The suggestibility/pliability of INTps and ENTjs

[Ezra]

Something discojoe noticed in niffweed, and something I noticed in Expat. Maybe it's because they're both dynamic or something, but they basically both often will accept something as long as it makes perfect sense to them I guess. The thing is, I've never noticed it in anyone else but these guys. I could imagine Isha and Maria being the same, although they do defend their ideas with more initial fervour. Nonetheless, is this because of the Te that they (you two if you read this) manage to flex there I ideas?

[Expat]

is this because of the Te that they (you two if you read this) manage to flex there I ideas?

Not sure I understand that sentence.

Also, perhaps you could be more specific.

[Logos]

I am confused. Don't most people accept ideas that make perfect sense to them?

[aestrivex]

i think discojoe is exaggerating my having been manipulated in this situation. i have more background on strrrng than he does, and i definitely have a healthy dose of skepticism as to his motives. nonetheless, given his intellectual history, i think his actions make sense.

[implied]

nonetheless, given his intellectual history, i think his actions make sense.

so do i re: strrrng's actions.


and ezra, maybe you're right. i think mysticsonic said something similar about me once in a sort of reversed manner. i can't remember his exact words but it was something like, "something i associate heavily with you is the inability to accept anything that doesn't make sense to you." (correct me if i'm wrong MS.)

i don't understand what you're asking either re: flexing ideas.

[discojoe]

Here's my opinion, which I don't feel like defending.

Te and Ni aren't really good for when it comes to seeing what someone is "really" up to. I think motives tend to get contextualized in a fog of possibilities and doubt, and Te/Ni people need someone with strong Se and Fi to step in and say This person is trying to manipulate you; or This guy is up to no good; or What an ass. Let's not talk to him anymore.

We're talking about naturally being in tune with an internal cause and effect system, (someone's emotions, motives, behavior, etc.) something which INTps and ENTjs, in my opinion, tend to over-analyze and treat in a Te/Ni fashion. They tend to treat such problems from a standpoint of Te efficiency, thinking of how undesirable people and situations can be dealt with in such a way that negative consequences are minimized. The problem is that this can often lead to an answer that "makes sense" yet results in the INTp/ENTj getting conned by someone whose real behavior they can't easily see.

(I want to quickly point out that I don't think the person doing the conning in necessarily bad or malicious in every case, but there is still a level of motivation there that the Gamma NT can't easily perceive, which could help them deal with the situation more effectively.)

Ugh. Anyway, I think the trick to Gamma SFs being able to readily perceive underlying motivations comes from being able to pick out Fe cues and use Si to unconsciously "slip in" to that person's character and form an idea of what the person is up to, and then form an Fi judgment of that idea, along with an unwavering Se stance on the issue.

I'm not saying that other types can't do this, but I think that being able to do it constantly and comfortably is a Gamma SF thing.

[aestrivex]

Here's my opinion, which I don't feel like defending.

Te and Ni aren't really good for when it comes to seeing what someone is "really" up to. I think motives tend to get contextualized in a fog of possibilities and doubt, and Te/Ni people need someone with strong Se and Fi to step in and say This person is trying to manipulate you; or This guy is up to no good; or What an ass. Let's not talk to him anymore.

We're talking about naturally being in tune with an internal cause and effect system, (someone's emotions, motives, behavior, etc.) something which INTps and ENTjs, in my opinion, tend to over-analyze and treat in a Te/Ni fashion. They tend to treat such problems from a standpoint of Te efficiency, thinking of how undesirable people and situations can be dealt with in such a way that negative consequences are minimized. The problem is that this can often lead to an answer that "makes sense" yet results in the INTp/ENTj getting conned by someone whose real behavior they can't easily see.

(I want to quickly point out that I don't think the person doing the conning in necessarily bad or malicious in every case, but there is still a level of motivation there that the Gamma NT can't easily perceive, which could help them deal with the situation more effectively.)

Ugh. Anyway, I think the trick to Gamma SFs being able to readily perceive underlying motivations comes from being able to pick out Fe cues and use Si to unconsciously "slip in" to that person's character and form an idea of what the person is up to, and then form an Fi judgment of that idea, along with an unwavering Se stance on the issue.

I'm not saying that other types can't do this, but I think that being able to do it constantly and comfortably is a Gamma SF thing.

i think this is far more applicable to LIE/ESI than to ILI/SEE.

[discojoe]

i think this is far more applicable to LIE/ESI than to ILI/SEE.

Maybe. Shrug.

[Logos]

Here's my opinion, which I don't feel like defending.

Te and Ni aren't really good for when it comes to seeing what someone is "really" up to. I think motives tend to get contextualized in a fog of possibilities and doubt, and Te/Ni people need someone with strong Se and Fi to step in and say This person is trying to manipulate you; or This guy is up to no good; or What an ass. Let's not talk to him anymore.

We're talking about naturally being in tune with an internal cause and effect system, (someone's emotions, motives, behavior, etc.) something which INTps and ENTjs, in my opinion, tend to over-analyze and treat in a Te/Ni fashion. They tend to treat such problems from a standpoint of Te efficiency, thinking of how undesirable people and situations can be dealt with in such a way that negative consequences are minimized. The problem is that this can often lead to an answer that "makes sense" yet results in the INTp/ENTj getting conned by someone whose real behavior they can't easily see.

(I want to quickly point out that I don't think the person doing the conning in necessarily bad or malicious in every case, but there is still a level of motivation there that the Gamma NT can't easily perceive, which could help them deal with the situation more effectively.)

Ugh. Anyway, I think the trick to Gamma SFs being able to readily perceive underlying motivations comes from being able to pick out Fe cues and use Si to unconsciously "slip in" to that person's character and form an idea of what the person is up to, and then form an Fi judgment of that idea, along with an unwavering Se stance on the issue.

I'm not saying that other types can't do this, but I think that being able to do it constantly and comfortably is a Gamma SF thing.

Even then, the Gamma NT is still open to manipulation from Gamma SFs with ulterior motives depending upon the nature of the relationship between the Gamma SF and the Gamma NT. So it is not as if every Gamma NT will get this kind service from a Gamma SF.

[discojoe]

Even then, the Gamma NT is still open to manipulation from Gamma SFs with ulterior motives depending upon the nature of the relationship between the Gamma SF and the Gamma NT. So it is not as if every Gamma NT will get this kind service from a Gamma SF.

Well, yeah. I was talking about positive relations.

[Logos]

Well, yeah. I was talking about positive relations.

I do sometimes wonder if Socionics talks (or assumes, for that matter) too much that certain Socionics relationships will be positive, when they seem far more idealized.

[crazedrat]

they're probably just agreeing with you because they don't care and they want you to go away; and they realize what you are saying could never remotely effect them anyway

[Park]

they're probably just agreeing with you because they don't care and they want you to go away; and they realize what you are saying could never remotely effect them anyway

I don't think that's usually the case, but maybe that's what you would be inclined to do.