how can you be so arrogant as to claim to know what I consider normal mirror relations to be?" Obviously I can't, but I can make an approximate estimation of your definition based on my own, in this case my mirror relations (as IEI-Ni) with an EIE-Ni vs. an EIE-Fe, and that's what I'm doing.

I'll make the analogy, from my own personal experience with multiple EIEs of each subtype, that with the Ni-subtype it's like looking into a "clean mirror" whereas with the Fe-subtype its like a "dirty mirror." This makes sense because in Beta an IEI and EIE, with Ni subtypes. are moving together towards Gamma whereas an IEI-Ni and EIE-Fe, despite belonging to the same quadra, are actually moving in opposite directions (me to Gamma, him/her to Alpha). I get along a lot better with the Ni subtype, I feel like there's a good understanding between us, as if our temperaments are aligned. I get along with Fe-subtype to an extent, but relations are limited to groups, no one-to-one connection ever develops. It's as if we've both signed a silent agreement dictating, "you're interesting but not interesting enough to warrant me taking the time and effort to clean the mirror so I can see you better." I don't have this issue with EIE-Nis because the mirror is already clean...

d) So ILI-Te would be your "clean mirror" and ILI-Ni your "dirty mirror". Does that make sense? Does it relate to your own experiences with each subtype?

I feel confident going in depth with this as two of the friends I regularly see together and hang out with are no less than an LIE-Te and ILI-Ni, I've observed their interactions for about three years now and I couldn't help but be reminded of them both when I was reading this thread. They fit my conception of "dirty mirror" relations quite well.
-The ENTj is very Te oriented when debating issues. He'll use his Te to open up any slit he can find in the doorway of possibility if only so that he himself can then shut it properly.
-The INTp-Ni values Te too, of course, but relative to the ENTj noticably less so, and values Ti noticably more so. I think this is relevant to Phaedrus and Expat. Phaedrus, as an INTp-Ni (moving towards Beta functions) values Te less and Ti more than Expat, an ENTj-Te (moving towards Delta functions). Note: this doesn't mean that Phaedrus can't value Te more than he values Ti.

Being the kind, gentle spirit that I am I brought socionics to these two poor NTs about 2 years ago and in return have used their logic to deepen my own understanding (lol) At first all of us disagreed on everything but now a pattern has emerged and it relates to everything else in this post. It sometimes happens that the ENTj and I will disagree when typing someone.
These "disputes" tend to last for months, as we're both stubborn, but once enough evidence has been acquired we're not afraid to admit we were wrong. The most recent disputes involved a ENFp(me)vs.ISFp(him), which I won, an ISFp(me)vs.ISFj(him), which he won, and currently on-going is a ISFj(me)vs.ISTj(him) that we've both agreed is an Se subtype regardless but are both unwilling to budge lol. We use the INTp-Ni as a kind of mediator in these disputes. The ENTj dismisses my view for being too "description and comparison oriented". I admit my Ti-dual seeking sticks out and it peeves him because when he's right it's obvious based on external facts but he has to wait for me to re-organize my semi-Ti system in my head before I'm willing to acknowledge his view- it's as if I have a preconceived notion of what each type is like and i'm only willing to update it every 2 months. Likewise I dismiss his view for being too general/not specific enough and/or being based on his lack of face-to-face experience with a certain type etc. The INTp-Ni works quite well as a mediator as he's receptive to both our strong functions (Te and Ni). What frustrates the ENTj is that, when detached from a dispute, the INTp agrees with him that Te trumps my petty attempt to fabricate Ti but then when the time actually comes where we're both trying to persuade him I always seem to have an edge as I give the INTp reasons based on Ni, which he favors over Te. In theory the INTp-Ni agrees that Te is the most logical function to use for typing, but in practice he types others primarily by using Ni, like me (i.e. once he's used us to be certain the two ENFps he's typed are actually ENFps then he never needs our help to type ENFps again).

Finally there's the matter of the enneagram. INTp-Nis seem to consistently be 5w4s (and thus can be easily mistaken for INFp-Nis which consistently type as 4w5s) where as INTp-Te is 5w6/6w5

Anyways I'll leave it at that for now as it's getting convoluted

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, Megan's question was pretty simple.
What of your actions/words do YOU see as being Te?
She's not concerning herself with other people's opinions...so stop referring to their arguments and povs.
She's not even all that concerned with her own pov....if she were then she'd spend the time/energy to "analyze" your posts.
She's not trying to say you are or are not something.
She's just asking you a simple question about YOUR OWN pov of what constitutes Te? What criteria do YOU personally use when determining if something is/isn't Te?
Sending her off to study something only sends her off to get her own subjective interpretations of what she reads....it says little of your own. (other than perhaps avoidance, laziness, and/or other in regards to answering the question)

(fwiw, i have seen that be asked of you quite a few times, and not once have you answered it. if you choose not to answer it again, perhaps you could look up and quote somewhere where you actually DID give your criteria of what = Te)

Phaedrus, the above is it basically, couldn't really have said it better myself. Hopefully if it is important to you that others believe you are the type you think you are then eventually you will enable them to understand your point.

Okay, here is a very simple but hopefully clear argument for me being a Te type:

Analysis of facts is Ti.
Synthesis of facts is Te.

And what is my whole approach to Socionics, other typologies, and the 16 types as empirical phenomena if not a try to synthesize huge amounts of (to most people) seemingly unrelated facts into an overall meta-framework?

[Joy]

I sort of see what you mean, but I'm not sure I'd describe the primary difference between Te and Ti that way.

[snegledmaca]

I suspect people ignore my posts very often anyway. Maybe people think my posts are redundant because usually Expat says the same things, who knows, I'm just speculating.

If I had to guess, and if people are in fact ignoring your posts, I'd say it has something to do with your name changes. It takes some time to get accustomed to a person, to build the associations attached to the person. When you change your name one has to build the associations all over again or at the very least reattach them. Or perhaps you just don't stick out, are low key. There could be many reasons but I think redundancy is not one of them (For example, why should people consider what you say redundant if somebody else says the same after you. They would consider the other person redundant).