Elena

[Elena]

My impression is the bolded part, which is often manifested by her in the form of "We will simply have to agree to disagree". This makes me think she has very poor and to be honest the reason I simply cannot see her as a LIE. However she says that it's because she doesn't care to argue so I guess that is also a possibility.

I can't see any Te or Ti with her. I had a distinct impression of her being some alpha SF after seeing a handful of her posts, and that impression isn't getting any weaker.

[anndelise]

you also seem pretty stuck on coming out as a "winner" when i hadn't even started any kind of contest,

I saw no contest -- I was, at all times, saying exactly what I think.

oh, i get it, when YOU do it, it's saying exactly what you think
when ELENA does it, she's trying to win

gotcha

[Expat]

oh, i get it, when YOU do it, it's saying exactly what you think
when ELENA does it, she's trying to win

gotcha

Can you show me where I said what you are referring to, so I can see exactly what I said?

[Joy]

That elena is LIE. Can you accept that?

Nope. Not that it's impossible, but based on the information I have at this point and my current understanding of Socionics, it's extremely unlikely that she's not EIE.

My impression is the bolded part, which is often manifested by her in the form of "We will simply have to agree to disagree". This makes me think she has very poor and to be honest the reason I simply cannot see her as a LIE. However she says that it's because she doesn't care to argue so I guess that is also a possibility.

I do see where you're coming from with this, but you're correct in that I simply don't have any motivation to belabor a subject which I do not find interesting or useful. Another aspect of it is that I know that with certain individuals, no matter what I say, the arguing would never end. Nothing would be accomplished. No one involved would derive any benefit from the interaction.

Appearing to have weak Ti is a very small price to pay to avoid that.

[Elena]

that's big talk for how little of an explaination you provided.

I'm not a textbook. I generally aim to give concise replies that cover main ideas. If you want details, go read about it yourself.

joy in comparison gave us the caveat that she's only thought out the issue to a limited extent. the certainty of her original reply seemed more measured, with respect to how willing and able she was to explain herself.

I was correcting what I perceived to be an issue of misinformation on her part. She was not giving an accurate construal of the facts with regards to the reality of Economic/Finance/Business.

on the other hand in favor of elena's self-typing - a thought that just crossed my mind was that maybe taking care to discuss one's Te carefully - without any unwanted emotional attribution - is a super-id (Fi?) trait that develops later in life. so mabe a younger ENTj frustrated by an argument might make some Fe-laden barbs. that could be consistent with Se HA too.

I'm frustrated by misinterpretations.

not sure if that addresses Elena's statement in the "INTp in love" thread though. or the intertype relations that seem to be happening here.

I don't think my comments there have much to do with my type.

[Mea]

I'm not a textbook. I generally aim to give concise replies that cover main ideas. If you want details, go read about it yourself.



I was correcting what I perceived to be an issue of misinformation on her part. She was not giving an accurate construal of the facts with regards to the reality of Economic/Finance/Business.



I'm frustrated by misinterpretations.



I don't think my comments there have much to do with my type.

You really don't sound dominant.

Just throwing in my 2c.

[Joy]

Ti is the personal knowledge function in ENTj's. they'd rather use their ego functions to grapple with the real world. although an ENTj should still at least be able to use Ti competently when necessary. a characteristic of the personal knowledge function is using a lot of it in private. Joy's behavior may or may not be consistent with Ti as the personal function knowledge - what would be revealing would be to find cases where she not only avoids Ti, but misuses it.

myself, i might relate to this usage of Ti in the way i might take a break from overly Ti dicussions (often with INFp's and INTj's) to tend to other things. but often times i will come back to those discussions later when the time permits. i might value Ne more than Joy though - that might correspond with more willingness to explore an argument rather than call it quits.

Here are a couple of threads I posted that related largely to my understanding of the seventh function:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=11259
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=15625

[Elena]

Elena... ?

Regardless of your inner motivations... I'm sorry to say but you're coming across as rather unpleasant and arrogant and condescending and quite close-minded.

I mean, if you don't care about that then, well, pay no attention to me and sorry to have intruded. But on the off-chance that you do have at least a little bit of interest in things like that, I thought I'd interject my so-far-non-participatory observation.

...ok, that's all.

Lol, does it not occur to you why I might justifiably sound a bit indignant in response to everything that's been said and what's going on right now?

[Elena]

You really don't sound dominant.

Just throwing in my 2c.

How would you know what is or what isn't? If you think Joy is a Te dominant then of course I won't sound like one to you.

[Mea]

How would you know what is or what isn't? If you think Joy is a Te dominant then of course I won't sound like one to you.

Huh? Then how would YOU know what is Te dominance or not when you claim to be an ENTj which is Te dominant??

I said nothing about joy's type here.

[snegledmaca]

I do see where you're coming from with this, but you're correct in that I simply don't have any motivation to belabor a subject which I do not find interesting or useful. Another aspect of it is that I know that with certain individuals, no matter what I say, the arguing would never end. Nothing would be accomplished. No one involved would derive any benefit from the interaction.

Appearing to have weak Ti is a very small price to pay to avoid that.

You used this argument on me once when I started to argue a point on your type. You did not even address it, just dismissed it with a "we shall have to agree to disagree". And I really wanted a constructive discussion where a conclusion will be reached. So which was it, that a discussion on your type is in essence irrelevant or that that a discussion on your type *with me* is in essence irrelevant?

[Elena]

Nope. Not that it's impossible, but based on the information I have at this point and my current understanding of Socionics, it's extremely unlikely that she's not EIE.

You don't even have any information to base that decision on, don't you get that?

I do see where you're coming from with this, but you're correct in that I simply don't have any motivation to belabor a subject which I do not find interesting or useful.

Yet you have the motivation to indulge in so much of the inanity that you apparently do on here? Bizarre.

Another aspect of it is that I know that with certain individuals, no matter what I say, the arguing would never end. Nothing would be accomplished. No one involved would derive any benefit from the interaction.

If nothing can be accomplished from it according to you, then you should refrain from making statements in the first place that you will have no willingness to defend. It just makes you look stupid.

[Elena]

Huh? Then how would YOU know what is Te dominance or not when you claim to be an ENTj which is Te dominant??

I asked you first lol. So, answer please?

[Minde]

Lol, does it not occur to you why I might justifiably sound a bit indignant in response to everything that's been said and what's going on right now?

Honestly? Not really.

I've seen quite a number of new people come in here and few have been quite as... well, what I already described about you.

It's like you've got your predetermined view and anybody who dares disagree with you is evil, stupid, or both.

Just from an outsider's perspective, it's very... unpleasant to see and read.

How would you know what is or what isn't? If you think Joy is a Te dominant then of course I won't sound like one to you.

See, that's the type of statement that makes me go o.O

It's just really... condescending and close-minded.


Anyway, I'm not trying to make an enemy of you or whatever.

It's not like you're the only one I'd say something like this to. If I think someone else is being overly ridiculous, well, some I'd PM and tell them so and the others... well I'd probably say something to them, too, depending on how receptive I think they'd be to it. I'm only saying what I am to you because I think it would be nice if you could become a respected and contributing member of this forum and I'm hoping you'll be at least a little receptive to someone who thus far has had nothing to do with the disputes in this thread.

[Mea]

I asked you first lol. So, answer please?

It is not a matter of who asks first. You're the one who claim Te dominance and you can't answer this? Or is it because you don't know enough about socionics? Or maybe you are deciding to look stupid for not being able to back up your type, when you claim to be ENTj and appear not to know what Te is? And you say others make themselves look stupid because of this?

I am not a textbook either. Why don't you read about it yourself. I'll be nice and give you the this; http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Te

[anndelise]

Originally Posted by anndelise
oh, i get it, when YOU do it, it's saying exactly what you think
when ELENA does it, she's trying to win

gotcha

Can you show me where I said what you are referring to, so I can see exactly what I said?

for starters post 44 of this very thread

To me, debating an issue in a forum is a way to improve my own understanding of a subject, and/or to help someone else do the same. If I am debating an issue with someone who reciprocates, I am more than ready to change any original views. But if I notice that the discussion is going nowhere - because the other person seems to be bent on "winning" the discussion, no matter how - then I see it as a waste of my time and go "whatever". If others see it as "not having an answer" or "losing" or whatever, what do I care?

[snegledmaca]

How would you know what is or what isn't? If you think Joy is a Te dominant then of course I won't sound like one to you.

See, that's the type of statement that makes me go o.O

It's just really... condescending and close-minded.

Why? A valid question, she doesn't know you and requests additional information. What's condensing and close-minded about requiring verification of ones proclaimed status of authority especially when one does not know the other person? What's with the ascribing of personal traits on her part by you?

EDIT: See, now if I didn't know better I'd almost say that you were too clouded by your prejudice to interpret the situation objectively.

[Minde]

Why? A valid question, she doesn't know you and requests additional information. What's condensing and close-minded about requiring verification of ones proclaimed status of authority especially when one does not know the other person? What's with the ascribing of personal traits on her part by you?

EDIT: See, now if I didn't know better I'd almost say that you were too clouded by your prejudice to interpret the situation objectively.

Technically, you're right, it's a valid question. But it's also the immediate assumption that the other person is incompetent and clueless, versus starting by giving the other person the benefit of the doubt and taking the humble approach for oneself.

A nicer (and more sensible, imo) way to say the same thing might have been - "Hm, so you don't see a lot of Te in me? Why do you think that?" instead of basically "Who do you think you are to question me?"

Again, regardless of Elena's motivations, this is how she's coming across to me and I'm just observing this. If she wishes to continue like this, of course it's her prerogative. At the present, I'm not attempting to say "This person is right and this person is wrong." I'm reserving my judgment on Elena's personality and character for a future time.

[Elena]

Honestly? Not really.

I've seen quite a number of new people come in here and few have been quite as... well, what I already described about you.

Odd that you have that view of me.

It's like you've got your predetermined view and anybody who dares disagree with you is evil, stupid, or both.

Actually I am receptive to the viewpoints of other people, if someone actually approaches me with the intent to discuss it and understand my POV as well. It's much more constructive that way. I don't like one sidedness where I am expected to be compliant to what other people say. I won't be talked down to, I will not be patronized, I won't have people prescribing to me that I need to obey their judgment for no reason except that they supposedly have more 'experience.' I expect reciprocity always. Anyone who can't treat others as equals needs to get over themselves.

If this is what honestly offends you, then something is wrong with you.

Just from an outsider's perspective, it's very... unpleasant to see and read.

So don't read it.

See, that's the type of statement that makes me go o.O

It's just really... condescending and close-minded.

Really? I wasn't trying to be condescending actually, you must be reading too far into it. I could have been though! I'm surprised that you don't think Mea's comment coming out of nowhere saying at me "You don't sound Te dominant, just my 2cents" wasn't condescending to you. It certainly came off that way to me, but I decided not to return the same. I would like to actually hear honest input.

Anyway, I'm not trying to make an enemy of you or whatever.

So don't. I'm truly not difficult to get along with.

It's not like you're the only one I'd say something like this to. If I think someone else is being overly ridiculous, well, some I'd PM and tell them so and the others... well I'd probably say something to them, too, depending on how receptive I think they'd be to it. I'm only saying what I am to you because I think it would be nice if you could become a respected and contributing member of this forum and I'm hoping you'll be at least a little receptive to someone who thus far has had nothing to do with the disputes in this thread.

Well, thanks. You're free to PM me btw, I'm not going to go off on you or anything like that.

[Joy]

You used this argument on me once when I started to argue a point on your type. You did not even address it, just dismissed it with a "we shall have to agree to disagree". And I really wanted a constructive discussion where a conclusion will be reached. So which was it, that a discussion on your type is in essence irrelevant or that that a discussion on your type *with me* is in essence irrelevant?

Certainly not the later.

I don't remember the conversation you're referencing, but there are a number of possibilities. If the conversation took place in a thread or a conversation that was not primarily about my type, I may have dismissed my type as irrelevant in that context. I may have simply not felt like talking about my type that day. I may have disagreed with your premise (most likely a misunderstanding about me or my motivations) and didn't feel like correcting you because when someone's really far off about that sort of thing, it would often take a long PM conversation to clear things up. If your post sounded like you were looking for a debate, I may have not responded because and I just didn't feel like a debate at the time. That day I may not have felt like digging into a subject which would require analysis and explanation of something that I had already analyzed and understood for my own purposes.

The bottom line is that I don't think that discussing my type directly is of any value, for the most part. When's the last time I had an in depth discussion about my type (other than in PMs)? I enjoy discussing Socionics and just generally enjoy one on one conversations, but when it comes to conversations about my type it sometimes becomes a debate over what my motivations are. Also, if I give examples of manifestations of functions, it's pretty easy for someone to argue that the example I gave could be a manifestation of a different function (and this is true of discussions about anybody's type). The former makes the conversation pointless, the later makes it pointless and tiresome. (And it is true that some people are more likely to do these things than others, but it seems like everyone's less likely to do them in one on one conversations than in a topic on the forum.)

If you want to ask me questions about myself or my type (or Socionics in general), you should always feel free to PM or IM me. This applies to pretty much everyone else as well. If it doesn't seem like the discussion will just end up getting heated and/or dramatic, people can pretty much count on an answer from me within a few days if they PM me.

[Expat]

for starters post 44 of this very thread

To me, debating an issue in a forum is a way to improve my own understanding of a subject, and/or to help someone else do the same. If I am debating an issue with someone who reciprocates, I am more than ready to change any original views. But if I notice that the discussion is going nowhere - because the other person seems to be bent on "winning" the discussion, no matter how - then I see it as a waste of my time and go "whatever". If others see it as "not having an answer" or "losing" or whatever, what do I care?

Ah ok thanks.

Yes, that is correct. The person seems to be doing that - in my opinion - so I begin to see further participation as a waste of time. I take a decision - of leaving the discussion - based on my judgement of the situation. I decide when to respond, or not, based on my reasons and my reasons alone.

[Mea]

Really? I wasn't trying to be condescending actually, you must be reading too far into it. I could have been though! I'm surprised that you don't think Mea's comment coming out of nowhere saying at me "You don't sound Te dominant, just my 2cents" wasn't condescending to you. It certainly came off that way to me, but I decided not to return the same. I would like to actually hear honest input.

I did say I was just expressing my 2cents. In what way is that condescending? I am talking about the IMPRESSIon you are giving ME! I never CLAIMED you are NOT Te dominant and that it is impossible.
And you really think that you "decided not to return the same" by first saying "how would you know what Te is" and also bringing a totally irrelevant statement about what you think about Joy, which made you sound like you're implying that I definitely think that Joy is Te dominant when I said nothing of that sort in this WHOLE ENTIRE thread at all?

Note; when I gave my POV, I was NOT AT ALL trying to be one sided. It was possible for you to ask why I think that instead of what you said.

Seriously, since the misunderstanding has come this far, I don't see how it's possible to continue discussing your type.

[Elena]

Technically, you're right, it's a valid question. But it's also the immediate assumption that the other person is incompetent and clueless, versus starting by giving the other person the benefit of the doubt and taking the humble approach for oneself.

A nicer (and more sensible, imo) way to say the same thing might have been - "Hm, so you don't see a lot of Te in me? Why do you think that?" instead of basically "Who do you think you are to question me?"

I don't respond to a lack of humility with humility, sorry. I will not ingratiate myself like that. That's sick.

If someone wants to start off on the right note about some issue, they can take the initiative to do so themselves. Instead of coming at somebody with accusations out of nowhere, with no explanation. That does not settle well with me ever.

Again, regardless of Elena's motivations, this is how she's coming across to me and I'm just observing this. If she wishes to continue like this, of course it's her prerogative. At the present, I'm not attempting to say "This person is right and this person is wrong." I'm reserving my judgment on Elena's personality and character for a future time.

Why not just say it? Why bother judging a situation in passive without saying something about it as it's happening? Or is this a Delta INFj thing for you?

[Joy]

If nothing can be accomplished from it according to you, then you should refrain from making statements in the first place that you will have no willingness to defend. It just makes you look stupid.

I'll post my opinions on things you say whenever I'd like. You may respond or not respond to me whenever you'd like. If you do respond, I may respond or not respond to you whenever I'd like. You may also post your opinions on things I say whenever you'd like, and I may respond or not respond to you whenever I'd like. You may respond or not respond to my response whenever you'd like. See how it works?

Why? A valid question, she doesn't know you and requests additional information. What's condensing and close-minded about requiring verification of ones proclaimed status of authority especially when one does not know the other person? What's with the ascribing of personal traits on her part by you?

Who's proclaiming a status of authority?

EDIT: See, now if I didn't know better I'd almost say that you were too clouded by your prejudice to interpret the situation objectively.

[Minde]

@ Elena - Calm down, girlie. Stop taking yourself so seriously.


Alrighty, having said what I wanted I'll leave now.

*bows out of conversation*

[Elena]

I did say I was just expressing my 2cents. In what way is that condescending? I am talking about the IMPRESSIon you are giving ME! I never CLAIMED you are NOT Te dominant and that it is impossible.
And you really think that you "decided not to return the same" by first saying "how would you know what Te is" and also bringing a totally irrelevant statement about what you think about Joy, which made you sound like you're implying that I definitely think that Joy is Te dominant when I said nothing of that sort in this WHOLE ENTIRE thread at all?

You should have been more specific then. It's a little offputting when you're engaged in conflict with other people and then someone else comes in out of nowhere and says something like that. I end up interpreting it as an indirect attack in this context.

Note; when I gave my POV, I was NOT AT ALL trying to be one sided. It was possible for you to ask why I think that instead of what you said.

I understand what you're saying now. So I would like to ask you, why do you think I'm not Te?

Seriously, since the misunderstanding has come this far, I don't see how it's possible to continue discussing your type.

The misunderstanding is cleared for me.

[Elena]

@ Elena - Calm down, girlie. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

I am calm.

Alrighty, having said what I wanted I'll leave now.

*bows out of conversation*

Lame lol.

[snegledmaca]

Technically, you're right, it's a valid question. But it's also the immediate assumption that the other person is incompetent and clueless, versus starting by giving the other person the benefit of the doubt and taking the humble approach for oneself.

So, in essence, you would say that here

How could I "deny" that people can see things in this absurd way you are suggesting?

So, whenever I tell a worker whom I am training, "sorry, you think you have got it right but you have not, let me start again", you think he's entitled to say "are you calling me a liar"?

expat is assuming the worker is incompetent and clueless?

A nicer (and more sensible, imo) way to say the same thing might have been - "Hm, so you don't see a lot of Te in me? Why do you think that?" instead of basically "Who do you think you are to question me?"

Again, using the example presented above, you would say that expat is basically telling the worker "who is he to be performing in such a manner"

Again, regardless of Elena's motivations, this is how she's coming across to me and I'm just observing this. If she wishes to continue like this, of course it's her prerogative. At the present, I'm not attempting to say "This person is right and this person is wrong." I'm reserving my judgment on Elena's personality and character for a future time.

Oh, yes, of course, I assumed nothing else...

If you want to ask me questions about myself or my type (or Socionics in general), you should always feel free to PM or IM me. This applies to pretty much everyone else as well. If it doesn't seem like the discussion will just end up getting heated and/or dramatic, people can pretty much count on an answer from me within a few days if they PM me.

What if I wish to debate your type? As in, I have no intrest in convincing you. In fact, I find it odd that you suggest me coming to you about your type. Why on earth would I do that. Do I come to the dead people I want to type? Or celebrities? The whole point of discussing your type is to treat you like an object. How come your naturally reaction is to assume yourself to be an active participant? As if your stance, opinion is relevant? How come your natural reaction is ?

[Steve]

I've read a bunch of Elena's posts and her flavor just seems different from most of the people on here, because in all honesty, there really aren't any correctly typed gammas around here, and she may be the first, along with FDG who hasn't let his original typing of ENTj slip out of his mind just yet.

I think what's going on here, is that people aren't really used to REAL gammas calling them out on stuff that they can sometimes slip by people within their quadras, and are responding by trying to pass Elena off as ENFj (which seems to be the trash chute around here for people who disagree with the mainstream consensus). What strikes me as ENTj about Elena is that she has a directness and dynamic way of presenting her arguments (its hard to describe at the moment, I think Elena knows what I'm talking about). Her posts just seem Te to me. Also, her tendency to see through people changing their points of view, or their intentions in threads, and call them out on it seems done in a way that's fairly typical of the way I've seen REAL ENTjs do it.

And the way I see it, Elena isn't labeling anyone that disagrees with her as stupid. She is simply saying that it is stupid to somehow change your defense of your argument midstream, because it means that the person's argument was never solid to begin with, and wasn't based on experiential/other evidence (which is ultimately what we're trying to achieve here by trying to ACCURATELY type someone).

[anndelise]

I take a decision - of leaving the discussion - based on my judgement of the situation. I decide when to respond, or not, based on my reasons and my reasons alone.

there's nothing wrong with that at all

one just hopes that you allow others as much leeway as you allow yourself

[Slacker]

And the way I see it, Elena isn't labeling anyone that disagrees with her as stupid. She is simply saying that it is stupid to somehow change your defense of your argument midstream, because it means that the person's argument was never solid to begin with.

She could be ENTj - I haven't read enough of her posts to know - but this strikes me as more of a Ti argument. In fact, Ti and a valuing of Se. Ti as in remain consistent and if you've logically decided upon something if your logic were strong you wouldn't stray, and Se because there's some feel of authority or pressure and power in how she presents her arguments.

She could certainly show Ti as an ENTj, but this wouldn't convince me of her being ENTj at all.

[Elena]

on the one hand, this is Te bloced with Ni we're talking about - it's been noted that "time doesn't wait!" for the ENTj and so i can understand wanting to condense. but this didn't read like condensed knowledge to me:

"all interdependent on one another and contend with the same reality. The only real difference is that they utilize different procedures and deal with some different details."

...as much as it did something generalized to the point of being trivial. i can't tell from this that you have any understanding of the fields involved, much less how they relate to socionics.

It is generalized, but far from trivial in actuality. Then again if you do not have much exposure to the field, then it makes sense that this would read as something trivial to you.

something visible in many ENTj type descriptions, and even Augusta on gamma rational duality - is the ENTj's tendency to discuss their latest undertakings and readings with those around them. it was my understanding this plays no small part in how the ENTj themself acquires new Te information. and perhaps how they incorporate it into creative Ni - discussing the practical uses they have in mind for that information. this has also been described as a way for Te base to verify own its information.

Well lol, most of what I like to talk about isn't school-related. Hence my reluctance to engage in pedantic discussions on economics.

orrecting others may be a manifestation of Te-base, but not the only or the predominant one. i have yet to see many other manifestations in your posts (at least that i've come across.)

So engage with me on something Te relevant and find out for yourself. Don't just be a passive observer.

[Expat]

there's nothing wrong with that at all

one just hopes that you allow others as much leeway as you allow yourself

I ask then you to provide one single example of my saying anything about someone just not bothering to continue a discussion. If you don't have one, then I don't understand your point.

[XoX]

She is simply saying that it is stupid to somehow change your defense of your argument midstream, because it means that the person's argument was never solid to begin with.

There are two reasons to change your argument midstream,

1) If the other person doesn't understand your argument you may "enhance" it in order to make it more understandable (this wouldn't really be changing the argument though, just rewording it). But I don't see this as stupid. Quite the contrary.

2) You realize that your argument wasn't as strong as you thought so you make a new and better one. There is nothing stupid here either. It is beneficial to both parties. It is however kind of unethical not to admit the weakness of your first argument but "secretly" try to alter it. You should admit that the initial argument was weak and that is why you reconstructed it. In this case the parties should concentrate on the latter argument and forget the obsolete one.

[Steve]

There are two reasons to change your argument midstream,

1) If the other person doesn't understand your argument you may "enhance" it in order to make it more understandable (this wouldn't really be changing the argument though, just rewording it). But I don't see this as stupid. Quite the contrary.

2) You realize that your argument wasn't as strong as you thought so you make a new and better one. There is nothing stupid here either. It is beneficial to both parties. It is however kind of unethical not to admit the weakness of your first argument but "secretly" try to alter it. You should admit that the initial argument was weak and that is why you reconstructed it. In this case the parties should concentrate on the latter argument and forget the obsolete one.

I agree in revising arguments (based off of the same facts and making the same points) for the sake of making it more understandable to the person, but I think what happened in this thread was that arguments were completely changed and contradicted, to where one couldn't really derive what the original person's point actually was.

And personally I don't think Elena didn't understand the arguments that were being presented. - I'll take a second look to make sure though.

[Expat]

Her posts just seem Te to me. Also, her tendency to see through people changing their points of view, or their intentions in threads, and call them out on it seems done in a way that's fairly typical of the way I've seen REAL ENTjs do it.

Of course, if you take for granted that those people are the only "real ENTjs", then the question is - again - who or what is a "real ENTj", isn't it?

And the way I see it, Elena isn't labeling anyone that disagrees with her as stupid. She is simply saying that it is stupid to somehow change your defense of your argument midstream, because it means that the person's argument was never solid to begin with, and wasn't based on experiential/other evidence (which is ultimately what we're trying to achieve here by trying to ACCURATELY type someone).

Okay, so you seem to attibute those traits to Te. So disliking it when people change their minds, or their arguments, is an indication of Te according to you. I am under the assumption that (1) you think I am ESTj, as Ashton says and that (2) you see me not behaving in a similar fashion as Ashton and Elena at all. However, if my assumptions are correct, you think that I have Te dominance, too. So why are we then so different?

(obviously if my assumptions 1 and/or 2 are incorrect, then of course my questions are pointless and then never mind).

[Joy]

What if I wish to debate your type?

Feel free. I started a thread for that purpose not long ago. I had no intention of actually discussing my type in that thread. It was half just a joke thread and half inviting people to comment if they'd like.

As in, I have no intrest in convincing you. In fact, I find it odd that you suggest me coming to you about your type.

oic

I thought you were saying that you wanted me to explain how something I said/did fit into my understanding of my type. Basically, I thought you wanted to discuss Socionics as it relates to me and my type.

Why on earth would I do that. Do I come to the dead people I want to type? Or celebrities? The whole point of discussing your type is to treat you like an object. How come your naturally reaction is to assume yourself to be an active participant? As if your stance, opinion is relevant?

Then why did you ask me specifically? I'm a bit confused about what's going on right now because I don't remember the context of whatever it was you asked me about. If you wanted to discuss my type without input from me (other than objective input, which I assume would be answering questions about my life OR just talking about types in general without talking about my relation to any of those types), why did you address a question about my type to me?

How come your natural reaction is ?

How on earth is that Fe?

there's nothing wrong with that at all

one just hopes that you allow others as much leeway as you allow yourself

Have you ever seen any evidence to the contrary?

Lame lol.

Elena, have you read any EIE descriptions?

[Elena]

I've read a bunch of Elena's posts and her flavor just seems different from most of the people on here, because in all honesty, there really aren't any correctly typed gammas around here, and she may be the first, along with FDG who hasn't let his original typing of ENTj slip out of his mind just yet.

I've been coming to that conclusion.

I think what's going on here, is that people aren't really used to REAL gammas calling them out on stuff that they can sometimes slip by people within their quadras, and are responding by trying to pass Elena off as ENFj (which seems to be the trash chute around here for people who disagree with the mainstream consensus). What strikes me as ENTj about Elena is that she has a directness and dynamic way of presenting her arguments (its hard to describe at the moment, I think Elena knows what I'm talking about). Her posts just seem Te to me. Also, her tendency to see through people changing their points of view, or their intentions in threads, and call them out on it seems done in a way that's fairly typical of the way I've seen REAL ENTjs do it.

Yes I have a good sense of this.

And the way I see it, Elena isn't labeling anyone that disagrees with her as stupid. She is simply saying that it is stupid to somehow change your defense of your argument midstream, because it means that the person's argument was never solid to begin with, and wasn't based on experiential/other evidence (which is ultimately what we're trying to achieve here by trying to ACCURATELY type someone).

No it's not that. People can change their arguments midstream if they need to as long it's towards something more correct. I am just waiting for actual evidence instead of big complex stories that people like Expat and Joy are making up about me lol. The ones where whenever they read too far into some word or some specific phrasing of mine, they claim it relates to some inner motive of mine and it's some significant insight into my mentality and my essential being. But it's all just wrong and means nothing of the sort that's been attributed.

Anyway, now I have some people who think I don't have Te and they say something that has more meaning. This should be more interesting.

[anndelise]

the point of this particular part, expat, was that you allow yourself to debate 'to improve your understanding', yadda yadda...
but the nature of debating IS arguing sides...hence, it automatically encourages a win/lose attitude
as such, YOU have that need to win attitude JUST AS MUCH AS you claim elena has it.

YOU say winning wasn't YOUR focus.
My hope was that you'd reconsider your judment/understanding that winning might not be elena's focus either.
That perhaps, just perhaps, there's more going on than meets YOUR eye.
According to elena, I understand the situation from her pov. There IS more than meets your eye, expat.
The question now is....will you bother to at least try to see it? Or will you stick with your own judgment.

[Steve]

Of course, if you take for granted that those people are the only "real ENTjs", then the question is - again - who or what is a "real ENTj", isn't it?




Okay, so you seem to attibute those traits to Te. So disliking it when people change their minds, or their arguments, is an indication of Te according to you. I am under the assumption that (1) you think I am ESTj, as Ashton says and that (2) you see me not behaving in a similar fashion as Ashton and Elena at all. However, if my assumptions are correct, you think that I have Te dominance, too. So why are we then so different?

(obviously if my assumptions 1 and/or 2 are incorrect, then of course my questions are pointless and then never mind).

I wasn't attributing those traits to Te, I was simply saying that she's doing what ANYONE should do when debating with someone. Heck, if someone debates with me and they change their reasoning and substantiation, I will call them out on it. Its something EVERYONE should do, otherwise the debate turns to complete senselessness if no-one calls the other person out on flip flops. Politicians do it all the time.

And regarding your type Expat, I'm not convinced yet that you are an ENTj, because I just get a much more even-keel vibe from you. Most ENTjs I've met are more intense and like Elena said, need constant change, or they feel trapped and deadened. You don't seem like that. You don't seem to have a problem letting things stay the same way for extended periods of time because you view it as "stable" - in a good sense. And you don't seem like someone who would have a difficult time just mellowing out and taking things in for a period of time, whereas ENTjs (including a friend of mine) I could never see doing that.