Originally Posted by
Logos
I'm just noting it to in fact note it.
I am merely saying that at times the expected outcomes or explanations of Socionics theory fly in the face of counterevidence, and in such cases, the theory should be reevaluated in light of that.
*Note: Sirena, Cyclops's excerpt here is what dissecting statements looks like.
But you are interepreting the theory at an extreme dichotomy of Fi vs. Fe that does not necessarily hold up on closer inspection to the behavior of people. There is a clear pattern, and I agree, but I disagree with the extent of the interpretation of that pattern of Fe behavior. I do not appreciate the pointed comment in bold either.
And I had little problems with what you wrote then. Truthfully, I realized that my use of "insensitive" was a mistake, but "irrational" should have been what I used instead. Your post was incredibly rational and close to Socionics, but it still created misconceptions about Fe-ego behavior. It was also the straw of misconception that broke the camel's back.
Apart from that response to you, I have done nothing of the sort that you have suggested, and I am personally insulted by your comment. I have shown that the issue is not as clear-cut as Fi-egos perceive the situation to be. That Fe-egos do not just sweep things under the rug or pretend that conflicts never happen. I have shown that there is counterevidence that goes against popular conceptions of F type behavior in these cases. But yes, I will retract my statement because I was being irrational, in that instance.