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

[UDP]

It seems a remarkably odd idea that we can "settle" anything at all "here", on the forum.

Do you really think you can prove anything at all "here"?


Alas, we all want "something to do" here, so, you might as well try. I am beginning to see the idea of "trying to determine one's type" as relatively impossible, as per forum objectives that can actually be achieved.

I'll write a thread about this at some point.

[Megan]

@glamourama

I saw a lot of the stuff too and they did sound really condescending and belittling IMO. I was about to respond but then I too remembered that is shallow (and is basically idiotic/moralistic). The same old crap repeated again and again. Why any self-respecting type stick around here is some kind of miracle.

[force my hand]

When you're Italian, ENTj is ENFj.

Duh.

/thread

[Elena]

Thanks glamourama and Megan, for noticing all of that and pointing it out. I think it would help cut down on the lunacy I'm seeing around here if more people make it a point to call this stuff out when they see it happening. It would change the behaviors of this board towards a much more positive direction.

For now there is far too many pathetic stereotypes floating around here passing itself off as accepted common knowledge. And too many people beating their chest like gorillas about what 'experts' they are and how other people 'know nothing about Socionics.' This doesn't make for a very conducive discussion environment, and I don't say that because of my own experience here thus far.

[Logos]

I read through elena's type thread and this one and didn't see any supposed -dominants supporting their impressions with "facts" either. NONE. ZIP. ZERO. I saw a lot of "my impression is" type things coming from them, or just things like "I agree" with no reasoning or "facts" behind them to back up their statements.

And they wonder why Elena is angry? I'm kind of curious as to quadra breakdown of typing Elena, because the Elena = ENFj seems to be predominantly Gamma. Honestly, I'm kind of hoping that she is an ENTj if for no other reason than to be a constant thorn in Joy's side.

I'll quote logos' sig:

awesome. this explains EVERYTHING.

That's what it's there for: a healthy reminder to help clarify the typical route forum discussions take.

"consistency of thought" (COT) is a thing huh? but LIEs value COT too, apparently, but they won't EVER value COT while also being factually inaccurate, whereas -valuers will value COT while being factually inaccurate? is that what you're saying?

At times it seems that some people forget that if is just as susceptible to errors of logic and convoluted systems, then =! "know it all" or "providing factually correct information."

@glamourama

I saw a lot of the stuff too and they did sound really condescending and belittling IMO. I was about to respond but then I too remembered that is shallow (and is basically idiotic/moralistic). The same old crap repeated again and again. Why any self-respecting type stick around here is some kind of miracle.

And if you stick around long enough, but do not heed the sage wisdom of the -dominants, you will be shuffled into the Waste Paper Basket Type that is the IEI - that is where the Socionics idiots are exiled.

[Megan]

And if you stick around long enough, but do not heed the sage wisdom of the -dominants, you will be shuffled into the Waste Paper Basket Type that is the IEI - that is where the Socionics idiots are exiled.

Lol, having stuck around here far longer then most that joined when I did, I am by now aware of the situation.

[force my hand]

And if you stick around long enough, but do not heed the sage wisdom of the -dominants, you will be shuffled into the Waste Paper Basket Type that is the IEI - that is where the Socionics idiots are exiled.

Actually, lately it's been ISTj.

[Elena]

This is mainly the bit I was referring to (I have read the rest of the thread and the other thread, and don't want to comment on every post as that will take forever, so I'm just using this one because I think it works well). Also, before I begin, I want to say that I absolutely think it is important to think for oneself, so please don't (anyone) think I'm trying to argue that we should all just accept things that we're told/read/hear/etc. without evaluating it for ourselves. Although I don't think it's always wise to *only* "accept that which makes sense to you" that doesn't mean that I think you should accept everything, even if it doesn't make sense to you (that would be far worse). I wasn't trying to say that.

I'm a firm believer that one should only accept what makes sense to them, as there are not many reliable indicators out there but one's own self. Over the years of growing up I have learned to trust my own instincts as my primary guide to what is true. It's strange to me when I realize that most people are not at all like this and mostly just believe whatever they're told without a questioning perception. Hence most people in life, even very smart people, believe in a great many stupid things. Stupid things that make them irrational, unobjective, unable to see reality as clearly as they should.

No fact, opinion, or evidence should be taken for granted at face value as a truth of the world. No matter where it's written or who said it. Which isn't to say I don't trust the observations and insights of other people. I do. But only if I know that person is worth trusting it that way and such persons are rare. Nor do I disregard what I may read in books and research articles. For instance, do I accept as fact that the speed of light in vacuum is ~3E8 m/s? I certainly do. But you see the difference is that there is compelling evidence and reason for me to believe that is true. It makes sense to me based on everything I know of science and how science works in acquiring the knowledge that it does. You understand, yes?

Anyway, back to the post I quoted from Elena... What I noticed is that everything here is an opinion to her (or so it seems). There is information on Rick's site -- she seems to consider all of it opinion. Why should the opinion of one person be more important than that of another, seems to be the rhetorical question she's getting at. She doesn't seem to sort information (sorry, that's a generalization), instead holding that all of it is equal (it's all opinions). What does discriminate true from false it seems is her own conception on whether it "makes sense to her" or not. This could have to do with her insights, which I think she mentioned she values insight... which I can relate to, because I primarily rely upon insight to differentiate things myself.

Why should I not consider it just opinion? So what that somebody has "experience"? Experience doesn't equate with insight or ability. That they are equated is myth. What matters is do they have convincing results to back what they say? If not that, are they coming from a sensible insightful view at least that agrees with reality? Have at least one of these. Experience means nothing to me, I don't care.

In this I take what makes sense to me and disregard the rest that doesn't make sense. A lot of this I do by connecting and reconciling my viewpoints as much as possible with what can be reasonably deemed objectively true. I contrast the Socionics stuff I read anywhere against what I believe cannot be deemed just 'opinion.' That is, I compare it to -actual- psychological research and knowledge. Really the fact that many Socionics teachings here and elsewhere are in contradiction to research findings in modern psychological science should tell you something. Plus perhaps compel you to start taking a serious look at what you believe and realize that some of these 'experts' might be wrong about some/many things after all.

Now if there was actual convincing empirical evidence and fact to back up many of the things that are passing around as 'truth' here, then my attitude would be very different I assure you. But there is not much out there to provide objective validation for Socionics so it can't compete in that way against actual empirically validated sciences. So one is left with two tools until such a measure for objective validation exists in Socionics. One is contrasting Socionics teachings to bodies of knowledge that deal with the same phenomenons to see if they agree or relate. The other is just your own subjective comprehension of what seems to be true based on your own understandings and experiences with reality.

What I was thinking was, say I decided to all of sudden become a theoretical physicist (a field that is much more difficult to comprehend than Socionics). Once I go into this field there are lots of ways to get information. Reading articles, journals, books, etc. is one way; testing my comprehension through assessment is a good idea; *and* recognizing the authorities in the field is also important (people who've spent time on it who I can learn from). This doesn't mean that everything these "authorities" say is correct (some of them could just be full of it, or some of them might be wrong about some things, etc.). But to just consider what the experts think to be opinions that are worth just as much in the subject of theoretical physics as the opinion of any person I come across on the street isn't a good idea (and probably will not help me learn theoretical physics).

Socionics is not Theoretical Physics. To even make that analogy is an affront lol. Like I said in another post, Socionics is not falsifiable through testing and experimentation in the strict sense that Theoretical Physics must ultimately be in order for something in it to actually both become and remain scientific theory.

Rick, for instance, is not a Socionics God, but you can't deny he's spent years on this and done a lot of work/study (probably more work than I even know)... some of the information on his site goes into the realm of what can be considered the current level of Socionics "knowledge" as much as it's possible to get to knowledge with a subject like Socionics. Like most fields, Socionics is evolving, and ideas within it, theories, and its knowledge base is in flux (but that doesn't mean all of its information lies in the realm of "opinion").

Right, as it looks like I preemptively stated above, I am not into credential worship. I only care what he actually knows, not what he has done. It proves nothing to me about his actual level of insight. Btw guys I am not dismissing Rick as a valuable source, you seem to be harping on this to excess. I already said befre I agree with him some.

What I'm trying to get at is that you (sorry, I don't mean anyone in particular) can't just level out every piece of information, call it an opinion, and then decide which opinions you prize more highly based on your own subjective criteria and hope to approach some form of "truth." Just because you want to believe something doesn't mean it is.

Preemptively established above that my criteria for determining truth is not purely rooted in subjectivity.

Yes, you should always hold weight on your own beliefs and what makes sense to you (that's what the brain is for), but to decide ones own personal conception of what makes sense and what doesn't *is* the criterion for what is true and what is not, absolutely and universally, can become rather problematic when taken to extremes. For instance, the average insane bum on the street preaching about UFOs, angels, and Santa Clause may only accept what makes sense to him, but that doesn't change the fact that he's full of crap (obviously what makes sense to him doesn't match up with reality very well).

Already explained well enough I'm not at all like this. Seems you were operating on a incorrectly simplistic thesis about how my mind interprets the validity of information.

The point is, if Te is your *leading* function, I can't see you leveling all information out to opinions of equal weight like that. That in fact seems to show a heightened skepticism about "fact" in itself (not very Te IMO).

I think you're having a misconception about Te egos dependency on facts and likely underrate that the same attitudes can arise in Ti egos as well. I will ignore that issue for now however and say that -intelligent- Te will be very skeptical about what it regards as fact and what it does not and also not treat all facts as equally weighted.

It could be that Elena isn't doing this, but from that post and others like it, it sort of looks that way. (Again, I could be way off and I'm not trying to say I know Elena or anything, as I know very little about her.)

Elena is not doing this.

I also know that this forum can be rather unfriendly seeming in its atmosphere, so it is understandable that she is on the defensive. I mean, even if you're sure of your own type, that often isn't good enough: you have to go through the hassle of convincing everyone else. This doesn't happen with everyone, but Elena seems to have gotten the brunt of the potential for that to happen to someone new to the forum. Though that's just one way of looking at it though--there are others.

At least it makes for more interesting forum activity lol.

Also, I could be wrong about what I've just said... and that's fine. But that was my attempt to try to elaborate on it. Also I'm not sure it's right of me to say any of this, but oh well, it seems I'm going to post it.

No need to be reluctant. Just say what you think? I don't understand this hesitation.

[FDG]

Perhaps you are not receptive to information which has been provided to you? Perhaps you are seeking for which has more "clarity" and "structure".

What really bothers me about your -ness and overall supposed narrative ENTj nature is that you always expect things to be explained to you and you act as a "judge" to those explanations. You don't produce information but instead evaluate what is given to you.
This seems more like a dual seeking taciturn way of approaching things. ENTjs and -types in general should be more active in challenging others with their own arguments instead of repeating the "you haven't yet provided me with a good argument" thing. That's seems like an ENFj thing to do. Waiting for the ISTj to come in and clarify the arguments.

ENTjs push facts down your throat to make you change your mind. They don't keep asking about you why, why, why and trying to insult your reputation and call you mean in the process.

And calling people stupid for not providing you what you want is pretty lame. Using that logic it makes you pretty stupid too as you haven't provided me with anything I could use. And of course it is completely your fault and not mine. You just don't have what it takes to talk sense to me. Oh, that's so stupid of you.

This is LAME. We are to the point, in this forum, that when a new member comes in he has to PROVE that he's a different type. What the fuck?? Are now types something that somebody has to be "worth"?? Look, you can't feel entitled to others needing to PROVE that they're of a given type. Fuck, they know themselves better, and it's not a damn university exam where you (not you XoX) have to grade me on my knowledge.

[Expat]

And if you stick around long enough, but do not heed the sage wisdom of the -dominants, you will be shuffled into the Waste Paper Basket Type that is the IEI - that is where the Socionics idiots are exiled.

I don't follow you, I really don't. Didn't you reach the conclusion, yourself, independently (rightly or wrongly) that Phaedrus is IEI? And for the same reasons -- use of not really checked, or supported, or whatever, by proper use of ?

I mean -- maybe you're right in that some people were typed too quickly, or the case made for their typing not made well enough, but it's not as if there was no socionics base for that.

And who is "exiling" whom? In which way? Shall we stop saying freely what our views on people's types are? What good would that accomplish?

[Steve]

Why should I not consider it just opinion? So what that somebody has "experience"? Experience doesn't equate with insight or ability. That they are equated is myth. What matters is do they have convincing results to back what they say? If not that, are they coming from a sensible insightful view at least that agrees with reality? Have at least one of these. Experience means nothing to me, I don't care.

In this I take what makes sense to me and disregard the rest that doesn't make sense. A lot of this I do by connecting and reconciling my viewpoints as much as possible with what can be reasonably deemed objectively true. I contrast the Socionics stuff I read anywhere against what I believe cannot be deemed just 'opinion.' That is, I compare it to -actual- psychological research and knowledge.

Thank You

And If someone has experience, I will certainly hear what they have to say and ask them how they got the conclusions they did out of the experience they had, but then I will determine if those conclusions are valid based on the "experience" they provide, and how it relates to phenomenon I've picked up through my own perceptions. If the conclusions are legitimate, something usually clicks, and I can actually add to the other person's point of view using my own experience. But yeah I completely relate, its gotta click with me before I accept it.

I've never understood blind following either. I think though a distinction should be made between blind following and "trying something out", in other words if someone says "just try this idea out, and you'll see why its true later", I'll certainly consider the idea, but at some point its gotta make sense to me.

[Ezra]

Shit, this IS a controversial issue.

Moderator, put this in What's My Type? please.

[Ezra]

Personally, I could see Elena as logical. I also don't think she values Fe, even if she's good at it.

However, that doesn't mean I think she's an LIE, although she could well be. I can't really see the EIE to be honest. I think that was a shitty suggestion.

[Expat]

Ha. Re: all that stuff Elena just said. She doesn't sound so illogical now does she?

Critical thinking skills, check.

Does any of this have to do with her type? Did anything in the other threads have to do with her type? What does have to do with her type and what doesn't???

To say that someone is "illogical" in order to type them is silly. It's like saying that logical types are "unethical". It is obvious that, according to socionics, ethical types can make logical arguments.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[marooned]

To say that someone is "illogical" in order to type them is silly. It's like saying that logical types are "unethical". It is obvious that, according to socionics, ethical types can make logical arguments.

sigh, I know that.

[XoX]

This thread fails to deliver in the sense that no new information has surfaced. Those who believe Elena is ENTj still believe so, those who don't still believe so, those who think Elena should be given more time still think so, Elena herself has shut herself off from any new information.

Ok, one accomplishment is that there have been some comments (not really arguments though) that she might not be ENTj nor ENFj. So, I'll give it a bit more time.

Until then the argument I proposed in my first post still stands. The argument itself is a argument. It relies on external falsifiable observations, compares them to theoretical socionics concepts, and deducts the "best match" for her type. Whether it is "good " or not is another question. Whether the result is correct or not is yet another question but as is the nature of the argument can be objectively evaluated. In any case it is an example of the usage of in constructing an argument.

I contrast the Socionics stuff I read anywhere against what I believe cannot be deemed just 'opinion.' That is, I compare it to -actual- psychological research and knowledge. Really the fact that many Socionics teachings here and elsewhere are in contradiction to research findings in modern psychological science should tell you something.

So you wanted to be asked questions. Here is one.

Elena, explain shortly with your own words (in the way most natural to you) how socionics is in contradiction with the research findings you are referring to and what are the implications of these contradictions to socionics and to modern psychological science? These kind of explanations give good insight into one's type.

[Mea]

Ha. Re: all that stuff Elena just said. She doesn't sound so illogical now does she?

Critical thinking skills, check.

Does any of this have to do with her type? Did anything in the other threads have to do with her type? What does have to do with her type and what doesn't???

That doesn't make sense.
It doesn't take a logical type to be smart or logical

[Logos]

I don't follow you, I really don't. Didn't you reach the conclusion, yourself, independently (rightly or wrongly) that Phaedrus is IEI? And for the same reasons -- use of not really checked, or supported, or whatever, by proper use of ?

I mean -- maybe you're right in that some people were typed too quickly, or the case made for their typing not made well enough, but it's not as if there was no socionics base for that.

While I agree with Phaedrus's typing of IEI, the IEI type does seem to be receiving its fair share of other people who seem to be typed as IEI on the basis that they are stubborn and do not listen to what they -dominants have to say. So while it may not be intentional, if you take a step back it almost seems like some controversial boarders (hitta, phaedrus, dioklecian, jarno) are being "shipped" to the IEI spot, which unfortunately seems to be giving IEI's just as inappropriate of a reputation for idiocy.

And who is "exiling" whom? In which way? Shall we stop saying freely what our views on people's types are? What good would that accomplish?

About as much good as asking these overblown and weighted questions. But out of amusement of these questions that are just ripe for Shakespeare or a Mel Gibson movie, I'll continue your string of questions: "And if we cannot freely discuss our views on people's types, then how...can we...be...free men?" I am not asking you to stop talking and I am not sure from where you got that impression. But I am suggesting caution in typing and more awareness of the developing big picture.

[aestrivex]

While I agree with Phaedrus's typing of IEI, the IEI type does seem to be receiving its fair share of other people who seem to be typed as IEI on the basis that they are stubborn and do not listen to what they -dominants have to say. So while it may not be intentional, if you take a step back it almost seems like some controversial boarders (hitta, phaedrus, dioklecian, jarno) are being "shipped" to the IEI spot, which unfortunately seems to be giving IEI's just as inappropriate of a reputation for idiocy.

ftr i never have and probably never will accept dio as anything other than an Fe dual-seeking type.

[Joy]

the IEI type does seem to be receiving its fair share of other people who seem to be typed as IEI on the basis that they are stubborn and do not listen to what they -dominants have to say. So while it may not be intentional, if you take a step back it almost seems like some controversial boarders (hitta, phaedrus, dioklecian, jarno) are being "shipped" to the IEI spot, which unfortunately seems to be giving IEI's just as inappropriate of a reputation for idiocy.

I agree, for the most part. I don't know what types hitta, phaedrus, dioklecian, kspin, and jarno are, but I don't really see an IP temperament. Who knows, one or all of them could be IEI, but it's not my first choice.

[Elena]

Personally, I could see Elena as logical. I also don't think she values Fe, even if she's good at it.

However, that doesn't mean I think she's an LIE, although she could well be. I can't really see the EIE to be honest. I think that was a shitty suggestion.

Maybe you're starting to see the light lol.

[implied]

While I agree with Phaedrus's typing of IEI, the IEI type does seem to be receiving its fair share of other people who seem to be typed as IEI on the basis that they are stubborn and do not listen to what they -dominants have to say. So while it may not be intentional, if you take a step back it almost seems like some controversial boarders (hitta, phaedrus, dioklecian, jarno) are being "shipped" to the IEI spot, which unfortunately seems to be giving IEI's just as inappropriate of a reputation for idiocy.

About as much good as asking these overblown and weighted questions. But out of amusement of these questions that are just ripe for Shakespeare or a Mel Gibson movie, I'll continue your string of questions: "And if we cannot freely discuss our views on people's types, then how...can we...be...free men?" I am not asking you to stop talking and I am not sure from where you got that impression. But I am suggesting caution in typing and more awareness of the developing big picture.

qft.

[Elena]

I don't see how anyone could know something that didn't make sense to them. It's like when you're expected to reguritate information for a test or something, you can know what you're expected to say and say it, without actually believing any of it. I used to when I disagreed with the "right" answer on a test, first write down what they wanted me to say with their reasons for credit, and then write my own opinion on it. Nobody has to (and how could they?) accept or believe anything is true unless it does make sense to them. And it didn't matter to me what the source was. If it didn't ring true to me, I would have a very hard time accepting it, and only with evidence could. If you accept everything that is said, you're simply not thinking critically.

It is a good approach to take, imo.

Good to see you understand .

What contradicts psychological research, and what were their methods? Much of psychology is theory that cannot be backed up absolutely, and follows a similar pattern to socionics with using observations, interviews etc.

Some of it follows this pattern, much doesn't. Even in cases where it does the research is much more controlled than what one can expect to find in the Socionics research. Not to mention that the variables being tested are actually defined and agreed upon by psychological scientists. In Socionics even the most of basic things are not even defined where they can be properly tested and there is no agreement on what they are or what they mean or if they even exist at all!

In psychology you don't have this massive confusion. The theories are clearly defined, the experiments are well defined, and there is general agreement on what things are and what they mean.

Also you are neglecting that much modern psychology is based on neurological and physiological evidence. Socionics has none of this.

I am curious as to what psychological research and knowledge you're referring to.

Too broad a question to answer satisfactorially in a post. A person could write a book on this one question alone. It would take too long to write all of this out and explain it all. You could glance at wikipedia and satisfy this question for yourself faster. I'm not trying to evade the question, just being honest.

I don't think there's anyone here who puts absolute faith into socionics, but rather most see it as a theory that explains some aspects of people's relationships with each other, and the way we're similar/different, what some of the motivations behind people's actions might be.

That's how I see it. It can explain these things so long as your interpretation is appropriate. What I'm seeing here is that many people have some very narrowed views that are dissonant a realistic POV, hence my pointing out that Socionics and psychology are not compatible. At least many interpretations I see of Socionics are not.

The biggest problem I see with it is when it leads to assumptions about people, assuming that someone is such-and-such a type and so must be. . . whatever it is. There also is the tendency to divide people by group and fail to listen to what they're actually saying, unless it fits someone's predetermined idea about that person/group. Once some people have an idea in their heads, it's next to impossible to change it.

Yes that sounds familiar lol. Where have I experienced that before I wonder?

[Elena]

This thread fails to deliver in the sense that no new information has surfaced. Those who believe Elena is ENTj still believe so, those who don't still believe so, those who think Elena should be given more time still think so, Elena herself has shut herself off from any new information.

A lot of information is here actually. You just aren't looking.

What do you mean 'Elena has shut herself off from any new information'?

Ok, one accomplishment is that there have been some comments (not really arguments though) that she might not be ENTj nor ENFj. So, I'll give it a bit more time.

Ezra said I'm not Fe which is a step in the right direction.

Until then the argument I proposed in my first post still stands. The argument itself is a argument. It relies on external falsifiable observations, compares them to theoretical socionics concepts, and deducts the "best match" for her type. Whether it is "good " or not is another question. Whether the result is correct or not is yet another question but as is the nature of the argument can be objectively evaluated. In any case it is an example of the usage of in constructing an argument.

Your argument fulfills none of the criteria you list. Try again for one that does, if you dare.

Elena, explain shortly with your own words (in the way most natural to you) how socionics is in contradiction with the research findings you are referring to and what are the implications of these contradictions to socionics and to modern psychological science? These kind of explanations give good insight into one's type.

I mentioned a few points on this in my reply to Diana.

[Elena]

And who is "exiling" whom? In which way? Shall we stop saying freely what our views on people's types are? What good would that accomplish?

About as much good as asking these overblown and weighted questions. But out of amusement of these questions that are just ripe for Shakespeare or a Mel Gibson movie, I'll continue your string of questions: "And if we cannot freely discuss our views on people's types, then how...can we...be...free men?" I am not asking you to stop talking and I am not sure from where you got that impression. But I am suggesting caution in typing and more awareness of the developing big picture.

Hahahaha. +200.

[Expat]

While I agree with Phaedrus's typing of IEI, the IEI type does seem to be receiving its fair share of other people who seem to be typed as IEI on the basis that they are stubborn and do not listen to what they -dominants have to say. So while it may not be intentional, if you take a step back it almost seems like some controversial boarders (hitta, phaedrus, dioklecian, jarno) are being "shipped" to the IEI spot, which unfortunately seems to be giving IEI's just as inappropriate of a reputation for idiocy.

I don't think this takes into account the whole picture, since there are as many other IEIs (seen as such generally, also by myself) that are regarded as very intelligent and whose contributions and presence here is very highly valued, certainly by myself and I think by most people, even if I don't always agree with them. I mean snegledmaca, Kioshi, misutii, Baby, vague - just off the top of my head.

If you look at my own list of famous IEIs, I have included H.G. Wells, Ray Bradbury, Robert Graves, Ingmar Bergman, Francis Ford Coppola, Talleyrand -- I may be wrong in their cases, but the point is that how anyone could even conceive that I think that "IEI = idiocy" is beyond me.

About as much good as asking these overblown and weighted questions. But out of amusement of these questions that are just ripe for Shakespeare or a Mel Gibson movie, I'll continue your string of questions: "And if we cannot freely discuss our views on people's types, then how...can we...be...free men?" I am not asking you to stop talking and I am not sure from where you got that impression. But I am suggesting caution in typing and more awareness of the developing big picture.

Fair enough. Then I suggest you do the same and include the above in your own big picture.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[XoX]

A lot of information is here actually. You just aren't looking.
What do you mean 'Elena has shut herself off from any new information'?
Ezra said I'm not Fe which is a step in the right direction.
Your argument fulfills none of the criteria you list. Try again for one that does, if you dare.
I mentioned a few points on this in my reply to Diana.

lol

[XoX]

hm, why? it wasn't a good one

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).

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.

As it stands her best argument for ENTj (which she presented in Fabio's typing thread) was

I am ENTj because I say I am ENTj.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Slacker]

OK XoX - that's the best argument I've seen against her being ENTj so far. You've convinced me.

[Capitalist Pig]

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.

Economics is a science, but not a natural science (such as physics or biology). The methodology and experimentation utilize entirely different approaches, but I digress.

In the natural sciences, I would caution you to take multiple hypotheses and theories to mean there is no consensus on any given phenomena. Theories are ways of explaining the mechanism behind an observed phenomenon, which means whatever they are attempting to describe is already acknowledged to be happening. For example, evolution is both theory and fact. The factual aspect of evolution is the evolutionary process. There is no dispute in mainstream biology that evolution happens, it's been observed in the laboratory and recorded in the fossil record. The theory of evolution attempts to describe the mechanisms behind the process. Similarly, nobody denies the existence of gravity, however gravity is, essentially, theory.

A scientific theory is a great departure from the colloquial use of the word; generally, theories are supported by facts and experimentation. Sometimes, multiple theories are desirable for understanding phenomena with certain applications. If you were an engineer, Newtonian mechanics would be a far more useful model for you to work from than quantum mechanics. Both Newton and Einstein, et al., are correct in their observations of the physical world, even though the models can (and do) contradict each other (e.g., causality), and no respectable physicist would ever favor one model over another in terms of their usefulness to our overall understanding.

[Logos]

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).

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.

But what facts have you given for her to falsify? I have read the entire thread and I have not seen heads or tails of your .

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.

Why does that sound familiar? Who could possibly be just as susceptible to such reasoning?

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.

You have an ego-complex.

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

And how many Gammas relate to you?

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.

Temper, temper. What kind of INTp are you?

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.

[Joy]

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.

[Logos]

I don't think this takes into account the whole picture, since there are as many other IEIs (seen as such generally, also by myself) that are regarded as very intelligent and whose contributions and presence here is very highly valued, certainly by myself and I think by most people, even if I don't always agree with them. I mean snegledmaca, Kioshi, misutii, Baby, vague - just off the top of my head.

Yes, but part of the point is that this part of the whole picture is now losing focus with the growing stain on the picture and instead becoming the new central point. And other IEIs, Betas, and some others have noticed it as well. The way that -PoLR and weak is being thrown around is quite suggestive of an idiot who values stubbornness. You may not see it that way, but that is partially how it is being perceived. That is why.

If you look at my own list of famous IEIs, I have included H.G. Wells, Ray Bradbury, Robert Graves, Ingmar Bergman, Francis Ford Coppola, Talleyrand -- I may be wrong in their cases, but the point is that how anyone could even conceive that I think that "IEI = idiocy" is beyond me.

Because they do not post on the forums. We are not exposed nearly as much to them as an image of IEI. And when a host of controversial boarders are shipped to the IEI spot at around the same time, those famous names do not really matter much.

Fair enough. Then I suggest you do the same and include the above in your own big picture.

Will do.

[XoX]

I think

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

And Logos,
That's old news. I'm clearly not an INTp in socionics. There I said it. I have actually seen the light and grasped many essentials I completely missed back then. Especially I am starting to see the real functions and I am becoming less focused on descriptions and dichotomies. I'm really thankful that certain people kept hitting me with the socionics hammer for such a long time. Some real life experiences have also helped me a lot. I still have some way to go though. About the Quadra thing...I would currently bet on a Se/Ni Quadra since I have such problems finding the fanciness and respect for . And my seems like I have to force it a bit. It is like there but still not there. And I too often get stuck on "fun" things instead of "effective" things. Outside of a Se/Ni Quadra, ENTp seems like the only type that might make sense. I won't say anything else atm. I'm trying to be more than perhaps is natural for me and keep collecting real world information.

And glamourdrama, I'm not against Betans. I'm actually going to meet an ENFj on Sunday and we get along rather well. ISTjs are like my best pals. I can hardly wait to see my ISTj friend again. It is hard to see when you live so far from each other.

[Expat]

I have some general comments. I could have written them elsewhere as well as here.

Socionics isn't something that can be easily "proven". The closest parallel that I can think of right now is that of learning a language.

For comparison: my own knowledge of written Chinese is zero. I don't understand a single one of those signs. Neither do (I assume) most of the posters here. So if we had never heard about the Chinese language, it would be tempting to dismiss as "bullshit" claims by those who say that they can read very complex texts from those signs.

One easy way to prove it, though, in that case, is to have someone write something in Chinese, then have someone else read it without knowing its content previously. Then it's clear that two people were sharing a way of reading signs - even if others found them incomprehensible.

Socionics is obviously not as clear-cut as that, even as a language. I can assure you, though, that if I send videos of interviews of people none of us know previously to, say, Rick and some others here, they will reach similar conclusions as to their types. Not necessarily the same; but far more similar than mere chance would warrant. This has happened often enough.

And not only videos, but also writings, if they are long and non-selfconscious enough.

So, if we - independently - reach the same (or very close) conclusions as to the types of individuals neither of us know, that means that (1) we are seeing very similar things, in the same way, so we share the same "language" in reading people; and (2) we can do that without having to ask the person directly what he or she has to say about his or her type.

When you do this often enough, you gradually become confident (perhaps too confident, sometimes) to reach a conclusion on someone's type from what you see, totally independently from what the person is actually saying regarding the type.

This may sound arrogant, delusional, whatever, to those who are not seeing it yet. Be that as it may - that is the explanation for some of the controversies we have seen here on occasion regarding people's types.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

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

Mr. Pot, I would like you to meet my friend, Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot.

And Logos,
That's old news. I'm clearly not an INTp in socionics. There I said it. I have actually seen the light and grasped many essentials I completely missed back then. Especially I am starting to see the real functions and I am becoming less focused on descriptions and dichotomies. I'm really thankful that certain people kept hitting me with the socionics hammer for such a long time. Some real life experiences have also helped me a lot. I still have some way to go though. About the Quadra thing...I would currently bet on a Se/Ni Quadra since I have such problems finding the fanciness and respect for . And my seems like I have to force it a bit. It is like there but still not there. And I too often get stuck on "fun" things instead of "effective" things. Outside of a Se/Ni Quadra, ENTp seems like the only type that might make sense. I won't say anything else atm. I'm trying to be more than perhaps is natural for me and keep collecting real world information.

So you're not an INTp anymore. Great. And you still have no clue what your type is? Great again. Would this be another case of the blind leading the blind then?

And glamourdrama, I'm not against Betans. I'm actually going to meet an ENFj on Sunday and we get along rather well. ISTjs are like my best pals. I can hardly wait to see my ISTj friend again. It is hard to see when you live so far from each other.

I wonder how she got that impression then?

(what an aristocratic bitchy attitude)

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.

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"

But, out of respect for her stubborn aristocratic bitchy Italian ass

Then combined with:

She has more than enough of the characteristics of a Beta quadra type.

Yeah, what could possibly suggest that your views regarding Betas are negative?

[XoX]

Mr. Pot, I would like you to meet my friend, Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot.

Oh, please save me from that.

And you still have no clue what your type is?

I explained in my previous post my current position. I have a good clue. You are boring me with your attempts at being "clever".

I wonder how she got that impression then?

Quote:
(what an aristocratic bitchy attitude)
Quote:
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.
Quote:
In cult leader circles she would be the complete package.
Quote:
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"
Quote:
But, out of respect for her stubborn aristocratic bitchy Italian ass
Then combined with:
Quote:
She has more than enough of the characteristics of a Beta quadra type.
Yeah, what could possibly suggest that your views regarding Betas are negative?

Then combined with:
Yeah, what could possibly suggest that your views regarding Betas are negative?

Mr. Logos. I don't get your point. Its only slightly exaggerated to make a more illuminating point.

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.