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

[aestrivex]

i would completely reject the idea that phaedrus is still listening to people discuss his type. arguments have been presented which he has ignored as a matter of course. perhaps he's simply too stupid to understand them, but more likely is that he's just paying absolutely zero attention to them.


is this an "appropriate" use of Te?


or does it more resemble what misutii was talking about with regards to himself?

[Expat]

I can understand your frustration with other people seeing this as you taking this as a "personal crusade". I agree that that's bullshit.

Thank you.

You're totally wrong about the "fascination" thing, but I'll leave it be.

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.

That's not correct. Kioshi and snegledmaca have typed themselves as IEI, and I've seen no reason to question that typing. Sure they could be something else, but it's not obvious to me that they are.

Which brings us to another point as to the foolishness of Jonathan's (and others') position on IEIs and Ti. Kioshi (and, to a lesser extent, snegledmaca) is rather keen on Ti digressions and attempts to put things into a system; yet nobody seems to point out "I see Ti and not Ni or Fe, so he's not IEI".

On your subtype proposal:

-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.

Etc etc

Your suggestion boils down to this, as I understand:

- I "perceive" Phaedrus as INFp because I'm ENTj-Te and he's INTp-Ni; so the perception would be the same as of "split" ENTj to INFp.

I don't think this resolves anything, for many reasons.

But consider this: you say that you don't see Phaedrus as your identical. Well, then, isn't it equally possible that you "perceive" him as INTp simply because you're INFp-Fe (or split) and he's INFp-Ni? It's at least as valid as your ENTj-Te and INTp-Ni suggestion.

This, though, is interesting:

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).

Well, I tend to associate this kind of "logic" in typing with the unique Beta combination of Ni and Ti in quadra values (and no, Jonathan, I am not inventing anything new nor any NiTi type), especially in INFps and ENFjs, who are likeliest to refer to "the WXYzs I know" to type others, "seeing a pattern" or whatever. So I'd be inclined to guess that your INTp-Ni is actually INFp-Ni; however, if a very clear INTp (according to my judgement) also seemed to rely on this kind of thing, that would be interesting.

I am skeptical, though. It seems to me that INTps would remain "conservative" in typing themselves and others, and actually underestimate their own abilities in typing and not particularly care - or not at all - whether others agree with their self-typing or not; that is the precise opposite of what some of the supposed INTps here tend to do. Now, whether that is due to being Ni subtype *shrug* I think it stretches the notion of subtype too far.

[Gilly]

Are Te-valuing types not as likely to incorporate personal experience in their typing methods?

[Expat]

Are Te-valuing types not as likely to incorporate personal experience in their typing methods?

I think Te-valuing (or even Te-strong, as in ILE etc) are likely to use personal experience examples to illustrate, or validate, their understanding of socionics types; not to type mainly, or nearly-exclusively, by "he's like the bla-bla I know" or "none of the bla-bla I know does this", often referring to very trivial traits, with no attempt to relate them to functions.

[Gilly]

I think it would more likely just be ethical types who don't see that it's plain old faulty reasoning (assuming they grasp the core concepts of Socionics; if otherwise, well, I think we can pin it on simple ignorance).

[Expat]

You may well be right.

[aestrivex]

I think it would more likely just be ethical types who don't see that it's plain old faulty reasoning (assuming they grasp the core concepts of Socionics; if otherwise, well, I think we can pin it on simple ignorance).

how is typing based on prior observations of people inherently faulty reasoning?


if you start looking at characteristics like "he eats cheese, therefore he is ILE" you have an obvious problem. but looking at characteristics of other people who demonstrate similar information metabolism is not at all an invalid method.

[implied]

Yeah, he's right. Ethical types are stupid.

i love you, diana.

[Megan]

I suspect people ignore my posts very often anyway. Maybe people think my posts are redundant ...

I hope your posts aren't being ignored (except naturally by maybe benefactors and such ) but I agree with snegledmaca about the name change thing. When you or any other forum member changes their user name it kind of breaks some kind of flow or something and you become a bit like a new member who one has to adjust to or possibly just not pay much attention to for a couple weeks/months.

[misutii]

i would completely reject the idea that phaedrus is still listening to people discuss his type. arguments have been presented which he has ignored as a matter of course. perhaps he's simply too stupid to understand them, but more likely is that he's just paying absolutely zero attention to them.


is this an "appropriate" use of Te?


or does it more resemble what misutii was talking about with regards to himself?

"Is this an appropriate use of Te?" If he's an INTp-Ni then it's appropriate he'd ignore arguments discussing otherwise because his Ni is telling him it's a waste of time, which would be true. You must understand you're response is utterly subjective to the point that it's difficult to take seriously - think about it, couldn't it be that Phaedrus thinks similarly, that his arguments have been ignored as a mattter of course and perhaps you're too stupid to understand them? We are talking about abstract intellectual matters when we talk about socionics on a forum and INTps, by many accounts, are inclined to 'intellectual arrogance'.

In regards to INFp and what I discussed in regards to myselff it must also be understood that upon first learning of socionics (over 2 years ago) I had typed myself as INTp simply because I had typed myself as INTP according to mbti. One of my friends , a few months later, dropped a hint that I might be INFp and, this is important, externally I responded negatively to that hint but, internally it caused me much self-doubt and uncertainty, enough that in the next two months I gathered as much information as possible and re-evaluated myself and then finally accepted that I was INFp - in accordance with the information I had acquired myself and positive re-inforcement I received from my friends who know me and know socionics to such a degree that I respect their opinion.

What I'm getting at is that INFps, externally, will at first respond negatively to new information that threatens their current view (this is Ti-dual seeking in action), but in time (i.e. a couple months) after reviewing such information and deeming it worthwhile, will have assimilated it into their own view.

[aestrivex]

i would completely reject the idea that phaedrus is still listening to people discuss his type. arguments have been presented which he has ignored as a matter of course. perhaps he's simply too stupid to understand them, but more likely is that he's just paying absolutely zero attention to them.


is this an "appropriate" use of Te?


or does it more resemble what misutii was talking about with regards to himself?

"Is this an appropriate use of Te?" If he's an INTp-Ni then it's appropriate he'd ignore arguments discussing otherwise because his Ni is telling him it's a waste of time, which would be true.

no; i disagree. perhaps this is what an IEI might do, but even an ILI-Ni should be semi-aware of the Te of the situation, and aware that despite everything, the facts are variable and that he might be wrong.

You must understand you're response is utterly subjective to the point that it's difficult to take seriously - think about it, couldn't it be that Phaedrus thinks similarly, that his arguments have been ignored as a mattter of course and perhaps you're too stupid to understand them? We are talking about abstract intellectual matters when we talk about socionics on a forum and INTps, by many accounts, are inclined to 'intellectual arrogance'.

the thing is that he's doing it in a different way; instead of merely deeming us all as inscrutably stupid idiots and going off to live in seclusion with the unbreakable knowledge that he was right and we were wrong (which i might do), he instead continues to tirelessly repeat the same arguments to try to convince us that he's ILI.

i don't know. the more i think about it, there are certainly similarities in the way that he goes about making points as compared to myself and others, but i still like to think that i make far more sense than he does.

What I'm getting at is that INFps, externally, will at first respond negatively to new information that threatens their current view (this is Ti-dual seeking in action), but in time (i.e. a couple months) after reviewing such information and deeming it worthwhile, will have assimilated it into their own view.

depending on the context and the nature of the information, this is not all that different from how i might respond. i might be more skeptical than threatened, but useful information is ultimately assimilated and bad information is discarded.

[Jonathan]

Which brings us to another point as to the foolishness of Jonathan's (and others') position on IEIs and Ti. Kioshi (and, to a lesser extent, snegledmaca) is rather keen on Ti digressions and attempts to put things into a system; yet nobody seems to point out "I see Ti and not Ni or Fe, so he's not IEI".

Which foolish position are you referring to? It seems that this time you're misstating my position. As I've said, I'm sorry that I didn't state your position very accurately. I did apologize for my sloppiness on that. But as for my purported "position on IEIs and Ti," all I have said in this thread is that the concept of the Ti-focused IEI (and your posts about that issue), constitutes an interesting idea. I never said it was wrong or right.

It is true that from the threads I've seen and hitta's video, it seemed to me that everything pointed to Ti as his main focus, with little evidence (in my view) pointing to IEI; and thus in his case viewing him as IEI possibly puts speculative and complex possibilities above what appear to be much more obvious, fundamental indications of his type. (I haven't read his posts about others' political motivations, however.)

But this in no way means that my position is that IEIs can't use Ti or that they never use it prominently.

As for other things that have been said about me making implications that your typing of Phaedrus is wrong, I have never said anything like that anywhere in this thread. If I made any implications about his type, it was that possibly -Te/+Fe might make him seem IEI if he's ILI ("left-shifting"). However, since I regard that as a highly speculative theory, and not something to be taken very seriously except as an interesting idea to explore, that in no way indicates a position.

Now, it happens that I do happen to think Phaedrus is likely ILI, largely for the reasons misutii has pointed out...the fact that he keeps coming back for more debate and keeps "taking it" very calmly, as if always seeking new data and perspectives through the dialectic process, whereas an IEI might avoid the constant debate and sparring, or else get more emotional about it (though on second thought it appears misutii is becoming something of a keen and competent debater himself here). In any case, I'm quite open to the possibility of Phaedrus being a particular kind of IEI, and I must admit that I probably haven't read many of the posts/threads that led you to see IEI behaviors.

[misutii]

That's not correct. Kioshi and snegledmaca have typed themselves as IEI, and I've seen no reason to question that typing. Sure they could be something else, but it's not obvious to me that they are.

Which brings us to another point as to the foolishness of Jonathan's (and others') position on IEIs and Ti. Kioshi (and, to a lesser extent, snegledmaca) is rather keen on Ti digressions and attempts to put things into a system; yet nobody seems to point out "I see Ti and not Ni or Fe, so he's not IEI".

Firstly I stand corrected. Secondly it must be noted that it's not the use of one function that makes a type identifiable, it's how they use/don't use all eight functions over time. So it would be ignorant to say somone is not INFp simply because they seemed to use Ti in one post, especially if in others posts they've used Ni and Fe with more competence.

On your subtype proposal:

-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.

Etc etc

Your suggestion boils down to this, as I understand:

- I "perceive" Phaedrus as INFp because I'm ENTj-Te and he's INTp-Ni; so the perception would be the same as of "split" ENTj to INFp.

I don't think this resolves anything, for many reasons.

But consider this: you say that you don't see Phaedrus as your identical. Well, then, isn't it equally possible that you "perceive" him as INTp simply because you're INFp-Fe (or split) and he's INFp-Ni? It's at least as valid as your ENTj-Te and INTp-Ni suggestion.

I don't know if I'm following you but see that my post itself was unclear so what I meant: I'm supposing that subtypes are real, if you don't agree that subtypes exist then ignore all of this as I don't think anything I say will make sense. But if you do agree that subtypes exist (and I'm limiting to the number of subtypes to two per type, so 32 total types, then you must also agree that if there's 32 types there is 32 inter-type relations.

a) an ENTj-Te would be more inclined to mistake an INTp-Ni (mirror moving into supervision) for an INFp-Ni (suvpervision moving into mirror) than to mistake an INTp-Te (mirror for an INFp-Ni.

b) Likewise an ENTj-Te would be more inclined to mistake an INFp-Fe (supervion moving into conflict) for an ISFp-Fe (conflict moving into supervision) than to mistake an INFp-Ni (supervision moving into mirror) for an ISFp-Fe (conflict moving into supervision).


c) I was of the impression that believed in the existence of subtypes, was this correct? I do, and if subtypes exist than they must play a part in intertype relations. I see the 16 types not as static, but as a reasonable compromise. Thus we start with one type, the human. We define "human". Having human defined we look more closely at humans. At lots of humans. We find we can classify humans into Logical and Ethical types. Suddenly there's two types of humans. Then we find Rational and Irrational types, define them etc. etc. till we're at 16 types as Classical Socionics describes. If we go further we fnd that we can also define people into 32 types. Of course we can go on and on until we've divided people, according to their similarities and differences, into all of the 6 billion+ types that incorporate every individual that is 'human'.

d) I personally am confident in labelling myself as INFp-Ni for I've labelled INFp-Fes and so think I know the difference between an INFp-Fe and INFp-Ni. I've used information published by Russian "socionists"(whatever they would call themselves) to do so. If you can prove to me that I'm actually INFp-Fe then I'll concur my whole hypothesis is invalidated.

This, though, is interesting:

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).

Well, I tend to associate this kind of "logic" in typing with the unique Beta combination of Ni and Ti in quadra values (and no, Jonathan, I am not inventing anything new nor any NiTi type), especially in INFps and ENFjs, who are likeliest to refer to "the WXYzs I know" to type others, "seeing a pattern" or whatever. So I'd be inclined to guess that your INTp-Ni is actually INFp-Ni; however, if a very clear INTp (according to my judgement) also seemed to rely on this kind of thing, that would be interesting.

I am skeptical, though. It seems to me that INTps would remain "conservative" in typing themselves and others, and actually underestimate their own abilities in typing and not particularly care - or not at all - whether others agree with their self-typing or not; that is the precise opposite of what some of the supposed INTps here tend to do. Now, whether that is due to being Ni subtype *shrug* I think it stretches the notion of subtype too far.

I agree that INTps would remain "conservative" in typing themselves and others, but only at first. I see this is where the Te comes into play, being willing to change how they've typed someone when more information is presented. That being said once an INTp has acquired proficiency in typing others wouldn't they become more confident and less conservative? And would it not take more effort and more information to change their mind or dispute their typings? I'd see it as a matter of intellectual competence for INTps, who seem conscious of their competence in regards to information that they're familiar with.

My INTp-Ni friend has an Fe PoLR. I know this. He reacts extremely negatively to feeling forced to show enthusiasm that doesn't exist. i.e. he's prone to alienate others by making statements that are true but hurtful. He doesn't do this maliciously but because he naturally doesn't take into consideration the negative emotional impact his words can have on others, assuming that they, like him, prefer the truth over "feeling" better. He also suffers when he has a problem and someone tries to make him "feel" better with their emotional enthusiasm i.e. hugging him, telling him "everything is going to be ok!", "you'll be fine!", "you're awesome, don't worry!". Do you agree that I seem to understand how to identify an Fe PoLR? I purposefully brought my friends into my post because I'm confident of my typing them correctly. I surmise that it frustrates you that I don't yet take a more "function-based" approach - so I'd like to focus on the PoLR, which is the one I'm most confident in identifying and expressing my knowledge of.

So far I haven't seen anyone competently express the existence of a Te-PoLR in Phaedrus, if someone has then inform me. I know what a Te-PoLR is, in fact I exemplified mine in my first post in this thread.

[misutii]

no; i disagree. perhaps this is what an IEI might do, but even an ILI-Ni should be semi-aware of the Te of the situation, and aware that despite everything, the facts are variable and that he might be wrong.

Ok, I see what you're getting at, the way I look at it though Phaedrus is at least semi-aware of the Te of the situation and that he might be wrong but he's confident enough in his position that it would take A LOT to prove to him that he's IEI. Likewise it would take A LOT to convince an INTp geologist that the earth has only existed for 6,000 years. This INTp geologist would be quite prone to mocking creationists and avoiding their opinions as his own experience has proved that their facts are not worth his time, even if the creationist was providing Te to him.

the thing is that he's doing it in a different way; instead of merely deeming us all as inscrutably stupid idiots and going off to live in seclusion with the unbreakable knowledge that he was right and we were wrong (which i might do), he instead continues to tirelessly repeat the same arguments to try to convince us that he's ILI.

i don't know. the more i think about it, there are certainly similarities in the way that he goes about making points as compared to myself and others, but i still like to think that i make far more sense than he does.

If you agree that I'm an INFp, and yourself are INTp, is Phaedrus style of making points more similar to mine or to yours? (from a socionics perspective I mean). I don't see how the fact that you view yourself as more competent as Phaedrus has anything to do with him not being INTp. I myself will admit that there are INFps who I at first wouldn't label as INFps simply because I find them stupid and don't want to identify myself with such a stupid person. If this is a similar case as with you then you should consider it a compliment that Phaedrus may be the same type as you as being "competent" relative to others of your type. It's important to note that competence is not directly related to being a certain type or using certain functions. You're seeming to be stating that a Te-type must be competent, this seems to be glorifying Te, I can assure you that there are individuals that have Te as a main function that are not competent and that you'd hate.

depending on the context and the nature of the information, this is not all that different from how i might respond. i might be more skeptical than threatened, but useful information is ultimately assimilated and bad information is discarded.

ok to a degree this is Ni showing itself in INTp-INFp comparative relations.

[Jonathan]

My INTp-Ni friend has an Fe PoLR. I know this. He reacts extremely negatively to feeling forced to show enthusiasm that doesn't exist. i.e. he's prone to alienate others by making statements that are true but hurtful. He doesn't do this maliciously but because he naturally doesn't take into consideration the negative emotional impact his words can have on others, assuming that they, like him, prefer the truth over "feeling" better. He also suffers when he has a problem and someone tries to make him "feel" better with their emotional enthusiasm i.e. hugging him, telling him "everything is going to be ok!", "you'll be fine!", "you're awesome, don't worry!". Do you agree that I seem to understand how to identify an Fe PoLR?

I think you're right to focus the attention here on defining what Te and Fe PoLR might be like. It seems to me though that these may be expressed differently in different people. Your description sounds good, but I could see that someone might incorrectly conclude that insensitive remarks (due to stating the "truth" without caring for people's feelings) indicates Fe PoLR. Experientially, it seems that ETjs are among the most likely to be blunt in their remarks, even more so than ITps.

In NYC, Rick had an interesting take on Fe PoLR. He suggested that it had to do more with lack of awareness regarding the emotional interpretation of what one has said than with actually saying hurtful or insensitive things. For example, an LII might say something hurtful or insensitive intentionally, whereas an ILI would be more inclined to say something hurtful (or awkward, etc.) by accident.

[Phaedrus]

In NYC, Rick had an interesting take on Fe PoLR. He suggested that it had to do more with lack of awareness regarding the emotional interpretation of what one has said than with actually saying hurtful or insensitive things. For example, an LII might say something hurtful or insensitive intentionally, whereas an ILI would be more inclined to say something hurtful (or awkward, etc.) by accident.

Rick is right about that. And what you describe is also a correct description of an important difference between LIIs and ILIs.

It probably doesn't matter much what I say, since people refuse to believe that I am telling the truth anyway, but I am exactly as misutii describes his INTp-Ni friend. And his other hypotheses are also strongly worth considering. I don't know if niffweed makes more sense to others than I do, but I actually happen to think that he probably has a higher IQ (likely one of the highest on this forum) than I have, despite the equally obvious fact that my knowledge of, for example, the types is superior to his -- which can at least partly be explained by the fact that I have had more time to accumulate general knowledge than he has had. Eventually, if he is not too lazy, he might overtrump me in that area too.

[Expat]

the thing is that he's doing it in a different way; instead of merely deeming us all as inscrutably stupid idiots and going off to live in seclusion with the unbreakable knowledge that he was right and we were wrong (which i might do), he instead continues to tirelessly repeat the same arguments to try to convince us that he's ILI.

The key difference, as illustrated by misutii in this very thread, and by Kristiina in her LIE phase, is that Beta Fe ego types will care - indeed, care desperately - if others don't accept their own self-typing (assuming, of course, that they care about socionics in the first place). EIEs mainly because their own social role is being denied; IEIs, mainly because it's an "attack" on their Ti hidden agenda ("how can you say I haven't understood it? Are you calling me stupid?" Etc)

Look at the supposed ILIs who react like cornered animals if you question their self-typings, and look at those who continue to discuss socionics but do not particularly care about their own types - also because the former can't seem to be able to make a socionics case without comparing others to themselves, while the latter will use all sorts of information.

There's your answer.

[Expat]

I think you're right to focus the attention here on defining what Te and Fe PoLR might be like.

And I think it's a mistake to try to define either too precisely. Far better to see whether someone has stronger Fe and Ti inclinations, or Te and Fi -- especially if the "only" choice is between IEI and ILI.

Experientially, it seems that ETjs are among the most likely to be blunt in their remarks, even more so than ITps.

Because Te EJs tend to be more proactive in correcting what they see as innacuracy in the external environment. That is what explains my actions, not any "fascination" as misutii suggested (understandably attributing to me some Fe motivation, I guess).

[aestrivex]

no; i disagree. perhaps this is what an IEI might do, but even an ILI-Ni should be semi-aware of the Te of the situation, and aware that despite everything, the facts are variable and that he might be wrong.

Ok, I see what you're getting at, the way I look at it though Phaedrus is at least semi-aware of the Te of the situation and that he might be wrong but he's confident enough in his position that it would take A LOT to prove to him that he's IEI. Likewise it would take A LOT to convince an INTp geologist that the earth has only existed for 6,000 years. This INTp geologist would be quite prone to mocking creationists and avoiding their opinions as his own experience has proved that their facts are not worth his time, even if the creationist was providing Te to him.

i see your point, but i still don't think that's what he's really doing. does it seem to you that he's unequivocally ignoring everyone's arguments out of spite and mockery?

his arguments mostly center around "this must be so. since your arguments don't consider and/or reject this point of absolute certitude, they must necessarily be wrong."


he does share some characteristics that might be construed as ILI-esque, such as not giving one iota whether we believe him or not (would an IEI do that? my gut reaction says no.) but the tireless persistence, as well as the lack of realization that ideas are based on many independent factors rather than one unshakeable central principle, do not to me suggest Te.

If you agree that I'm an INFp, and yourself are INTp, is Phaedrus style of making points more similar to mine or to yours? (from a socionics perspective I mean).

i think the two of us are much more similar to each other than either of us is to him. i don't know who he's more similar to.

[snegledmaca]

the thing is that he's doing it in a different way; instead of merely deeming us all as inscrutably stupid idiots and going off to live in seclusion with the unbreakable knowledge that he was right and we were wrong (which i might do), he instead continues to tirelessly repeat the same arguments to try to convince us that he's ILI.

The key difference, as illustrated by misutii in this very thread, and by Kristiina in her LIE phase, is that Beta Fe ego types will care - indeed, care desperately - if others don't accept their own self-typing (assuming, of course, that they care about socionics in the first place). EIEs mainly because their own social role is being denied; IEIs, mainly because it's an "attack" on their Ti hidden agenda ("how can you say I haven't understood it? Are you calling me stupid?" Etc)

Then I must not be a beta NF. I do not care desperately, quite the opposite, I welcome people giving me attention, why on earth would I ruin it by not engaging them, hearing them out? I care that people perceive me a certain way, yes, but as long as I control this perception everything is ok. Meaning, you can question my type all you want but as long as I am in control there is no problem. Hmm, I see how this might actually be what you are saying, if I perceive that a type is something that must be controlled about another person's perception of me. It could be just that I individually do not link my type to my image. But regardless, I do not identify with your assessment. I've had my type questioned before and I actively do it myself. And I have absolutely no problem with people accepting or not accepting my type.

And something that just occurred to me, isn't the essence of engagement, and isn't pheadrus the opposite of that? I can see how hitta is all about "getting a rise" (And now that I think about it discojoe as well) but I totally can't see phaedrus as being like that.

[Expat]

Which foolish position are you referring to? It seems that this time you're misstating my position.

Perhaps I am. But I was referring to your apparent overlooking of the Ti visible in Kioshi's posts, and not mentioning that perhaps he's not IEI either. That seems to me the same kind of argumentation you have made with regard to my typing of, say, hitta as IEI.

I have said in this thread is that the concept of the Ti-focused IEI (and your posts about that issue), constitutes an interesting idea. I never said it was wrong or right.

No, you just said that it had a "strong parallel" with tcaudilllg's ideas on NiTi types. I am not ignoring your apology; I am just - again - setting the record straight.

I don't know if I'm following you but see that my post itself was unclear so what I meant: I'm supposing that subtypes are real, if you don't agree that subtypes exist then ignore all of this as I don't think anything I say will make sense. But if you do agree that subtypes exist (and I'm limiting to the number of subtypes to two per type, so 32 total types, then you must also agree that if there's 32 types there is 32 inter-type relations.

a) an ENTj-Te would be more inclined to mistake an INTp-Ni (mirror moving into supervision) for an INFp-Ni (suvpervision moving into mirror) than to mistake an INTp-Te (mirror for an INFp-Ni.

b) Likewise an ENTj-Te would be more inclined to mistake an INFp-Fe (supervion moving into conflict) for an ISFp-Fe (conflict moving into supervision) than to mistake an INFp-Ni (supervision moving into mirror) for an ISFp-Fe (conflict moving into supervision).

c) I was of the impression that believed in the existence of subtypes, was this correct? I do, and if subtypes exist than they must play a part in intertype relations. I see the 16 types not as static, but as a reasonable compromise. Thus we start with one type, the human. We define "human". Having human defined we look more closely at humans. At lots of humans. We find we can classify humans into Logical and Ethical types. Suddenly there's two types of humans. Then we find Rational and Irrational types, define them etc. etc. till we're at 16 types as Classical Socionics describes. If we go further we fnd that we can also define people into 32 types. Of course we can go on and on until we've divided people, according to their similarities and differences, into all of the 6 billion+ types that incorporate every individual that is 'human'.

d) I personally am confident in labelling myself as INFp-Ni for I've labelled INFp-Fes and so think I know the difference between an INFp-Fe and INFp-Ni. I've used information published by Russian "socionists"(whatever they would call themselves) to do so. If you can prove to me that I'm actually INFp-Fe then I'll concur my whole hypothesis is invalidated.

1) I had fully understood your reasoning the first time;
2) I am not sure whether subtypes "exist"; I think it's convenient to mention them when discussing variations within types;
3) There is no way I can "prove" that you are INFp-Fe; anyway my argument was that your idea of using subtypes to explain my supposed perception of Phaedrus could also be used to explain why you don't see him as identical.

Anyway, I find this idea of little use, because I never typed Phaedrus (or others) primarily with base on whether I see them as my mirrors, or identicals, or whatever, so that line of reasoning is a dead-end.

Also, I see no reason (sorry) to simply take it as a decisive argument that you don't see Phaedrus as your identical.

That being said once an INTp has acquired proficiency in typing others wouldn't they become more confident and less conservative? And would it not take more effort and more information to change their mind or dispute their typings? I'd see it as a matter of intellectual competence for INTps, who seem conscious of their competence in regards to information that they're familiar with.

The difference is between "you have no idea of what you are talking about" and "don't you attack me by questioning my type and calling me stupid".

So far I haven't seen anyone competently express the existence of a Te-PoLR in Phaedrus, if someone has then inform me. I know what a Te-PoLR is, in fact I exemplified mine in my first post in this thread.

Again, I don't think it's a good idea to focus on precise ideas about Te or Fe PoLRs, it's better to see whether someone prefers Fe-Ti or Te-Fi.

But as for Te PoLR in Phaedrus, the clearest manifestations so far were:

1) In a lengthy discussion regarding a study on ABCD=ABCd by Lytov, mentioned first of all by Phaedrus himself;
2) In discussions, also with Rocky, where Phaedrus dismissed the need for using objective criteria when typing, what he likes to call "just words".

And many others -- but I'm not going to dig them up. Unlike what you seem to think, it's a subject that annoys rather than "fascinates" me, and I'm getting into it now mainly because Jonathan hightlighted it.

[Expat]

I care that people perceive me a certain way, yes, but as long as I control this perception everything is ok. Meaning, you can question my type all you want but as long as I am in control there is no problem. Hmm, I see how this might actually be what you are saying, if I perceive that a type is something that must be controlled about another person's perception of me. It could be just that I individually do not link my type to my image.

That is precisely what I mean. You have answered your own question, and I had already said, "if they care about their types in the first place".

And something that just occurred to me, isn't the essence of engagement, and isn't pheadrus the opposite of that? I can see how hitta is all about "getting a rise" (And now that I think about it discojoe as well) but I totally can't see phaedrus as being like that.

That is the essence of proactive Fe, when in EJ mode, not as in a passive IP state.

(ETA: which IEIs can also adopt, but it's more often seen in EIEs - because IEIs tend to focus more on Ni than Fe).

But again, I am not saying - nor have I ever said - that any of those people were "textbook IEIs". IEI is my solution; it is easy to point out to difficulties in it, just as it is easier for me to point out difficulties in other solutions.

[aestrivex]

the thing is that he's doing it in a different way; instead of merely deeming us all as inscrutably stupid idiots and going off to live in seclusion with the unbreakable knowledge that he was right and we were wrong (which i might do), he instead continues to tirelessly repeat the same arguments to try to convince us that he's ILI.

The key difference, as illustrated by misutii in this very thread, and by Kristiina in her LIE phase, is that Beta Fe ego types will care - indeed, care desperately - if others don't accept their own self-typing (assuming, of course, that they care about socionics in the first place). EIEs mainly because their own social role is being denied; IEIs, mainly because it's an "attack" on their Ti hidden agenda ("how can you say I haven't understood it? Are you calling me stupid?" Etc)

Look at the supposed ILIs who react like cornered animals if you question their self-typings, and look at those who continue to discuss socionics but do not particularly care about their own types - also because the former can't seem to be able to make a socionics case without comparing others to themselves, while the latter will use all sorts of information.

There's your answer.

this is interesting because in certain ways, this conception of beta NFs describes phaedrus very poorly.

whether or not he actually does care is probably not something anybody can answer except himself, but he at least shows the facade of not caring even slightly about what anybody else thinks (if they do not agree with him, which is everybody.) he may act like a "cornered animal" in that he repeats the same, useless information over and over, but it certainly doesn't take the form of "OMG U PPLZ R MEAN WHY CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG."

he also doesn't, at least superficially, seem to care who thinks he's stupid; he rather just goes about his business and tries to tell anybody who will listen that he's ILI.



again, however, this is all based only on his outward reactions, which are basically nonexistent. i'm not saying that he might not have some kind of more subtle reactions.

[Expat]

his arguments mostly center around "this must be so. since your arguments don't consider and/or reject this point of absolute certitude, they must necessarily be wrong."

Precisely. Which is also what (perhaps in an even cruder fashion) hitta does.

he does share some characteristics that might be construed as ILI-esque, such as not giving one iota whether we believe him or not

In the past, he has clearly demonstrated that that's not the case. And that still pops up now and then.

[snegledmaca]

I care that people perceive me a certain way, yes, but as long as I control this perception everything is ok. Meaning, you can question my type all you want but as long as I am in control there is no problem. Hmm, I see how this might actually be what you are saying, if I perceive that a type is something that must be controlled about another person's perception of me. It could be just that I individually do not link my type to my image.

That is precisely what I mean. You have answered your own question, and I had already said, "if they care about their types in the first place".

OH MY GOD! I didn't read what was in the brackets. I apologize.

[Expat]

this is interesting because in certain ways, this conception of beta NFs describes phaedrus very poorly.

whether or not he actually does care is probably not something anybody can answer except himself, but he at least shows the facade of not caring even slightly about what anybody else thinks (if they do not agree with him, which is everybody.)

No. His attitude - with me, Ezra, Joy (before I put him on ignore) has been, "to question my type is to insult me; if you're going to talk about that, I will not help you/I will treat you like an idiot" etc etc.

I think others will have recognized this, too. These are not occasional; it's a consistent behavioral pattern.

he may act like a "cornered animal" in that he repeats the same, useless information over and over, but it certainly doesn't take the form of "OMG U PPLZ R MEAN WHY CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG."

Straw man argument. That is the "cozy" Fe of Alpha, not the Fe of Beta. Is Kristiina inclined to go emotional also mainly by "can we all just go along"? That's a narrow interpretation of Fe.

[mikemex]

Man, I read Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery twice, thank you. I don't need you to enlighten me. That's exactly why I don't like your posts, guru of my fucking cock.

I would like to point out some articles on Wikipedia to you. I'm sure you'll have no trouble understanding, since you actually read Popper!

Wikipedia on "Suppression of dissent":
Suppression of dissent occurs when an individual or group which is more powerful than another tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party, rather than engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party's arguments or viewpoint. When dissent is perceived as a threat, action may be taken to prevent continuing dissent or penalise dissidents. Government or industry[1] may often act in this way.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_dissent)

Wikipedia on "Personalization of Issues" in Pseudoscientific groups:
Personalization of issues

* Tight social groups and granfalloons, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[42]
* Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[43]
* Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[42]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudos...tion_of_issues)

I'm glad to see that not all members in the forum are a lost cause.

[misutii]

And many others -- but I'm not going to dig them up. Unlike what you seem to think, it's a subject that annoys rather than "fascinates" me, and I'm getting into it now mainly because Jonathan hightlighted it.

In hindsight I can see how my words may have seemed to insinuate an insult but I assure you that was not my intent. I'd just like to clarify that by using the term "fascinate" I was not insinuating anything deeper than that the topic intrigued you because you evidently care about socionics, and your competence at effectively applying it, and so a case where you seem to especially lack certainty is like a puzzle that you'd like to solve. A logical fascination like a detective trying to find the identity of a criminal. I remember in another thread that you said one issue you had with an INFp in your own life was that they'd always ask you questions and instead of taking what you said for what it was they would try to dig deeper and look for Fe-based motivations. I know enough that I know doing this with an ENTj isn't going to get anywhere. I apologize if I came off as an asshole.

[Expat]

In hindsight I can see how my words may have seemed to insinuate an insult -- I apologize if I came off as an asshole.

Oh no, not at all -- you did not come off as an asshole at all, nor did I perceive it as an insult at all. My own comments must have sounded much harsher than I had intended (for which I'm the one to apologize). I did appreciate your comments in the spirit in which they were made; I just wanted to clarify the issue. I think we're having a Te vs Fe moment here.

[misutii]

It probably doesn't matter much what I say, since people refuse to believe that I am telling the truth anyway, but I am exactly as misutii describes his INTp-Ni friend. And his other hypotheses are also strongly worth considering. I don't know if niffweed makes more sense to others than I do, but I actually happen to think that he probably has a higher IQ (likely one of the highest on this forum) than I have, despite the equally obvious fact that my knowledge of, for example, the types is superior to his -- which can at least partly be explained by the fact that I have had more time to accumulate general knowledge than he has had. Eventually, if he is not too lazy, he might overtrump me in that area too.

I always thought you were INTp but never was confident enough in this thought to discuss it in depth, until now. I think that fact that you and other INTps here can see what I am getting at, in my convoluted posts, is due to our shared Ni primary function... Others have already remarked that Ni is very difficult to see in others' writing on the forum... I think that's worth making a thread of so I'll get to it eventually. I'd like to think I'm quite good at observing my main function at work in other people and in their writings (over the span of months). I'm sure this topic will eventually come up again and if by then my socionics terminology is up to par I'm confident I'll finally be able to get these naysayers to see what I'm trying to say... Like really the fact that you've somehow (I'm impressed I admit) clouded yourself with infamy and invited the detest of so many other posters is suggestive of you being INTp in itself. If others talked about me the same way I'm ashamed to admit but I'd be all anxiety-ridden and on my knees begging for their forgiveness and the power to ease my mind lol! I don't know what you did to these people but if I didn't know better I'd wager nothing less than that you've possibly slept with their mothers and posted the video on youtube.

[misutii]

In hindsight I can see how my words may have seemed to insinuate an insult -- I apologize if I came off as an asshole.

Oh no, not at all -- you did not come off as an asshole at all, nor did I perceive it as an insult at all. My own comments must have sounded much harsher than I had intended (for which I'm the one to apologize). I did appreciate your comments in the spirit in which they were made; I just wanted to clarify the issue. I think we're having a Te vs Fe moment here.

lol no worries! it's these kinds of misunderstandings that socionics serves to help us understand
edit: (In the past I've had such issues with other people, which have likely left me prone to jumping to such conclusions)

[Phaedrus]

I'd like to think I'm quite good at observing my main function at work in other people and in their writings (over the span of months). I'm sure this topic will eventually come up again and if by then my socionics terminology is up to par I'm confident I'll finally be able to get these naysayers to see what I'm trying to say...

I'm looking forward to that.

Like really the fact that you've somehow (I'm impressed I admit) clouded yourself with infamy and invited the detest of so many other posters is suggestive of you being INTp in itself.

Yes, isn't that one of the strongest arguments against the IEI hypothesis? According to my understanding of Socionics, it is almost impossible for me to imagine an INFp being in my situation, with my kind of behaviour and getting the same kind of reactions from other people. That would be a really, really strange and unusual form IEI. The ILI hypothesis avoids all those problems nicely and is therefore a more simple explanation. Why try (like Expat) to turn Socionics into something similar to astrology when there is no need for such drastic measures?

If others talked about me the same way I'm ashamed to admit but I'd be all anxiety-ridden and on my knees begging for their forgiveness and the power to ease my mind lol!

That's more like a typical IEI behaviour. I don't blame you for it -- we are just differently structured since birth. It's not our fault.

I don't know what you did to these people but if I didn't know better I'd wager nothing less than that you've possibly slept with their mothers and posted the video on youtube.

I can assure you that it wasn't that. I'm not sure what it was -- if anything particular -- but I am sure that at least some part of it must be lack of .