Phaedrus as an IEI

[Phaedrus]

Woah, woah, woah. I find this highly insulting. This suggests that Ti types will actively withhold the truth. I certainly do not do this.

You are not a type, so what's your problem?

[Ezra]

You are not a type, so what's your problem?

Ha! Awesome! Why do you think this?

It's called justice. Expat shows that Te types are in some way better than Ti types based on that comment. Wikisocion (which I'm assuming he wrote) shows that Ti types are more likely to use the logical fallacy ad hominem; considering the source's worthiness as opposed to the actual information. However, if this is true, then I am indeed a Te type.

[Phaedrus]

Wikisocion (which I'm assuming he wrote) shows that Ti types are more likely to use the logical fallacy ad hominem; considering the source's worthiness as opposed to the actual information.

Which exact text are you referring to? I don't make a regular update on every piece of crap that is published on that site, so I might have missed something important.

[Joy]

Yeah, but I think there is a point to that being the self-image of Ti types:

Ti types: "what I have written is a perfect summary of the issue".
Comment from Te types: "uh? No it isn't. You just dismissed the bits that contradict your conclusion, rather arbitrarily".
Ti types: "those bits were irrelevant".

Etc etc.

I see it more like:

Ti types: "what I have written is a perfect summary of the issue".
Comment from Te types: "uh? No it isn't. It's an explanation, but it's still too complex to be considered a summary".
Ti types: "those bits are all relevant".

[Joy]

I dunno, I guess all logical state things in a "summed up" way for their ethical counterparts, it's just done differently.

[misutii]

But the point is, I'm not opposed to typing authors through what they write, I just think we have to be aware that professional authors who write to make a living will inevitably "bend" their writing to the taste of the public. For instance, I think Jack London's writing, as such, has way too much Si-detailed descriptions for ENTj, and I think it was done on purpose.

I whole-heartedly agree and believe I kept such precautions in mind when typing these authors. Both "Journey to the end of the Night" and "Tropic of Cancer" are set in a similar autobiographical-esque style, that is the author's inspiration is his own life. Also both were written long enough ago that modern editions include proper introductions by literary professionals that have looked into the author's history and can confirm that most of the situations in the novel are based upon actual situations the author faced in life etc.

Great examples I agree that it's Ni, but to me it seems INFp > INTp. Why do you see the opposite?

Using those passages alone I wouldn't be able to make too strong a case for or against INFp/INTp so need to refer back to other aspects from these novels.

I don't really know how to explain a certain occurence (feeling?) that I get when I read certain books authored by assumed Te-types but I'll try. Basically when I start reading the book I'm enthralled looking forward to what's going to happen/be said but instead of 'moving on', as I wish the author would, he spends too much time on things I find uninteresting. This happened with me in both those novels and (if you've heard of it?) "The World is Flat", by Thomas L. Friedman, who I've assumed may be ENTj. I'm convinced that my loss of interest stems from "Te-indigestion" in such cases. I've actually tested this little hypothesis out. For example, with "The World is Flat" I made it like 70 pages in and just couldn't do it anymore so I just gave it to my INTp friend. He read it quickly and afterwards we discussed the matter and I learned that he actually enjoyed how the book was structured and written.

In regards to Henry Miller and Louis-Ferdinad Celine writing like INTps there's alot more I can go into. Both authors consistently distance themselves from emotional 'enthusiam'. I found little variation in the protagonist's emotions, and both kept away from going indepth in describing how others felt. It's like they purposefully maintained a bleak outlook on the potential of relationships so as to protect themselves. I interpret this as Fe-devaluing. For example, in "Journey to the end of the night" there's a part where the protagonist meets with his ex. He's dirt poor and is in need of her financial patronage so to speak. She's emotionally distraught and describing to him how her mother is sick with cancer and how she's spending tons of money on celebrated doctors in the faint hope that they can help. The protagonist explicity states to the reader, at this point, that he knows he should have just told her what she needed to hear, that there was hope etc. Instead though he tells her, in detail, about the horrid nature of that kind of cancer and how it's untreatable and how her money is being spent in vain and how her mother is going to die regardless. He makes this seem as though even though he knew telling her this was going to provoke a scene he just couldn't help himself. And as he predicts she get upset and kicks him out of her appartment and so he's back on the streets to fend for himself. I found this a good example of a Te-valuing type providing Te to an Fe-valuing type when the latter is seeking Fe.

Now back to how I see Te. It's difficult for me to explain the nature of these Te-manifestations in litterature as I know that I can't do so without showing a certain bias, but I 'll do so anyway because you might find useful how a non-Te-valuing type responds/interprets such information. As I said before it's like I want the author to move on already but instead he just keeps describing the same thing, but in more detail - I don't find the extra details insightful though, on the contrary they seem redundant and make me impatient to the point that I go into "speed read mode"(something I learned to do in university when I had an exam in few hours and hadn't even opened the textbook lol). With "The World is Flat" the Te was so overwhelming that even "speed read mode" was futile for me hence I gave up and gave it to my friend on the condition he summarize it for me when he was done. In the other two books I've mentioned though I only speed-read through parts where the author was in "Te-mode", which were intersparsed between enough "Ni-mode" parts that I was able to finish the book on my own volition.

I'm mentioning all this because I see a general sort of symmetry within the socionic theory, which you yourself built upon in your thread on the differences between Si-Ne and Se-Ni. Also I'm curious as to whether you lose interest in Fe-heavy books in a similar fashion that I described in regards to Te-heavy books?

[machintruc]

Phaedrus is LSI.

[Phaedrus]

if Phaedrus is an IEI, Estonia is Mexico.

That is an objectively true statement.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus is LSI.

And that's an objectively false statement.

Okay, now we have seen two examples of the possible truth values statements can have. What's the next lesson in this course in semantics?

[strrrng]

negative

your multiple usage of these contrived, one-word statements is annoying because of its generic nature.

Yeah, but I think there is a point to that being the self-image of Ti types:

Ti types: "what I have written is a perfect summary of the issue".
Comment from Te types: "uh? No it isn't. You just dismissed the bits that contradict your conclusion, rather arbitrarily".
Ti types: "those bits were irrelevant".

Etc etc.

exactly what I was getting at...the Te sees all the bits, albeit as a connected structure (albeit an external structure), and doesn't feel the need to sum them up as some...static field

I see it more like:

Ti types: "what I have written is a perfect summary of the issue".
Comment from Te types: "uh? No it isn't. It's an explanation, but it's still too complex to be considered a summary".
Ti types: "those bits are all relevant".

this makes absolutely no sense. Ti sums things up with a general, overriding law, so I don't see how it could be too complex. Te wants all the bits to be included, whether or not they are contradictory, while Ti wants to it to fit their internal model. Te is a string of different things while Ti is a chain that is connected back unto itself.