Elena, ENTj or ENFj? Let's settle it here

[Capitalist Pig]

Not quite. Microevolution is a fact. It's observable and demonstrable. [. . .] Macroevolutionary theory on the other hand (large scale changes over millions of years) is disputable [. . .] Not trying to debate evolution, but like I said, there are different aspects that should be looked at seperately.

Haha, well, I won't say much more on evolution, then. I do have one question, though, which you may answer however you choose: If "microevolution" is true, why is it so hard to believe that numerous instances of such would eventually lead up to a case of macroevolution?

Yes? It sounds to me like you're just supporting what I already said

Lol, I'm just making sure you understand.

[XoX]

If "microevolution" is true, why is it so hard to believe that numerous instances of such would eventually lead up to a case of macroevolution?

Its not hard to believe. Its just hard to prove.

[Logos]

Oh, please save me from that.

Why do you think that should you somehow be saved from that?

I explained in my previous post my current position. I have a good clue.

You may have a clue, but you really have not shared too much of it to us. It hardly seems much to work on. Congratulations, it's a Se/Ni Quadra and outside of that, it's an ENTp. Your good clue has now eliminated at least seven types, and now only nine more to go through. But this still effectively makes you one of the blind leading the blind.

You are boring me with your attempts at being "clever".

If I was trying to be clever, I would have told you so up front, but right now your entire argument for Elena as an ENFj is trying my patience; you are claiming a substance to your argument that is simply not there. I can understand why Elena is vexed by your cries of "Where's the ?" and "I have provided to which she does not respond" when there is very little to speak of in your posts.

Mr. Logos. I don't get your point.

And that is part of your problem.

Its only slightly exaggerated to make a more illuminating point.

Which is? What could possibly be more illuminating then your series of tirades and negative stereotyping against the Beta NF?

Edit: And Mr. Logos, your illogical ad hominem arguments have zero meaning regarding the validity of the arguments I previously posted. None whatsoever. The arguments stand on their own. You should know that.

Amusing.

[XoX]

Why do you think that should you somehow be saved from that?

You are not getting it that I'm getting it and I'm not interested in getting it from you again.

You may have a clue, but you really have not shared too much of it to us. It hardly seems much to work on. Congratulations, it's a Se/Ni Quadra and outside of that, it's an ENTp. Your good clue has now eliminated at least seven types, and now only nine more to go through.

I have already worked further than that. However based on the arguments I presented in my previous post I can only rule out seven types. If you want to hear a "best guess" it is currently somewhere around ENTp, ENFj, ESTp but I have no argument further than to rule out seven types. I'm still thinking about e.g. Fi vs Fe as a value (it is similar to what Ezra goes through every now and then). And I'm trying to avoid my usual conclusion jumping and think a bit more.

But this still effectively makes you one of the blind leading the blind.

Ad hominem doesn't prove shit. Are you getting it?

If I was trying to be clever, I would have told you so up front, but right now your entire argument for Elena as an ENFj is trying my patience; you are claiming a substance to your argument that is simply not there.

My argument is that she is not ENTj. Even that opinion I'm ready to change should new information surface. ENFj is a "best guess". It is not a big leap to make from ENTj. > preference seems clear atm and Quadra. What else is there? INFp, ESTp, ISTj.

I can understand why Elena is vexed by your cries of "Where's the ?" and "I have provided to which she does not respond" when there is very little to speak of in your posts.

Well there is even less in hers. If she was dominant I'd expect her to respond with like certain other dominants have. But so far she has not.

Which is? What could possibly be more illuminating then your series of tirades and negative stereotyping against the Beta NF?

It is not negative stereotyping.

[XoX]

I never do. I treat them pretty well.

I fucking love it.

Your style of argumentation nicely mirrors that of Elena's.

[Logos]

You are not getting it that I'm getting it and I'm not interested in getting it from you again.

Why? I was merely highlighting the hypocrisy in regards to your "I think" "Hardly" comment in regards to glamourama.

I have already worked further than that. However based on the arguments I presented in my previous post I can only rule out seven types. If you want to hear a "best guess" it is currently somewhere around ENTp, ENFj, ESTp but I have no argument further than to rule out seven types. I'm still thinking about e.g. Fi vs Fe as a value (it is similar to what Ezra goes through every now and then). And I'm trying to avoid my usual conclusion jumping and think a bit more.

Then please start doing that with regards to Elena's type.

Ad hominem doesn't prove shit. Are you getting it?

Well I was not trying to prove shit; I was merely pointing out an ironic situation to which you seemed oblivious.

My argument is that she is not ENTj. Even that opinion I'm ready to change should new information surface. ENFj is a "best guess". It is not a big leap to make from ENTj. > preference seems clear atm and Quadra. What else is there? INFp, ESTp, ISTj.

Okay then, let's start over. Fresh start and all that. What evidence (using sections of her own posts instead of giving me impressions of her posts) do you have that seems to indicate a > preference. What exactly did she say?

Well there is even less in hers. If she was dominant I'd expect her to respond with like certain other dominants have. But so far she has not.

I don't know, some of the respondents have not exactly been very clear either. I'm still trying to figure out Joy's argument in the other thread. And some of the others have merely said "I agree," as if that was some sort of conclusive argument.

It is not negative stereotyping.

It certainly seemed that way, as it was mostly negative, with very little positives, and your own share of ad hominem attacks against Elena.

Your style of argumentation nicely mirrors that of Elena's.

And your style mirrors Phaedrus.

[discojoe]

Lol, Logos is horrible at talking to people.

Anyways, let's be practical. If Elena is ENFj she obviously isn't going to change her mind through this kind of confrontational arguing. Just let her think what she wants and over time she'll hopefully start to understand socionics better and make a more informed self-typing. If she's particularly close-minded and refuses to change her mind, not for lack of evidence, but because of "bitchy beta aristocracy", then just let it be/put her on ignore/whatever.

I personally agree with Xox on the matter, but it's not worth having this retarded debate over.

Oh, and Elena, I don't mean to prod your Si but that avatar is awful. Your face is fine but it's a terrible picture that makes you seem pretentious and somewhat idiotic.

[Logos]

Lol, Logos is horrible at talking to people.

Lol indeed. Tell me something I don't know.

Anyways, let's be practical. If Elena is ENFj she obviously isn't going to change her mind through this kind of confrontational arguing. Just let her think what she wants and over time she'll hopefully start to understand socionics better and make a more informed self-typing. If she's particularly close-minded and refuses to change her mind, not for lack of evidence, but because of "bitchy beta aristocracy", then just let it be/put her on ignore/whatever.

That suggestion has been often advocated but yet to be implemented.

[XoX]

Well I was not trying to prove shit; I was merely pointing out an ironic situation to which you seemed oblivious.

I would emphasize the word "seemed".

Okay then, let's start over. Fresh start and all that. What evidence (using sections of her own posts instead of giving me impressions of her posts) do you have that seems to indicate a > preference. What exactly did she say?

No fresh starts. I had to push myself to produce the "Te-flavoured" arguments but it is not something I do for fun. I have said more than needed. However if you have a case for > then I'm interested to hear it. Or what exactly do you see as a problem with > ?

I don't know, some of the respondents have not exactly been very clear either. I'm still trying to figure out Joy's argument in the other thread. And some of the others have merely said "I agree," as if that was some sort of conclusive argument.

I wasn't referring only to this thread. And not primarily to Joy (even though I'm not excluding her).

It certainly seemed that way, as it was mostly negative, with very little positives, and your own share of ad hominem attacks against Elena.

I rarely use "positives" as you refer to them. My style of communication is full of "negatives" most of which I personally find somewhat amusing. And the ad hominem parts were not attacks as they were not aimed at destroying her credibility but to see her reaction to such directness. Also to pay back certain things. The cult part was clearly an exaggeration to the point of being a joke. However ENFj leadership style is a bit cultish as they tend to surround them with people who they guide to fulfill their plans.

And your style mirrors Phaedrus.

I'm aware of that. Whenever I...don't pay much attention to "being nice" (which I often do) I do become absolute and pushy in the same sense Phaedrus does. It does point us to share something functionally. Slacker Mom says it is . Some people say it is and . Phaedrus says it is and . But I don't think what I do is and . I tend to add some "absoluteness" and "pushiness" to the discussion on purpose whenever I see it proper. I'm not sure about Phaedrus. Is it competely unconscious for him or not. For me it is partly conscious although when I get a bit "heated up" it is hard to avoid.

Edit: Addition about my type, Olga ones typed as ISTj based on VI and answers to her tests. That is also one type high on my list in addition to those mentioned. Way higher than any Gamma. I just can't put my head around the temperaments atm. IJ sounds too stable among other things. But this just as a trivia because you wanted more information.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

That suggestion has been often advocated but yet to be implemented.

But that suggestion has also socionics implications.

For instance, some types will find taking the attitude of "let her think what she wants and see what happens, no use arguing about it" more natural than others.

Other types will be inclined to argue, for different reasons.

Yet other types will assume that absence of active argument = agreement, or perhaps, = weakness or stupidy.

So, while your suggestion is wise, there are reasons why it hasn't been implemented.

[Logos]

I would emphasize the word "seemed".

Fair enough. While I am not exactly a fan of glamourama's attacks on you, I also happen to not be a fan of your's on her. And that was all I was trying to address there.

No fresh starts. I had to push myself to produce the "Te-flavoured" arguments but it is not something I do for fun. I have said more than needed. However if you have a case for > then I'm interested to hear it. Or what exactly do you see as a problem with > ?

In which case, would you mind pointing me to some of your best produced arguments? I do not have a case for > nor do I have one for > , but I am merely trying to figure out the argument for both that is being made. Honestly, I do not really care either way if she is EIE or LIE, as my suggestion was just to let her be so that she can eventually sort it out herself. Yeah it would be great if she was an EIE so I can say that she's my semi-dual, but I would much prefer to exercise caution and let her post naturally and not when she is on a constant defensive to try and validate her type.

I wasn't referring only to this thread. And not primarily to Joy (even though I'm not excluding her).

Hence me mentioning "the other thread," and I know that it is not primarily Joy, but I did mention her as an example of one of them.

I rarely use "positives" as you refer to them. My style of communication is full of "negatives" most of which I personally find somewhat amusing. And the ad hominem parts were not attacks as they were not aimed at destroying her credibility but to see her reaction to such directness.

You know, you could have just said that up front. And you should have perhaps been aware as to how that would have been received by other Beta NFs. And wait, would that not also mean that you are using ad hominem attacks to prove shit?

Also to pay back certain things. The cult part was clearly an exaggeration to the point of being a joke. However ENFj leadership style is a bit cultish as they tend to surround them with people who they guide to fulfill their plans.

Obviously that cult joke was about as clear as you have been to what I have said.

I'm aware of that. Whenever I...don't pay much attention to "being nice" (which I often do) I do become absolute and pushy in the same sense Phaedrus does. It does point us to share something functionally. Slacker Mom says it is . Some people say it is and . Phaedrus says it is and . But I don't think what I do is and . I tend to add some "absoluteness" and "pushiness" to the discussion on purpose whenever I see it proper. I'm not sure about Phaedrus. Is it competely unconscious for him or not. For me it is partly conscious although when I get a bit "heated up" it is hard to avoid.

I was fairly certain that you were aware as Phaedrus often uses you as a reference for a similar style, but I just felt compelled to remind you once more, especially since Phaedrus is suspected as an IEI and with you being uncertain of your type and all, and then when that is juxtaposed against your comment made to glamourama about the similarity of her posting style with Elena's, it paints an overall amusing picture rich in potential ironies.

[discojoe]

But that suggestion has also socionics implications.

For instance, some types will find taking the attitude of "let her think what she wants and see what happens, no use arguing about it" more natural than others.

Other types will be inclined to argue, for different reasons.

Yet other types will assume that absence of active argument = agreement, or perhaps, = weakness or stupidy.

So, while your suggestion is wise, there are reasons why it hasn't been implemented.

Not only is it wise, it's the only non-foolish thing to do here. She's not going to listen, so you will be wasting your time by participating.

I understand how "agreeing to disagree" can be aggravating, but it's better than screaming at a wall. The best way to deal with this is to just let her think what she wants.

[Logos]

But that suggestion has also socionics implications.

For instance, some types will find taking the attitude of "let her think what she wants and see what happens, no use arguing about it" more natural than others.

Other types will be inclined to argue, for different reasons.


Yet other types will assume that absence of active argument = agreement, or perhaps, = weakness or stupidy.

And which types do you suspect of these approaches?

So, while your suggestion is wise, there are reasons why it hasn't been implemented.

But this has been suggested earlier by at least XoX, myself, and Discojoe. So this does not seem to necessarily be restricted to a certain quadra.

Not only is it wise, it's the only non-foolish thing to do here. She's not going to listen, so you will be wasting your time by participating.

I understand how "agreeing to disagree" can be aggravating, but it's better than screaming at a wall. The best way to deal with this is to just let her think what she wants.

Again, this does seem to be the most reasonable course of action.

[Expat]

But this has been suggested earlier by at least XoX, myself, and Discojoe. So this does not seem to necessarily be restricted to a certain quadra.

Hmmm? I didn't refer to quadras, I think it may be more related to temperament.

[Logos]

Hmmm? I didn't refer to quadras, I think it may be more related to temperament.

Again, I hope that I did not give you the impression that you did refer to quadras, but I merely noted this fact. And which temperaments do you then suspect here? XoX is sitting on the wall a bit about his type, and Discojoe and I are IJ types.

[Expat]

Again, I hope that I did not give you the impression that you did refer to quadras, but I merely noted this fact. And which temperaments do you then suspect here? XoX is sitting on the wall a bit about his type, and Discojoe and I are IJ types.

I think that your and discojoe's attitude comes more naturally to the "unflappable" IJs, whereas to feel the need to "do something about it" in a more or less continuous way is more EJ.

However, when IPs do decide that they should so something about it, they are more like EJs imo.

But I didn't want to make a point about, say, XoX's type -- just giving sn explanation as to why your suggestion wasn't followed.

[Logos]

I think that your and discojoe's attitude comes more naturally to the "unflappable" IJs, whereas to feel the need to "do something about it" in a more or less continuous way is more EJ.

However, when IPs do decide that they should so something about it, they are more like EJs imo.

But I didn't want to make a point about, say, XoX's type -- just giving sn explanation as to why your suggestion wasn't followed.

Then would this suggest that when EPs also decide that they should do something about it, their behavior mirrors that of IJs? If this were the case, then perhaps this is somehow tied into Statics and Dynamics. It would be interesting to investigate why this would be the case.

[anndelise]

Heh, this thread has brought up some interesting things.


For quite a while many people, including the majority of the Gamma Quadra have tried to argue that XoX is, himself, a betan. Yet XoX has consistently tried to bring his type back around to Gamma NT, only to be …told…that he's wrong.

Let's look at some of the facts brought up in this thread, shall we?



XoX believes himself to be in an Se/Ni Quadra.

About the Quadra thing...I would currently bet on a Se/Ni Quadra

This gives us the options of Gamma and Beta.



XoX attempts to "supervise" glamorauma who is believed to be an NiFe.

And glamour, you will now behave and stop arguing about this matter as I clearly explained why she is not an ENTj. Instead you should do something productive i.e. talk sense to your fellow Betan. She might turn into a rather interesting poster like Kristiina did. I want that, you want that, even Elena wants that because the current confusion is not in her best interest.

Thus giving the initial impression that XoX is back to presuming to be a Gamma NT, in particular, TeNi.



But wait, XoX admits to having difficulties producing the Te in his own arguments in this thread.

I had to push myself to produce the "Te-flavored" arguments but it is not something I do for fun.

This suggests that Te ego is NOT an option.
Leaving Gamma SF or Beta as the current valid options.



Since we can assume that due to XoX's difficulties producing Te that he is not a Te ego type, then why such a patronizing tone towards glamorauma in the supervisory attempt quoted above? In it he orders glamorauma to stop now and behave (behave??? Doesn't that imply an evaluation of wrongful action having occurred??) He also tells glamorauma what she SHOULD be doing. (Wow, being kinda bossy isn't he?) Aren't FJ's the ones that people commonly describe as being pushy about what people should or should not be doing? Hmmm. But then, TiSe are also described as that way. So this leaves us what possibilities now? ISFj, ISTj, ENFj, right? Oh wait, but TiSe don't commonly try to evoke reactions in people for observational purposes.

Now we are down to two options for XoX's type, based on the info he provided for us in this thread. ISFj and ENFj.



XoX admits to using personal attacks in order to observe Elena's reactions.

And the ad hominem parts were not attacks as they were not aimed at destroying her credibility but to see her reaction to such directness.

Some might call this "evoking a reaction".
Often claimed to be an Fe ego trait.

Which leaves us, once again, with XoX as being an ENFj.
(and further supports the claims by even Gamma NTs in the past that XoX isn't Te/Fi but is actually Fe/Ti.)
(further supported by the fact that not a single acceptedly typed ENTj has ever even suggested that XoX might be their dual)



But wait, there's more...
XoX doesn't believe that Elena is in the same Quadra as his:

I don't relate to her well enough to see her as being from the same Quadra atm.

And thus, by Xox's own actions in this thread, by his self-descriptions, and his self-relation to Elena,
XoX has actually argued that Elena is NOT ENFj.




*giggles and skips out the door*

[aestrivex]

hey ann, nice job in miscontruing the entire concept of supervision and every single ounce of sensibility inherent in this discussion. but i think you understand how utterly fallacious that was.

[anndelise]

but i think you understand how utterly fallacious that was.

Is this part fallacious?

XoX believes himself to be in an Se/Ni Quadra.

About the Quadra thing...I would currently bet on a Se/Ni Quadra

This gives us the options of Gamma and Beta.

Or this part?

XoX admits to having difficulties producing the Te in his own arguments in this thread.

I had to push myself to produce the "Te-flavored" arguments but it is not something I do for fun.

This suggests that Te ego is NOT an option.
Leaving Gamma SF or Beta as the current valid options.

What about this one?

XoX admits to using personal attacks in order to observe Elena's reactions.

And the ad hominem parts were not attacks as they were not aimed at destroying her credibility but to see her reaction to such directness.

Some might call this "evoking a reaction".
Often claimed to be an Fe ego trait.

And is it true or false that many many people on this forum, including Gamma NTs, have argued consistently and regularly that XoX is ENFj?

And is it true or false that not a single commonly accepted "ENTj" has suggested that XoX might be their dual?

So, we have a few people regularly arguing that XoX, himself, is an ENFj.
XoX tells us that he doesn't see Elena as being in the same Quadra as he is.



Which of any of the above is fallacious?

[aestrivex]

XoX admits to having difficulties producing the Te in his own arguments in this thread. Quote:
I had to push myself to produce the "Te-flavored" arguments but it is not something I do for fun.
This suggests that Te ego is NOT an option.
Leaving Gamma SF or Beta as the current valid options.

Or this part?

yes, that part is fallacious because you're making assumptions on the basis of what you thinks he thinks. the above statement could mean anything with respect to Te.

XoX admits to using personal attacks in order to observe Elena's reactions.
Quote:
And the ad hominem parts were not attacks as they were not aimed at destroying her credibility but to see her reaction to such directness.
Some might call this "evoking a reaction".
Often claimed to be an Fe ego trait.

What about this one?

i don't know what attacks these are referring to, but phrased as superficially as it is here i would argue that this is absolutely not an Fe trait.

And is it true or false that many many people on this forum, including Gamma NTs, have argued consistently and regularly that XoX is ENFj?

true and irrelevant

And is it true or false that not a single commonly accepted "ENTj" has suggested that XoX might be their dual?

i don't know and irrelevant.

So, we have a few people regularly arguing that XoX, himself, is an ENFj.
XoX tells us that he doesn't see Elena as being in the same Quadra as he is.



Which of any of the above is fallacious?

your fundamental assumptions about XoXs use of Te and Fe are hearsay and basically bullshit. in no way does XoX's tone suggest that he is supervising anybody or that he is making use of Fe. and you're making extensive use of useless information like "ENTjs do not think XoX is ESI, therefore he is not ESI."


do you honestly think that some of this shit is realistic at all? look at the big picture and see how flawed your sequencing of logical assumptions really is. oh and btw this is a great example of you demonstrating Ti.

[anndelise]

yes, that part is fallacious because you're making assumptions on the basis of what you thinks he thinks. the above statement could mean anything with respect to Te.

Sounds a lot like you just made an assumption based on what you think I think he thinks.

It's also interesting to see that you think that "I had to push myself to produce the "Te-flavored" arguments but it is not something I do for fun" could be a sign of anything other than a possible sign of weak Te.

It's also interesting that you say that it's fallacious "because you're making on assumption on the basis of what you think he thinks". Am I to understand that if someone makes an assumption based on what they think, then it's fallacious?

And the ad hominem parts were ….[]... to see her reaction to such directness.

i don't know what attacks these are referring to, but phrased as superficially as it is here i would argue that this is absolutely not an Fe trait.

Am I to understand that you do not see the actions of …..deliberately "attacking the man" with the intent to see the person's reaction …. as attempting to 'evoke a reaction' out of the person?

[aestrivex]

Sounds a lot like you just made an assumption based on what you think I think he thinks.

on the contrary, i am dismissing the importance of his comment. it is vague, quite possibly taken out of context, and by itself means nothing. you cannot use it to declare him a Te type.

It's also interesting to see that you think that "I had to push myself to produce the "Te-flavored" arguments but it is not something I do for fun" could be a sign of anything other than a possible sign of weak Te.

see above.

It's also interesting that you say that it's fallacious "because you're making on assumption on the basis of what you think he thinks". Am I to understand that if someone makes an assumption based on what they think, then it's fallacious?

you are twisting my words. if you make an assumption on what somebody ELSE thinks, not what you think, then you can't know if its true. if its as groundless and lacking in any kind of real basis as it is here then its bullshit.

Am I to understand that you do not see the actions of …..deliberately "attacking the man" with the intent to see the person's reaction …. as attempting to 'evoke a reaction' out of the person?

i didn't say anything about it not being related to "evoking a reaction." stop making things up. what i did say is that there is no direct emphasis on Fe whatsoever in what he did say. "evoking a reaction" however might connote Fe-related behavior, but certainly does not mean that in this case.

[anndelise]

if you make an assumption on what somebody ELSE thinks, not what you think, then you can't know if its true.

Can you(general) make an assumption on what somebody ELSE's motivation/intent is and know that it is true? (yes or no)
Can you(general) make an assumption on what's happening inside somebody ELSE's mind and know that it is true? (yes or no)
Can you(general) make an assumption on HOW somebody ELSE is processing information and know that it is true? (yes or no)

At what point can a person say/assume that s/he KNOWs anything?

Am I to understand that you do not see the actions of …..deliberately "attacking the man" with the intent to see the person's reaction …. as attempting to 'evoke a reaction' out of the person?

i didn't say anything about it not being related to "evoking a reaction." stop making things up. what i did say is that there is no direct emphasis on Fe whatsoever in what he did say. "evoking a reaction" however might connote Fe-related behavior, but certainly does not mean that in this case.

I didn't 'make anything up'. (another assumption? )
It was a legitimate question.
I wanted to make sure that I understood what you were trying to say..instead of assuming that I knew what you meant. It's called asking for clarification.


(For the record, in Rick's site, "evoking a reaction" is listed under Fe "Dominant Fields of Activity". And no, I do not believe that any one time attempt suggests ego function.)

[XoX]

Is this part fallacious?

XoX tells us that he doesn't see Elena as being in the same Quadra as he is.

Which of any of the above is fallacious?

Im not giving a lengthy answer but I think your argument was purposefully made to be "clever" instead of accurate. For example I clearly stated that the part where I suggested that we are not of the same Quadra were purely subjective speculation and not to be taken as part of the "argument". Thus it cannot be used to prove this or that. And I agree that your style here is very very . To the point that you "play around" with for fun and amusement. It makes suspicious the claim that it is your PoLR.

About supervising glamourama, did I really put pressure on her PoLR? Did I "pwn" her with my ? I don't know. Then my must have been really good despite the opposition that says I showed very little .

[Logos]

About supervising glamourama, did I really put pressure on her PoLR? Did I "pwn" her with my ? I don't know. Then my must have been really good despite the opposition that says I showed very little .

Honestly it seemed more like the same person arguing opposing positions.

[Expat]

Then would this suggest that when EPs also decide that they should do something about it, their behavior mirrors that of IJs? If this were the case, then perhaps this is somehow tied into Statics and Dynamics. It would be interesting to investigate why this would be the case.

Well I have suggested elsewhere that the temperaments are related to Static/Dynamic in this fashion:

Static: you "know" things will remain as they are (at least for the moment) and that is as you decide (rationally) it should be. So you act as IJ. If you are a Rational type, that will be your most frequent mode.

If, though, the "things will remain as they are" bothers or bores you (irrationally), then you act (impulsively) to change this. You act as an EP. If you are a Irrational type, then that will be your most frequent mode.

So IJs have their "EP moments" and vice-versa.

Dynamic: you "know" things are necessarily, continually, changing. You find that (irrationally) to be cool. So you act as IP. If you are an Irrational type, that will be your most frequent mode.

If, though, you decide (rationally) that the "continual changes" are going too fast, or too slow, or in the wrong direction, you decide to do something about it. You act as EJ. If rational, that is your most frequent mode.

So IPs have their "EJ moments" and vice-versa.

[Elena]

Well you must have had something in mind when you said it? What did you have in mind? It's like saying, "studies prove that . . . now go find what studies I'm talking about, I don't have the time." If you had something in mind, it should be easy to come up with an example. If you didn't have anything in mind, where did the idea come from? One example should be very easy.

No I had no specific studies in mind. I don't think in details like that, it's way too boring and not useful to me. I read for ideas and concepts, for stuff that gives me new insights and new ways of thinking about things. It's been too long since I looked last, so I have nothing fresh off the top of my head either. Well, I guess I did read a bunch of stuff recently when I was scrolling through random research abstracts on sciencedirect.com about how 'Intuition' can't be defined or researched and nobody's sure if it should exist as a psychological concept or not. Maybe that's relevant to you, maybe not. It was relevant to me since it confirmed some thoughts I've had for awhile about it and how annoyed I get seeing people making the stupid comparisons I see between "Intuitives" and "Sensors." There's a list of these stupid stereotypes on one of the socionics sites but I don't recall which one.

Anyway I said what I did because of a large aggregation of knowledge from psychology, neurology, biology, sociology, and so on I've learned over the years, that is odds with the stereotypes that get repeated around here. Don't expect me to distill all of that, that would take forever and annoy me to death to do something so mind-numbing and it wouldn't convince anyone anyway. Go research it yourself if you want convincing. If you don't want to research it yourself, nothing I would say would change your mind anyway. If you'd like to though, take any of the idiotic stereotypes you see repeated here and then go compare what the research says about it. Then tell me if it matches up with Socionics.

See, in my opinion there are so many theories and ideas floating about in psychology that they really do not form a cohesive whole, and some accepted ideas even contradict other accepted theories. There are a number of different schools of thought in the field just like there is in economics also, with Keyesian (spelling?), Austrian etc. that you guys talk about. Different theories to explain concepts, even if the basic language of the discipline is agreed upon.

*Keynesian

Yes, in every field there are different schools of thought. Some parts contradict with parts of others, some don't. The doesn't mean the field isn't a cohesive whole, only that there are different ways of looking at it. The schools of themselves do tend to be very cohesive and not full of contradictions and loose semantics. Socionics does not have this kind of cohesion or a firm theoretical foundation.

So while socionics may be in more disarray and disagreement, and not fully developed yet, it's just yet another theory to explain concepts.

Just not a very sound theory. Unlike the theories you'd find in scientific disciplines, which have a lot more validity to them for the very reasons Socionics does not. This was my whole point to begin with.

[Expat]

And is it true or false that many many people on this forum, including Gamma NTs, have argued consistently and regularly that XoX is ENFj?

I haven't really paid attention to discussions on XoX's type lately, but I have to say that this statement, as worded, is clearly false.

If you look at the wiki userpages of the "Gamma NTs" - Joy, Salawa, niffweed - two propose IEI with EIE as second option, and there is even one vote for ILI. Both Joy and Salawa include XoX in their "tentative" typings, not their "certain" ones.

For my part, the only "consistent and regular" stance on XoX's type has been negative, that is, that he was not ILI. During the last long discussion on his type that I participated in, I may have, directly or indirectly, given weight to IEI, but the truth of the matter is that I never ruled out ILE, EIE or even IEE for his type.

So I honestly don't know who has "consistently and regularly" argued that XoX is ENFj, I really don't.

[Elena]

This is exactly the problem with the discussion. Argument might or might not have been "good" but it was compact and falsifiable argument. A leading type would counter it by falsifying the facts in the argument and end the discussion (or alternatively accept the argument as truth if it could stand her examination). So it stands because it has not been falsified yet. That is how works. It presents an explicit logical argument which can be falsified and if it is not falsified they assume it is correct (but always keep the door open for new information).

Still waiting for your "facts." Still waiting for your "falsifiable argument."

If Elena was a leading type she would openly present her argument for being ENTj, essentially making it falsifiable. And then defend it against counter arguments. Changing her diagnosis of her type if the counter arguments were good enough.

I have. Falsifications have not been submitted to most things I have said. The few that have, have failed miserably.

As it stands her best argument for ENTj (which she presented in Fabio's typing thread) was
which is yet another obvious logical fallacy that has zero to do with . It is a comment that comes from a totally closed mind. A mind which is "made up" and accepts no more input but instead concentrates on building and strenghtening the image of an ENTj trying to convert more people to "believe it" as she puts it. And Ezra is already ready and willing. Omg, he should get his grip back fast.

And the best argument you have is that "Elena is not ENTj and I am a confused moron who can't even type himself! Yes I don't know my own type at all but I swear she's not ENTj!!!!"

This closed minded image building behavior is the trademark of a Beta NF and especially ENFj which is perhaps the most effective image builder type around. It doesn't yet make her ENFj but is yet another pointer to that direction. In cult leader circles she would be the complete package. Even now her main agenda seems to be, not to study socionics to understand things better, but to overthrow the current "leadership" which she sees as "not worthy" (what an aristocratic bitchy attitude). She has more than enough of the characteristics of a Beta quadra type.

More hearsay and mindless speculation on my motives lol. I'm like a cult leader now?

In no way or form is she an ENTj unless she somehow lost her mind when she arrived and is now completely confused trying to put the pieces of her psyche back together.

Do you even know what a mind is? Have you ever actually possessed one? Have you used the one you have? You don't sound like a person who spends much quality time with it, maybe you should instead of being such an imbecile all the time.

And you asked why I think she is my neighboring Quadra? This claim wasn't part of my argument which was placed in the "Reasoning" section. This was a purely subjective claim. It is because I don't relate to her well enough to see her as being from the same Quadra atm. However she is not completely hopelessly incompatible either. Thus, might be from a wing Quadra. If she gets healthy so that I could see her real self then it could be easier to do the math. This wing quadra argument is just speculation.

I am perfectly healthy. No you're definitely not from my quadra, correct. I think you're some Ne type. But you're too stupid for me to tell for sure.

But, out of respect for her stubborn aristocratic bitchy Italian ass I will not pressure her more at the time and instead let her choose her own way, style and timing for changing her mind.

Eat shit and die.

And glamour, you will now behave and stop arguing about this matter as I clearly explained why she is not an ENTj. Instead you should do something productive i.e. talk sense to your fellow Betan. She might turn into a rather interesting poster like Kristiina did. I want that, you want that, even Elena wants that because the current confusion is not in her best interest.

I think you're the only confused one here.

[Elena]

I don't think Elena's bitchy... more like "fiery" or something along those lines, and I doubt she's this combative most of the time. I also get the impression that she sees strong interactions and heated debates as a way of "getting it all out there" and ultimately finding answers or resolution. She's trying to be productive, not ornery.

But I could be mistaken, of course.

No you're correct. I'm only combative when challenged. Honestly I hate debating since it usually leads nowhere. I'd rather discuss things with people and discover new things, not fight over things I already know and that whoever I'm debating will likely never be convinced of anyway. But if we have to debate, then yes I'll get it all out there and stand my ground on what I believe. And hopefully in the end there can be resolution and answers from that. Something productive from all this friction and waste of energy.

[Elena]

Hardly. But keep trying! It looks kinda cute. And spicy. Who needs chili when they have you.

Trying? She's completely running circles around you and making you look like the pathetic airhead you really are.

And my seems like I have to force it a bit.

No, no. It's not there, quit pretending this to yourself.

I'm trying to be more than perhaps is natural for me and keep collecting real world information.

Stop trying, you're a completely lousy failure at it. You have too many wrongheaded ideas about what is a "fact," what is "evidence," what is "falsifiable," what counts as an "argument," etc. Just STOP.

[Elena]

But gravity is not theory, it is a law. It's the "law of gravity" not the "theory of gravity." There have been alternate explanations other than Newton's which are considered theory however.

Anyway, theories in psychology follow much the same rules as theories in the natural sciences, as they both try to explain as you put it things that are observed. Which is the same way that socionics came about in my understanding. The early socionists were trying to explain relationships between people, why some worked in a particular fashion, and adopted some of Jung's ideas reworked into an explanation, using interviews and observations of real people and couples.

Socionics doesn't have experimental verification, don't you get that? The law of gravity does. Many modern theories of psychology do as well. Why do you not seem to understand this difference?

[Elena]

Lol, Logos is horrible at talking to people.

Why? What he said made sense to me.

Oh, and Elena, I don't mean to prod your Si but that avatar is awful. Your face is fine but it's a terrible picture that makes you seem pretentious and somewhat idiotic.

Oh, well I like it, so I don't care. Where's your picture hmm?

[XoX]

This thread is finally starting to deliver. I liked the latest posts from Elena. Even the insults as they seemed rather genuine and "fair". Not avoided nor exaggerated.

Elena, I'm still looking for your own take on socionics. As long as you play the critic i.e. "You are obviously stupid and wrong but I don't tell you exactly why because you are too stupid to understand it" it is not delivering.

If you really are as smart and knowledgeable as you claim then you should have the capability to produce these as a replacement of to the current interpretations which you keep mocking. That would be productive.

[XoX]

During the last long discussion on his type that I participated in, I may have, directly or indirectly, given weight to IEI, but the truth of the matter is that I never ruled out ILE, EIE or even IEE for his type.

Ah, the IEE. Why I didn't mention that along with Se/Ni and ENTp was mostly because of
historical reasons related to arguments about my . As I am re-evaluating my Fe/Fi preference I probably should not drop the IEE yet.

[aestrivex]

Can you(general) make an assumption on what somebody ELSE's motivation/intent is and know that it is true? (yes or no)
Can you(general) make an assumption on what's happening inside somebody ELSE's mind and know that it is true? (yes or no)
Can you(general) make an assumption on HOW somebody ELSE is processing information and know that it is true? (yes or no)

At what point can a person say/assume that s/he KNOWs anything?

you cannot, but if your ideas are halfway reasonable they're probably more likely. i'm done arguing about your twisting of logic and semantics.

[anndelise]

yes, that "argument" about XoX's type WAS an attempt at using Ti, I agree.
Funnily enough, it also gave more Te than XoX's initial post in this thread ever did.
I figured I'd go all out with this one, give some actual Te and try for some Ti. (and I feel the consequences too, lol)

and THAT was the actual point of that whole post

[anndelise]

Niffweed, I had asked the questions about Can we make assumptions on someone ELSE's motivations, intent, processing, (and state) & KNOW that it is true?

Don't worry about answering the questions. I already know the answer. No, we can't.
I would've thought that the oh-so-"objective" Gamma NTs would already know that.
But I guess knowing it and acting upon it are two different things.



(edited to add: I see you just answered me, but I'm reposting this anyways.)