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

[XoX]

This discussion has been going on for quite a while. So do YOU think Elena is ENTj or ENFj? Does she mainly rely on or in arguments? You may suggest other types too but as the discussion has lately revolved around these two types I see no reason to bring up any others. So let's concentrate on those.

I am very interested to see who currently stands on which side of the fence and why.

If possible give a short reasoning and state from which Quadra you are. If you wish you can say whether you think she shares your Quadra values or not (especially regarding the / axis)

My current opinion: ENFj

Reasoning: She often refers to her impressions () as a source of information for her and is somewhat forceful in her opinions (). Matches both ENFj and ENTj. However I haven't seen her providing any kind of factual information about anything whatsoever (if you have, please post a link). She _never_ supports her impressions with facts. That does not suggest dominant in the least. Instead she actively keeps avoiding giving out information. It is a weak and sensitive function to her. An example, when asked to provide information to support her view she replies: "I asked you first lol. So, answer please?". There is plenty of examples of this kind of avoidance and "game playing". It suggests a > preference. She has also made some references to how she values consistency of thought and this would suggest valuing type but ENTjs also value consistency to an extent (but never if the price to pay is factual inaccuracy). Then, she rather spontaneously uses ad hominem argumentation as one of her main "weapons" which does not suggest ego block logic (a logical fallacy is unlikely to be chosen as a primary "weapon" by a logic dominant type). Finally (even if Reinin is not that good of an argument) she seems taciturn >> narrator.

About Quadra values, I don't think I share Quadra with her. She would have to be rather unhealthy member of my Quadra if it were the same. It is possible that I partially share Quadra values with her though. As in being in her wing Quadra.

[Joy]

Her overall tone is extremely Fe > Te.

I can't say more than that without being accused of making accusations. I guess I'll just add that I find her language and what her reasoning and motivations appear to be from my perspective rather baffling.

[aestrivex]

Her overall tone is extremely Fe > Te.

I can't say more than that without being accused of making accusations. I guess I'll just add that I find her language and what her reasoning and motivations appear to be from my perspective rather baffling.

agreed. Fe preference is the only thing that's clear to me, but i have not been following the debate very closely.

[Expat]

There is of course another possibility, which - as per my understanding - is the present dominant view in Socionix (which I haven't read in ages, but I have caught glimpses of it in recent discussions in the wiki and from what others have told me).

Elena is Te and ENTj. Those who see her as Fe>Te are just wrong, because they have no understanding of what an ENTj is. Why? Because there are no ENTjs - or even Gammas - in this forum. They have all migrated to Socionix.

So what is going on here? Well, I believe that one explanation goes further -- I am an ESTj who somehow managed to convince most people here (well, those who think my views are correct to some extent) that I am ENTj and that I understand anything of socionics. I have managed to con all of those people into misunderstanding socionics, while those who truly understand what Gammas, ENTjs, etc are, are all there in Socionix.

I'm not sure how Rick fits into this -- I guess he also wasted his time studying socionics since he managed to get it all wrong, too (or I managed to brainwash him).

Anyway, something for you to consider.

[aestrivex]

I'm not sure how Rick fits into this -- I guess he also wasted his time studying socionics since he managed to get it all wrong, too (or I managed to brainwash him).

apparently he's an EII whose Ne brought him down a similar path to sergei ganin.

[XoX]

I disagree. According to what she's described about herself so far, I think that Elena being an ENTj is entirely plausible. I think that a lot of what is being interpreted as "her Fe" is nothing more than Elena simply being a spirited and intelligent individual (nothing to do with socionics). I think that Kristiina is an ENFj. Her Fe is obvious in my opinion; and she always presents raw ideas and seeks Ti to sort and order them.

Are you saying ENTj > ENFj or are you saying that the issue is still too unclear to decide?

[Logos]

There is only one civilized way to solve this: Heads or Tails?

[anndelise]

I don't think there's any way she's a logical type. She said that she will only accept things that make sense to her. That's not being very objective. After all, just because it doesn't make sense to her doesn't mean it isn't true. Her over all tone seems totally NF. If it's EIE or LIE, then I think EIE hands down.

She's not a logical type because she will only accept things that make sense to her.
Does that mean that logical types will accept things that don't make sense to them?
Or does it mean that logical types will accept things, whether it makes sense to them or not?
Or other?


(i'm not trying to argue with you, honestly, just trying to make sense of what was said, I feel like I must be missing something. I actually have no opinion on elena's type one way or another.)

[Slacker]

I think she could be a logical type. In fact, she has an abrupt style that logical types sometimes have.

I don't see why she can't be ENTj. I don't think ENFj is likely because I think she could very well be a logical type, so I guess I'll go 180 the other way from Loki there. I've read more of Elena's posts but I haven't yet read them all so I'm open to seeing something that would make it obvious she's a feeler, but I just don't see it.

She seems to obviously value Se but that works with either ENTj or ENFj. I'm not sure why it's focused on only those two options though.

Anyway, I don't know what type she is. I'm just giving my impressions so far. I'll have to read the rest of the long threads about her type though. LOL. She seemed to have a bad interaction with Minde that made me wonder if she could be a Beta thinker instead of a Gamma thinker, but that's the only other option I could personally see.

[Steve]

I think she could be a logical type. In fact, she has an abrupt style that logical types sometimes have.

Yeah I agree. And to answer your question from the other thread about calling people out on stuff being Ti - calling people out for lacking substance in an argument is something any person should do, regardless of functions.

[aestrivex]

I don't think there's any way she's a logical type. She said that she will only accept things that make sense to her. That's not being very objective. After all, just because it doesn't make sense to her doesn't mean it isn't true. Her over all tone seems totally NF. If it's EIE or LIE, then I think EIE hands down.

bullshit.

Perhaps she refuses to reconsider her type because she is "under attack" and would consider the arguments presented if things would "calm down"? I still think that points away from as it means she basically shuts down external information presented to her as a defense mechanism and responds with some other function than .

+1

I think she could be a logical type. In fact, she has an abrupt style that logical types sometimes have.

gee, what a lucid and comprehensive argument.

i'm not bashing you personally here, slacker, but at least two people have quoted this wonderfully conclusive and incisive passage that proves her LIEness beyond any stretch of imagination. i want to warmly commend these people for their wonderful capacity for seeing the big picture.

[Ezra]

Shit, this IS a controversial issue.

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

[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]

I don't think there's any way she's a logical type. She said that she will only accept things that make sense to her. That's not being very objective.

Sorry, but I don't get this reasoning. Would acceptance of things that do not make sense to her make her any more logical? I don't think so. Confidence in one's logical capabilities also implies confidence in evaluating whether something "makes sense" or not.

Frankly I see Elena using ad hominem only when she is attacked. Which makes sense imho, given that if I try to put myself in her shoes as a newcomer, I can see how I'd be royally pissed by people coming from all places telling me which type I REALLY am like I have understood nothing so far (ps. no objections to this like "but we know better" are allowed).

[anndelise]

Sorry, but I don't get this reasoning. Would acceptance of things that do not make sense to her make her any more logical? I don't think so. Confidence in one's logical capabilities also implies confidence in evaluating whether something "makes sense" or not.

shush you!!
loki may have just forgot to add something, give him/her a chance first

[XoX]

Frankly I see Elena using ad hominem only when she is attacked.

I would counter this by claiming that when attacked people tend to fall back on their valued functions and mostly their strongest i.e. ego block functions. Thus if she falls back to ad hominem when attacked it points away from . I would say it points most to or or combination of those.

Which makes sense imho, given that if I try to put myself in her shoes as a newcomer, I can see how I'd be royally pissed by people coming from all places telling me which type I REALLY am like I have understood nothing so far (ps. no objections to this like "but we know better" are allowed).

Ok, I can understand how people forcefully putting you in a box you don't feel like belonging to can piss you off. I've been there However it seems logical to question a newcomer's type if you don't agree with them. Even many of the "oldies" are still mistyped so it would seem that many newcomers are mistyped too.

Perhaps she refuses to reconsider her type because she is "under attack" and would consider the arguments presented if things would "calm down"? I still think that points away from as it means she basically shuts down external information presented to her as a defense mechanism and responds with some other function than .

[XoX]

Personally, I find this topic to be quite interesting as me being a type or even a quadra type was refuted based on pretty similar arguments that are now used to refute Elena's . Thus should an argument be presented which would "twist" things around that would potentially also affect my typing.

[anndelise]

I would counter this by claiming that when attacked people tend to fall back on their valued functions and mostly their strongest i.e. ego block functions. Thus if she falls back to ad hominem when attacked it points away from . I would say it points most to or or combination of those.

when people feel attacked, it might also push them into role mode,
one's role function inhibits one's base, at least temporarily,
(yet another thing to take into considering when trying to determine ego functions of someone else....base vs role)

[aestrivex]

I can see how I'd be royally pissed by people coming from all places telling me which type I REALLY am like I have understood nothing so far (ps. no objections to this like "but we know better" are allowed).

but its true, honestly.

i'm not pissed off so much by the fact that she doesn't agree with the typing of EIE. however its obscene how little sensibility she has in dealing with the matter. she won't even consider the possibility that she's wrong and declares anybody who doesn't agree with her to be an evil person.

she reminds me a lot of mikemex, and she's going to get about the same treatment as he did, from me anyway.

[Elena]

Her overall tone is extremely Fe > Te.

I can't say more than that without being accused of making accusations. I guess I'll just add that I find her language and what her reasoning and motivations appear to be from my perspective rather baffling.

Just don't lay claim to knowledge you don't actually have is all I've said. If you were capable of reading what my motivations and so forth were, that would be admissible as evidence to me if it could be corroborated with a definite case for EIE. But you don't have any such capacities to read me in that way, so any claim based on your hearsay about my motives is mere meaningless accusation and can validate nothing.

[Joy]

As I said in your type thread:

Elena, I'm done. The exact same scenario that happened a year ago is in the process of happening again, and I have no interest in taking part in it this time. If you want to believe you're LIE, great. Have fun.

[aestrivex]

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

put a letter in the same color as the background.

[Elena]

This discussion has been going on for quite a while. So do YOU think Elena is ENTj or ENFj? Does she mainly rely on or in arguments? You may suggest other types too but as the discussion has lately revolved around these two types I see no reason to bring up any others. So let's concentrate on those.

I am very interested to see who currently stands on which side of the fence and why.

If possible give a short reasoning and state from which Quadra you are. If you wish you can say whether you think she shares your Quadra values or not (especially regarding the / axis)

My current opinion: ENFj

Reasoning: She often refers to her impressions () as a source of information for her and is somewhat forceful in her opinions (). Matches both ENFj and ENTj. However I haven't seen her providing any kind of factual information about anything whatsoever (if you have, please post a link). She _never_ supports her impressions with facts. That does not suggest dominant in the least. Instead she actively keeps avoiding giving out information. It is a weak and sensitive function to her. An example, when asked to provide information to support her view she replies: "I asked you first lol. So, answer please?". There is plenty of examples of this kind of avoidance and "game playing". It suggests a > preference. She has also made some references to how she values consistency of thought and this would suggest valuing type but ENTjs also value consistency to an extent (but never if the price to pay is factual inaccuracy). Then, she rather spontaneously uses ad hominem argumentation as one of her main "weapons" which does not suggest ego block logic (a logical fallacy is unlikely to be chosen as a primary "weapon" by a logic dominant type). Finally (even if Reinin is not that good of an argument) she seems taciturn >> narrator.

Lol, okay another type thread about me.

I have demanded facts to support why I am supposed leading, time and time again. I've yet to be supplied with any. Have you not paid attention? Did you forget about all those repeated calls I made for people to give me something that was actually informative to support the idea of me being :Fe leading? The only explanations that have been directed to support this absurdity are some vague twisted delusions that people like Expat and Joy have been projecting on me about what my motivations are lol.

I have supplied a great deal of information about myself. I have told about my interests, my outlooks, what drives me, some about how I see the world, how I relate to people. There's posts all over the place that tell information about me. HARDLY ANYBODY PAYS ATTENTION! Most of you just go on repeating whatever nonsense you've convinced yourselves of as if what I said was never said at all! Then you pick tiny isolated incidents or words or phrases I use to support what you want to believe and ignore the rest. Do you and others even realize that you do this?! Are you even capable of processing this concept?

To be honest, this is rather alarming to me. I don't know that I have ever borne witness to fantastical, irrational incognizance of this degree before.

Anyway, look. I'm intelligent enough to know that there is nothing empirical to Socionics, but I'm a reasonable person and I will listen to reasonable explanations. So start giving me some reasonable explanations here! I'm not asking for much.

About Quadra values, I don't think I share Quadra with her. She would have to be rather unhealthy member of my Quadra if it were the same. It is possible that I partially share Quadra values with her though. As in being in her wing Quadra.

I thought you were Delta?

[XoX]

I have demanded facts to support why I am supposed leading, time and time again. I've yet to be supplied with any.

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.

[Elena]

Perhaps you are not receptive to information which has been provided to you?

Where is it? Where? Where? Where?!

Perhaps you are seeking for which has more "clarity" and "structure".

... NO.

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.

Oh god this redundancy makes me want to scream. I hate more than anything else to repeat myself. READ my previous post againnnnnnn. I said theres information about me scattered around the forum in different posts. Go look, it's there. If you want more, ask me questions! Specific questions please, nothing that would make me have to type out a long irritating explanation. I'll tell you anything to want know about me (as long as it's not something intimately personal but that should be a given.)

Btw, a lot of this could have been prevented if people would have just asked questions first so we could have informed eachother and discussed instead of debated like we are now. But noooo, people wanted to jump straight to making accusations instead lol.

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.

I can't counterattack an argument that's too weak, where's the fun in that?? Good arguments are the ones that fight back.

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.

I didn't call anyone mean or insult reputations.

Also bear in mind that this is Socionics, so "fact" doesn't have a lot of meaning here. Socionics is not a scientific or academic discipline in any sense of the term, not even close. It would be laughed out of any institution that was concerned REAL factual information.

Which does not mean there isn't something real to Socionics, I believe there is. If I thought there wasn't, I would not be here. But please be careful with the term "fact." Honestly I think it would (should) be offensive to any Te leading person that any of this could be deemed factual. It's not and it cannot be. There is no methods of validation yet. Socionics is not a falsifiable theory that can be tested.

You should see XoX, that knowing what counts as facts and evidence in a field, and understanding the way that it does so and why, is crucial to a strong Te outlook. Never take anything that calls itself a "fact" at face value.

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.

You want information then FUCKING ask for it! And don't ask overly broad questions like "Tell me why you think you are Te." I could write pages on that and it would be fruitless and get us nowhere. Ask the specific questions you want answered that will help -you- decide for yourself what I am or what I am not.

[Elena]

*Little mousey voice*

Could you provide a bit of writing that you've written before... pre-socionics. Maybe something that is natural for you.

It can be in italian I can read it via a translation program althrough a english piece would be good from your time in London. And I really don't know what your type is so I kinda of am interested.

I looked a bit but I don't think I have any writing on this computer that I've done. Plus a machine translation would destroy it's usefulness in typing since you lose all the nuances and character of the writing piece.

Maybe I can tell you some English authors writing that I like and which I hate?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.