there's obviously not enough of these threads...
now vote
Si/Ne
Fe/Ti
Ni/Se
Te/Fi
IP
EP
IJ
EJ
introverted
extroverted
sensing
intuitive
logical
ethical
rational
irrational
there's obviously not enough of these threads...
now vote
great poll!
So far the results seem to be in line with what I said in some of my posts in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...t=16917&page=5
(I just noticed that the last post on this thread was written on 03-21-2008, but this thread showed up under "New Posts" which is why I replied.)
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Someone voted.
So, the highest scores are Fe/Ti, Se/Ni, Introverted, and Logical.
Which means that many people here are very bad at estimating probabilities. I certainly wouldn't recommend them to put too much of their money on the stock market or on the poker table. Seen from their perspective, the odds are clearly in favour of whatever I say my type is, no matter what the objective truth happens to be.
Hold on, so you're saying that since people here are (according to you) bad at estimating probabilities (for reasons you have not given), it means that they're automatically wrong... and this somehow makes you automatically right?
How does that work?![]()
I certainly didn't say that. You are making a logical error in reasoning here. (ENTjs are not very good at conceptual logic -- crazedrat is right about that part.)
Even if people here would be right in their guessing of my correct type, they are making a mistake if they believe that the most probably type for me is some other type than the one I have claimed to be. From an objective point of view, my most probable type is INTp, because that is the type I claim to have very strong reasons to believe is my correct type.
If people would have to put their own money at stake here, if they would place their bets on what they really think is my most probable type, then they would be making a mistake if they did put their money on some other type than INTp, because they simply don't know. They are only guessing, but they know that I know that I know myself better than any one else on this forum. I am in "insider", and it would be idiotic to ignore inside information when you put money at risk.
It is irrelevant if my correct type really is INTp or not. People should place their bets on that type anyway -- if they want to make a rationally justified choice in a game theoretical perspective.
gotcha
(I still disagree, of course, because I think that your behavior and reasoning are strong enough indicators that you are not ILI that even your saying that your type is ILI isn't very convincing.)
Hey, this is a bad use of inference! Does this mean ILIs are worse than LIEs at logical reasoning?
I would honestly be more hesitant to think that the way people are reasoning in regard to a socionics type is the same way they would reason in order to make a decision on the stock market. In fact I think your example is flawed by an omissis: people think that your conception of socionics is not good (this does not mean that I agree with them), thus a right analogy would be one where the person with the insider information is a bad business analyst.
This said, my personal opinion is that the best methodology is (as you say) indeed believing in what a person says about his own type, especially if said person has studies socionics enough.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Joy used a bad argument to support her dismissal of my general argument. She doesn't get the point -- that's why she is bad at logical reasoning. Besides that, I really believe that LIEs in general are worse at logical reasoning than ILIs. The LIE's main forte is not logical reasoning, and the LIE might feel inferior to the ILI in that respect, even if the LIE happens to be more intelligent than the ILI overall. That claim is based on several real life observations, and it is also supported by what we know about the types through type descriptions and other sources of information. But of course it has a lot to do with IQ too. You are clearly better than Joy at logical reasoning, and you know it.
I do not suggest that they do, but maybe they should.Originally Posted by FDG
Yes, I agree. But people should know that they don't know whether I am really a good or a bad analyst, and they should also take into consideration that analysts tend to be no better at predicting outcomes than pure chance, and that applies to themselves as well. They should be skeptical of their own analytical abilities here. They don't know that they are better analysts than I am, they only assume that without objectively good reasons to do so.Originally Posted by FDG
ROFL @ this thread
As far as I can tell, Phaedy is a member of Epsilon quadra.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
LOL
Rest assured phaedrus, I most certainly do NOT feel inferior to you in my logical reasoning capabilities.![]()
(I wish slacker mom was here to see this.)
No... You just respect his form of logical reasoning because you're both Beta ST.But of course it has a lot to do with IQ too. You are clearly better than Joy at logical reasoning, and you know it.
I think it is perhaps dangerous to conflate type with competency. Socionics describes personality, not technical abilities. Some very logical people have come from many types...including ethical types. Associating the more subtle and abstract concept of type with ostensibly observable abilities can lead to more blunt generalizations, like that S types are all better than N types at sports or something.
"Logic", especially in the sense that Phaedrus uses it, does not refer to the action of a type, but rather the study of formal argument. This is a profoundly different thing than socionics Introverted and Extraverted Logic, and also different from boolean logic, which is different from algorithmic logic, which is different from economic rational logic, which is different from a lot of things. What I'm saying is that we can point to many decidedly different things when we say "logic".
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Yes, that's the problem with most people on this forum. They have an incorrect understanding of the types. If you would have studied the types in real life you would know that I am right about this. And you obviously haven't studied Smilingeyes's material either.
No. You misunderstand the roles of these functions. The LIE is only better than the ILI at what is typical of leadingOriginally Posted by Loki
types to be better at than the ILI. And conceptual logical reasoning is not included in that set of skills.
The leading function is so natural to you that you often don't think about it. It determines your natural temperament, but it is not something you focus on very much.
ILIs are theoretical thinkers, philosophers, game strategists, etc. LIEs are better at organizing, systematizing, focusing on concrete practical results, etc. The LIEs produce more articles and books in scientific fields, but they are almost always not as deep thinkers as ILIs.
I have never claimed that they are. They are worse than all the other types at many, many things. But conceptual logic is probably an area in which the ILI has no natural equal among the other types.Originally Posted by Loki
Irrelevant.Originally Posted by Loki
Of course they are better at those things that are associated with having leadingOriginally Posted by Loki
. But you are probably naturally better at those things that are associated with creative
. And it's the same with LIEs and ILIs. It is a big mistake to think of the functions in isolation. They manifest themselves very differently depending on where in the psyche they are situated.
You must try to learn what the types are really like in real life -- not as you think they are due to your superficial understanding of them based on what you have read. You have obviously not studied the real types in action much. But they are out there if you bother to go out and observe them with your own eyes.
Joy is a total moron when it comes to understanding the types. That is now a very obvious fact. Strangely though, she has got her own type right, even though she doesn't understand the functions and is very bad at typing.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
That's not true, I'm an obvious LIE. Don't spread lies around Joy! Remember that you have criticized my logic in order to build an argument for SEE; however now you are using exactly the opposite argument in order to build an argument for SLE! You should shut up at this point, because your reasoning is becoming a real mess.
Loki...there's no need to add that sentence in brackets. Yes, you're perfectly right, she was shamelessly proposing exactly the opposite position since a week or two ago. She will also of course shamelessly deny it too.What happened to the FDG = SEE arguments? (I can't recall who exactly was making them)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You're right, your Ti doesn't stand out to me. Ti valuing does though, as does Fe valuing.
parenthesisLoki...there's no need to add that sentence in brackets.
Negative.Yes, you're perfectly right, she was shamelessly proposing exactly the opposite position since a week or two ago. She will also of course shamelessly deny it too.
And why would I say that I haven't if I have? That makes no sense.
Can you find any posts supporting this claim? You're welcome to look if you'd like, but I guaranty you won't be able to, and it's because aside for a short period in which I questioned whether you could be SEE (primarily because someone pointed out that you seemed to base your opinion of your type on your relationships with your girlfriends), I've thought of you as SLE for a very long time.
But it doesn't really matter anyways. I have no interest in debating what my opinion of your type is with you.If you're really truly curious, send discojoe a PM. He and I discuss people's types every so often (largely to clarify examples of types in conversations about Socionics). He thinks you're SEE, and we have disagreed on your type for a long time.
Last edited by Joy; 05-20-2008 at 12:19 PM.
Fe valuing? Because I can get along with some Betas here on the forum? Doesn't seem enough of a justification to me, honestly.
Maybe then I am confusing a post of yours with a post of Salawa, in regard to the SEE argument.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
No, there's more to it than that. This isn't the place to discuss it though, and even if there was a current thread about your type I wouldn't do anything more than post what I think your type is. No good would come of getting further into it than that. Your opinion on your type is your business, and I'm not going to try to convince you to change your mind.
Could be.Maybe then I am confusing a post of yours with a post of Salawa, in regard to the SEE argument.
Why the fuck are we starting this shit with Phaedrus again? We know that he will never concede ILI, and that no one will ever be convinced.
Ha, I just demonstrated Ni in talking about the future in relation to now. Hence, I am Ni leading. Also, I have looked at the facts about Phaedrus and other people who like to type him, and have utilised these in what I am trying to communicate. Hence, I am Te creative. Therefore, I am ILI.
If only there was someway to prevent this thread from being bumped.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Yes, if only.Originally Posted by Subterranean
Interesting, Logos is also ILI. They walk among us.Originally Posted by Ezra
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Wow. Amazing. A mutual desire. Okay, I don't really have anything to say. But I wanted you to know that I also acknowledge it.Originally Posted by Subterranean
*sigh* ... That's a strawman argument. Now I am Expat. Therefore I am LIE.Originally Posted by Ezra
He was making fun of you.
Phaedrus, are you intentionally prolonging the length of this thread in typical Ezraesque fashion to maintain the attention? Hence, you are EP.