Who here is actually Delta?

[tereg]

Well, thank you for saying what it seemed like I was doing, perhaps next time you could ask me what I actually am doing.

I can't see you as Delta because I and also many Deltas I know don't relate to you, and as I said I see your functional etc understanding as muddled. Things you say - even how you write - massive monologues on posts - I mean i'm quite articulate and clever and even I rarely write as you do - it's not the ISTp way - if you look at the descriptions you will see they keep what they say to a minimum. Not that I can't go into lengthy prose, cause I do sometimes. The difference is that mines is pretty much always related to the practical, full of factual examples. Even when I discuss theory, I always go back to the practical.

Crucially, I'd be suprised if there are any Deltas you get on with, for instance... I have struck up some good friendships with some Deltas here..because we simply "get" each other. I think you should consider your friendship with Niffweed or whoever to be an indication of the quadra you belong to. Which Deltas have you struck up friendships with? It seems to me all you do is criticise them, and not understand them, claiming that it means...it's because they are not Delta..where as in fact it's because they are Delta.

Is it really that big of a jump to say that first you are saying "Hey, you don't sound Delta at all!" Then "Crucially, it comes down to your friendship with Niffweed because other Deltas don't identify with you, you argue with them, and you seem to have an affinity for Niffweed's POV, therefore maybe you should consider your friendship with Niffweed as an indication (evidence) that you are not Delta (i.e. this is another reason why I think you are not Delta)."?

And this is essentially what I'm saying

This is true, but you still seemed to suggest and indicate that snegledmaca's views are indicative of a close friendship with niffweed, which firstly, is unfounded, baseless speculation, and then you went on to suggest that because of this possible affinity or friendship
(or supposed alignment of socionic views, again unfounded) suggests not Delta.

Or to break it down further -- "You are not Delta. Why? Maybe you should look at your friendship with niffweed."

At the risk of repeating myself, i'm not particularly bothered which type you see him as (or even which type you see me as tbh) If I wished to elaborate in an indepth analysis, by reading through all his posts etc, then I would do so, but well, I don't feel like it, and I don't see how I would personally learn anything from doing it.

I am not specifying what I think your type is, I'm actually not stating what my opinion is of his type either. I am, again, pointing out what I see are flaws in your reasoning which independently does not imply or suggest what my opinion is of his type.

But what's in it for me to do so? Is what I asked you.

There's nothing "in it for you" other than to know that you might be contributing something worthwhile to the discussion.

Ok. But to clarify...calling into question his typing, how can I be doing that when (as far as I'm aware) he isn't sure of his type? (and well, if you read ealier on in similar thread created by JuJu..you will see it's actually MY type being called into question by him, not the other way round)

This is what I saw:

I can't see you as Delta because I and also many Deltas I know don't relate to you, and as I said I see your functional etc understanding as muddled.

Even if snegledmaca did something in another thread or even if he's unsure of his type, the fact is is that you said this statement, and the statement (again just looking at this statement as a separate entity) is calling into question his typing. Regardless of whatever agendas there are or not, the fact is is that this statement is calling into question his type.

If you are saying "I can't see you as Delta" then what are you doing?

Unless this is a question of semantics a la "Well, I'm not actually questioning his type because he's not confident enough of his own type and how can I question something that isn't confidently known?"

Ok, you're still calling his type into question for discussion. Which is what I'm trying to say. You are expressing an opinion with this statement, a statement of opinion of what snegledmaca is not. I am taking that statement and pointing out my concerns about it.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Is it really that big of a jump to say that first you are saying "Hey, you don't sound Delta at all!" Then "Crucially, it comes down to your friendship with Niffweed because other Deltas don't identify with you, you argue with them, and you seem to have an affinity for Niffweed's POV, therefore maybe you should consider your friendship with Niffweed as an indication (evidence) that you are not Delta (i.e. this is another reason why I think you are not Delta)."?

And this is essentially what I'm saying

what I said was I think you should consider your friendship with Niffweed or whoever to be an indication of the quadra you belong to. Note the 'whoever' here.

Or to break it down further -- "You are not Delta. Why? Maybe you should look at your friendship with niffweed."

Again you are focusing on something incorrect here. Perhaps that's where your gripe is.

I am not specifying what I think your type is, I'm actually not stating what my opinion is of his type either. I am, again, pointing out what I see are flaws in your reasoning which independently does not imply or suggest what my opinion is of his type.

ok

There's nothing "in it for you" other than to know that you might be contributing something worthwhile to the discussion.

I tend only to discuss such things when there is a mutual exchange of information, but generally when discussing someones type i've found it much more useful if people are going to be receptive to others information... However, with Snegle.. thinking that Minde doesn't have Fi (thinking she is Beta) for instance, then the socionic conversation would take far too long to go anywhere productive for me, possibly either of us.

Even if snegledmaca did something in another thread or even if he's unsure of his type, the fact is is that you said this statement, and the statement (again just looking at this statement as a separate entity) is calling into question his typing. Regardless of whatever agendas there are or not, the fact is is that this statement is calling into question his type.

If you are saying "I can't see you as Delta" then what are you doing?

Unless this is a question of semantics a la "Well, I'm not actually questioning his type because he's not confident enough of his own type and how can I question something that isn't confidently known?"

Ok, you're still calling his type into question for discussion. Which is what I'm trying to say. You are expressing an opinion with this statement, a statement of opinion of what snegledmaca is not. I am taking that statement and pointing out my concerns about it.

I'm not really bothered what his type is, but i've seen enough of what he says to know that he isn't ISTp...Or Delta. So it bothers me, only slightly, to see someone (him) coming in with no real understanding of the types, claiming no one is Delta except him. It's like Superman in the chamber. Is the kryptonite on the outside or the inside.

[tereg]

what I said was I think you should consider your friendship with Niffweed or whoever to be an indication of the quadra you belong to. Note the 'whoever' here.

I concede that "whoever" is important in this statement. The premise is still rather... hmm... I dunno. I suppose I see what you're driving at here -- that it should at the very least be considered. It's just that the pretenses of consideration of looking at either the volume or quality or level of the friendships on a very large picture scale (as a whole) seem rather weak. Like if you were to say something to the effect of "Well, I have a very happy friendship with this person. Person X and I get along very well and we think along the same lines." This is what I infer when I hear "consider the friendship as an indication of possible quadra" -- it's just too broad. Unless what you imply is that in that consideration you look at specific characteristics of specific friendships, that might have more merit to it. I just find the larger view "consider your friendship" to be too broad to be of any value. That specificity doesn't come across to me very well interpretation wise when someone says "consider the friendship as an indication of what quadra you belong to".

If what you infer is to inspect specifics of the friendship to illustrate socionic principles, that does hold some merit. But I would caution that even inspecting the specifics of a single (or very few) relationship to the degree that is suggested can be useful and reveal information up to a point. But I'm still unsure as to how this translates to the confidence one can have as the reason for belonging to a particular quadra. I agree that it is a piece of the puzzle, but I just don't know that that much weight can be given to it to one or two cases to be able to confidently state what a person's quadra might possibly be.

Edit: Even if you're looking at the "whoever" part of this, and sort of broadly looking at the characteristics of your relationships with all of the other people that you know, that still only tells a part of the story. I suppose that it might be worth to look at that aspect of inter-relationships, but again, I'm just not sure as to how much it actually says about a person's quadra.

I tend only to discuss such things when there is a mutual exchange of information, but generally when discussing someones type i've found it much more useful if people are going to be receptive to others information... However, with Snegle.. thinking that Minde doesn't have Fi (thinking she is Beta) for instance, then the socionic conversation would take far too long to go anywhere productive for me, possibly either of us.

Ahh, ok.

[Expat]

That may be the core of the issue, as I only base my type assessments from my personal experience in dealing with the other person. That is, I do not take into account your evidence. And to be honest, I most probably won't as I find that a second hand account, I don't find it reliable enough. That is, I am more confident in basing my assessments off of what I have established to be for certain, from my own experience, then from what somebody has presented to me.

Which makes your typing weirder than ever.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I concede that "whoever" is important in this statement. The premise is still rather... hmm... I dunno. I suppose I see what you're driving at here -- that it should at the very least be considered. It's just that the pretenses of consideration of looking at either the volume or quality or level of the friendships on a very large picture scale (as a whole) seem rather weak. Like if you were to say something to the effect of "Well, I have a very happy friendship with this person. Person X and I get along very well and we think along the same lines." This is what I infer when I hear "consider the friendship as an indication of possible quadra" -- it's just too broad. Unless what you imply is that in that consideration you look at specific characteristics of specific friendships, that might have more merit to it. I just find the larger view "consider your friendship" to be too broad to be of any value. That specificity doesn't come across to me very well interpretation wise when someone says "consider the friendship as an indication of what quadra you belong to".

If what you infer is to inspect specifics of the friendship to illustrate socionic principles, that does hold some merit. But I would caution that even inspecting the specifics of a single (or very few) relationship to the degree that is suggested can be useful and reveal information up to a point. But I'm still unsure as to how this translates to the confidence one can have as the reason for belonging to a particular quadra. I agree that it is a piece of the puzzle, but I just don't know that that much weight can be given to it to one or two cases to be able to confidently state what a person's quadra might possibly be.

Sure. What I'm saying can appear to be subjective, but if I were to elaborate on it long enough, I think you would see it move from subjective to "objective". IRL I have Delta friends which is on a different level from other friends, for me personally they are my best friends. And I could explain all this functionally, and why some types I don't get along with quite as well. On line, I've also developed close "Fi" type bonds if you will, with people via the socionic community.

More i've learned about the types, the more I see the small groups such as clubs and then quadra values play out for everyone.

So I understand that it may appear "subjective" to you at first, but it's only cause i'm not elaborating on it, perhaps sufficiently, although I think you see perhaps were i'm coming from some more now.

And in regards to Snegle.. he's saying he has no affinity with any Delta types here. Although I wonder how anyone can say that without at least identifying with some of them, if one really is Delta, or at least without getting to know some of them on a personal level, and understanding and relating to them (Fi seeking on my part)

Wiith Niffweed, my understanding is Niffweed types him as SLI, or has done often. I wasn't sure who is friends are, or how friendly he is with Niffweed. Snegle did speak for himself on that point.

[snegledmaca]

I'm not really bothered what his type is, but i've seen enough of what he says to know that he isn't ISTp...Or Delta. So it bothers me, only slightly, to see someone (him) coming in with no real understanding of the types, claiming no one is Delta except him. It's like Superman in the chamber. Is the kryptonite on the outside or the inside.

Except that that never happened. I questioned your and juju-s type, not everybody's. Regarding minde's type I questioned it a long time ago, back when I though I was IEI.

Regarding myself, you have stated a lot and yet shown nothing. You state I have no real understanding and that I am not delta, I urge you to show it.

However, perhaps you cannot be bothered, like I can't really be bothered to make cases for the types of some other people on whose type I have an opinion. Perhaps you don't care enough to invest the effort or something.

But in that which case I would ask you to stop trying to assert your opinion as valid. That is, if you have no intention to try to determine the validity of your claims, you are content with merely proclaiming what you have to say as being right, then I think what you have to say is irrelevant, even if it might be correct.

And regarding minde's type, what makes you say I wouldn't be receptive you what you have to say?

Which makes your typing weirder than ever.

Why?

[Slacker]

Originally Posted by snegledmaca
That may be the core of the issue, as I only base my type assessments from my personal experience in dealing with the other person. That is, I do not take into account your evidence. And to be honest, I most probably won't as I find that a second hand account, I don't find it reliable enough. That is, I am more confident in basing my assessments off of what I have established to be for certain, from my own experience, then from what somebody has presented to me.


That shows strong Ti>Te preference. Even the way you phrase it shows Ti is most likely in your ego block.

[Expat]

Why?

Because what you said suggests huge focus and extremely low focus, so I agree with what Slacker Mom said.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Except that that never happened. I questioned your and juju-s type, not everybody's. Regarding minde's type I questioned it a long time ago, back when I though I was IEI.

Here you questions everyones type.. (in Delta)

I don't really relate to any deltas, and I don't relate at all to any SLI-s on this forum. Perhaps they are all mistyped, or perhaps it's me. I use to think it was just me, but now I am considering the possibility that it's actually everybody else that has got it wrong.

And here..

Also, regarding all of this there are no real deltas things, have any of you actually explored the alternative options for your types? To be honest it sound to me that all you people are doing is bitching how others have suggested heresy and done absolutely nothing to provide anything concrete regarding your type assessment. Not examined evidence, alternatives, tried to determine the validity of various options, claims. I mean, the first thing I did when my type was in question is get to the bottom of things. Determine what actually is a valid claim and what isn't. I mean, if you do that then there will be no problems you people are now claiming, that others are attacking you, pressuring you into something that is obviously wrong. Once you can objectively prove your case you can show, objectively, what is obviously wrong and what isn't. There would be no uncertainty that currently exists. And to be honest the uncertainty you people chose to deal things with I find utterly incomprehensible. It is as if you like/prefer to sit there and merely complain, making emotional arguments instead of getting of your asses and actually doing something to resolve the issues you complain so boastfully about.

And also, what is so wrong with questioning ones type? I love it when people question my type. It gives me a chance to play around with concepts. And I love getting to the bottom of things as well. I find asserting validity, finding out what is right or isn't, what works or not, completely rejuvenating. It brightens my day. For you one would get the impression that questioning one's type is equivalent to a personal attack and actually considering alternatives to heresy.

This whole approach is questioning everyones type in Delta, it's also very Ti.

[marooned]

That may be the core of the issue, as I only base my type assessments from my personal experience in dealing with the other person. That is, I do not take into account your evidence. And to be honest, I most probably won't as I find that a second hand account, I don't find it reliable enough. That is, I am more confident in basing my assessments off of what I have established to be for certain, from my own experience, then from what somebody has presented to me.

In other words, you would have to see it to believe it. (?)

If someone else says they saw it, that is not enough, because you yourself did not see it. Whatever they say they saw and whatever interpretations or impressions they present based on what they observed are then only heresay, as you were not there to gather (or experience) the information directly yourself. And so what they present can't be certain to you and you can't allow it to influence your conclusions. (?)

Would you store their information somewhere in your mind as possible though: As something that has the potential to become significant later if something else were to come up in your direct experience that brings it back into focus, adding relevance to it that you weren't aware of before?

Though in the case of Minde, it seems you would have the same evidence as everyone else... her posts.

(I was feeling curious about this, that's why I posted.)

[tereg]

Alright, correct me if anything I say here is wrong:

What you seek is for somebody to provide you with a complete, coherent picture of your type built from simple and well-understood parts, for there to be concrete order and structure in their arguments. And also in order for you to take the other person seriously they would have to express their thoughts and ideas with clarity and exactitude, to present clear and concise explanations of concepts, rather than a focus on things that are not directly pertinent. Basically you want good, solid rationales and justifications that are pertinent. This is what you had in mind when you stared that thread about yourself, you seek, expect and feel relaxed by a source of logical certainty.

Back to the original case for Minde as ISTj/INFp.

My first question then is this (Te vs Ti): Does she desire the understanding of the system she seeks or desires presented from a methodical, ground-up approach, starting with the ground floor, putting the support beams up, layering the floors one at a time with each floor dependent on the floors below it?

Or rather does she do better in understanding when the entire building structure is presented to her and she explores the details of the building on her own -- making accurate statements about principles on which the building was built and holistically understanding the structure without the need for sequential demonstration (which I interpret as valuing as well)?

My opinion is she prefers the former, a Te > Ti preference.

Next question (an Ne/Fi vs Ni/Fe question):

Quoted from Minde's thread

I want a great big sign that says
"just tell me the truth",

perhaps with other comments like

"and get it over with"
"c'mon, don't bullshit me"
"just tell me now, so we don't have to waist time beating around the bush"

: / why do...........
I mean, does it really have any use to try to mince words or filter out content? I don't get it. Active listening my ass, I just want a big sign that I can point to and say

"tell me the truth, Ruth"

I can take it. I think most other people can't - is that the problem?

And no, no one is lying to me or anything like that. I'm sort of counseling someone right now, and I suppose I'm getting impatient. It's like, come on, you want me to ask you, you want me to find out - why keep putting it off? You want to solve the problem you have to look at everything, why try to hide yourself from it? The person isn't screwing around with me either, it's just a natural phenomenon that I do not understand. Many people do this.

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to start working on that sign.
Or maybe a T shirt.........

UDP, when talking through stuff you don't always get right to the heart of an issue, either, you know. Sometimes people don't always know where they're going. Or even where they are. It can be hard to be direct when there's a loss of direction. (That's like what Loki said.) If it's a counseling situation, you especially need to expect and prepare to be comfortable with confusion.

No, that is different.

This is a matter of just telling you flat out what the matter is, and what happened.

Perhaps it is not as different as you may think.

Try this - what may be clear to you may not be as clear to other people, and vice versa.

So, what is happening here? UDP is expressing a point of view of "Just tell me the truth! Tell me what you're really thinking! I don't want to waste my time here! Just get it over with and save us both the torture, it will be better for both of us."

According to your reasoning, this should be exactly what Minde wants, a clear, concise, no sugarcoating, direct manner of expression. But what happens? Minde seems to be sensitive to the various states people find themselves in with regards to effectively answering direction questioning like this and resists this notion, as if saying "A person should tell another what they're thinking when they're ready to tell the person. This is not something that can always be achieved."

This sound rather Ne+Fi rather than Ni+Fe. Would an Ni+Fe read and respond to this situation with such resistance? Would not an Ni+Fe ETA: tend to (I understand this will not always be the case) welcome this kind of directness as a peace of mind, intuitively understanding the implications of just "getting it over with" and actively responding to the emotional content of the asker? Edit: I may be grasping here, but try to see this as an example I suppose and not narrowly the only way an Ni+Fe sees this.

What is Minde trying to tell UDP in the last statement? Consider the possibility that not everyone thinks in those terms, what's easy for you isn't easy for everyone else. This still seems very Ne+Fi to me.

That's true. And I realize I have a tendency to get irritated sometimes when I know something other people don't, and think they should.

Do you realize that's exactly how I feel about you sometimes?

by the by - The issue above is resolved, I was just being impatient, so in my angst I made this thread.

Yes, patience... You will get much further (in the long run) in these situations if you have it - patience and gentle persistence.

Now, any type can demonstrate patience of course. But what is at the essence of what is being expressed here? It's a very gentle lesson being given in the spirit of demonstrating a... sort of rejection of "gimme gimme gimme" and more gently allowing the situation to unfold, keeping in mind the circumstances the entire way. The process is gradual, but experience tells you that the end result will be good if it is maintained. Working through it is worth it.

Collectively, this most closely fits the spirit of the Delta quadra and its values I think.

[implied]

i don't really think that minde = IEI/LSI is that much more far out than phaedrus = IEI or whatever. or UDP as ESI/LII/LSE/etc/etc/etc. certainly there have been weirder.

[snegledmaca]

Originally Posted by snegledmaca
That may be the core of the issue, as I only base my type assessments from my personal experience in dealing with the other person. That is, I do not take into account your evidence. And to be honest, I most probably won't as I find that a second hand account, I don't find it reliable enough. That is, I am more confident in basing my assessments off of what I have established to be for certain, from my own experience, then from what somebody has presented to me.


That shows strong Ti>Te preference. Even the way you phrase it shows Ti is most likely in your ego block.

Because what you said suggests huge focus and extremely low focus, so I agree with what Slacker Mom said.

To be honest, based on my writing, that is, what I write on the forum I would completely agree. When I look at what I have written if it were somebody else I would've typed them as Ti dominant in a heartbeat. And everything about my stance and manner of expression would also go in favor of Ti dominance. And yet I simply cannot stand Fe dominants in my personal life. ESE-s especially make my blood boil.

Here you questions everyones type.. (in Delta)

I don't really relate to any deltas, and I don't relate at all to any SLI-s on this forum. Perhaps they are all mistyped, or perhaps it's me. I use to think it was just me, but now I am considering the possibility that it's actually everybody else that has got it wrong.

I guess that can be taken as me questioning everybody's type. Although that is not really what I had in mind. To be honest, I only really questioned your and juju's type. Disregard that comment, I am not really questioning everybody's type in delta, just of a couple of individuals.

This whole approach is questioning everyones type in Delta, it's also very Ti.

How? Why?

In other words, you would have to see it to believe it. (?)

Experience, not see.

If someone else says they saw it, that is not enough, because you yourself did not see it. Whatever they say they saw and whatever interpretations or impressions they present based on what they observed are then only heresay, as you were not there to gather (or experience) the information directly yourself. And so what they present can't be certain to you and you can't allow it to influence your conclusions. (?)

Yes. It's a matter of interaction. I can read about it, but I did not experience it, I did not interact with the person. When I read about it afterward I am not picking up on the things that were happening at the moment, my reactions, the reactions of the other person to my reactions, and so on. I need all of that in order to have a coherent picture of what is going on.

Would you store their information somewhere in your mind as possible though: As something that has the potential to become significant later if something else were to come up in your direct experience that brings it back into focus, adding relevance to it that you weren't aware of before?

I'm not certain I understand what you are trying to say here. Could you elaborate.

Though in the case of Minde, it seems you would have the same evidence as everyone else... her posts.

No, I have my interaction with her. That is why I am able to speak regarding her type.

[marooned]

Experience, not see.

Heh, that's better.

Would you store their information somewhere in your mind as possible though: As something that has the potential to become significant later if something else were to come up in your direct experience that brings it back into focus, adding relevance to it that you weren't aware of before?

I'm not certain I understand what you are trying to say here. Could you elaborate.

I think I mean... Maybe one person gives you a description of their interaction with another person. You don't know how much of what they say is "accurate" or "true" or even relevant to you because you were not there, and it was not your interaction with the person being described. So just in the sense of what is true and what is not, there are many unknowns.

But some (or even a lot) of what is said may be relevant and may be very telling about the person being described to you. So although you can't really shift the information you get from the second-hand description into a "certainty" box in your mind, you can leave it suspended in uncertainty to wait, gradated in propabilities of how certain or uncertain it may be (based, perhaps on your unfolding understanding of the person who is talking to you and the person being described to you, among other things). And things said can be "tagged" in your mind, in memory, if there's a strong feeling they may be significant later... but in the meantime it can be released out of thought, covered over by layers of newer thoughts. [Also even listening to the description, a tentative image of the person being described may form in your mind... it doesn't have to be taken as "true" or "false," but in a state where it's just the current image you have of them, and could easily be changed later... or thrown out...]

And later something might come up... like you might interact directly with the person who was being described to you before, and as you are directly interacting with them, or later when you are reflecting over your interaction with them, some of that information that was lying suspended in uncertainty might start shifting back to the forefront in your mind, and you can change the gradations of how it is organized, or funnel some of it closer to a "certainty" box, changing your image/concept/understanding of the person... until something else arises that causes certain pieces of information to fall back out and back into the suspension, changing the image again. And likewise you can dismiss other pieces of information if you find they aren't relevant enough. (You wouldn't necessarily be "conscious" of all of this.) But over time the image will start to center more and more, into to a radius, approaching a point (maybe never quite reaching it).

So in this way what others describe in their interactions become relevant pieces of information to use in understanding, even if it is not the brand of information that you can call "certain" or "true" necessarily.

[Minde]

I can't imagine you as ISTj or INFp. If you weren't INFj, the only other type I'd be able to see would be ISFj.

I consider people's self-typings as generally more relevant than other people do. But you've been around long enough and have contributed enough to have some idea. So if you say INFj over ISFj I'm inclined to believe you.

I think the assumption is that someone as serious about religion as you must be Se-valuing, and maybe Ti as well. But this place is all about typing by huge sweeping generalizations and assumptions these days.

Really? I had not heard that from anyone. Does anyone else think that might be a reason for any supposed Se/Ti-ishness about me?

Why do you say/think that?

Observation + exaggeration for effect, aka poetic license.

Alright, correct me if anything I say here is wrong:

What you seek is for somebody to provide you with a complete, coherent picture of your type built from simple and well-understood parts, for there to be concrete order and structure in their arguments. And also in order for you to take the other person seriously they would have to express their thoughts and ideas with clarity and exactitude, to present clear and concise explanations of concepts, rather than a focus on things that are not directly pertinent. Basically you want good, solid rationales and justifications that are pertinent. This is what you had in mind when you stared that thread about yourself, you seek, expect and feel relaxed by a source of logical certainty.

Not logical certainty, per se, but certainty. Something can be true without it making logical sense to me.

If you want a fairly easy-to-find example of someone who explains things how I prefer, look at Expat when he's explaining something. We may not always agree, but at least I can usually understand him and what he's trying to say. He's clear and thorough and covers all the necessary bases.

You're not bold enough.

I will go all the way and claim that Minde is a clear example of SLE sensory subtype.

I was thinking of suggesting that. It would match the spirit of it all.

lol. Also.. perhaps enneagram type 8 ftw, SLE, massive Se ego and massive ego hehe

So...we're talking Ezra in a female body, right? I can see that too.

So that's why I can get along with Ezra! We're identicals, duh.

You are generally right, and my tone was too facetious. Of course everyone may wrong and "group thinking" is not an argument. But I personally think that, from the evidence that Minde has provided - directly and indirectly - that LSI is all but impossible, and IEI only makes sense if she has presented us with some "facade" which I can't believe it's the case.

If I have a facade, it's either on purpose or not on purpose. To have a purposeful facade would be too tiring for me, personally, to maintain, especially for as much as I've posted. It could also be not-on-purpose, which is possible, I suppose. I'm not exactly the most open and expansive person here; there's a lot that I don't and will never show here - or to anybody, for that matter. Also, I can and often do "adapt" (or attempt to do so) to whoever I'm talking to. I suppose that could be seen as some sort of "facade" - although I try never to lie.

Because what you said suggests huge focus and extremely low focus, so I agree with what Slacker Mom said.

Was that supposed to be or ?

Back to the original case for Minde as ISTj/INFp.

My first question then is this (Te vs Ti): Does she desire the understanding of the system she seeks or desires presented from a methodical, ground-up approach, starting with the ground floor, putting the support beams up, layering the floors one at a time with each floor dependent on the floors below it?

Or rather does she do better in understanding when the entire building structure is presented to her and she explores the details of the building on her own -- making accurate statements about principles on which the building was built and holistically understanding the structure without the need for sequential demonstration (which I interpret as valuing as well)?

My opinion is she prefers the former, a Te > Ti preference.

I generally like some explaining. I can do both ways, but I prefer the former, especially if I can ask questions for confirmation along the way. If it's just an unexplained structure, it can be hard for me to tie it to anything real or concrete or usable or explorable.


...

Ok, sneg, let's see if I have this right:

You say that from your observations of me, which in turn come from your interactions with me, I have a preference for Ti and use it a lot. I am perhaps even Ti-dominant.

You also say that if you were to look at your own writing similarly to how you would anyone else, you also demonstrate a Ti preference.

However, because of your relationships with other people, those who you have determined to be Fe-dominants, you say that you cannot have a preference for Ti.

If I am correct in understanding you so far - can you perhaps see the, hm, incongruence(?) in any staunch (or any at all, for that matter) determination of me as a Ti-preferring type?

[DirectorAbbie]

Please don't. You're still Delta, despite of type change! Screw the rules! ^_~

What?! That's like letting an F join the "Number Club." Rediculous. She can hang around, but she doesn't get a badge.


I'd kinda like to be an Alpha, but I've always been a Delta and I always will be. My favorite part about socionics: It's not supposed to change.

[xyz]

What?! That's like letting an F join the "Number Club." Rediculous. She can hang around, but she doesn't get a badge.


I'd kinda like to be an Alpha, but I've always been a Delta and I always will be. My favorite part about socionics: It's not supposed to change.

Damn skippy.

[strrrng]

Alright, correct me if anything I say here is wrong:

What you seek is for somebody to provide you with a complete, coherent picture of your type built from simple and well-understood parts, for there to be concrete order and structure in their arguments. And also in order for you to take the other person seriously they would have to express their thoughts and ideas with clarity and exactitude, to present clear and concise explanations of concepts, rather than a focus on things that are not directly pertinent. Basically you want good, solid rationales and justifications that are pertinent. This is what you had in mind when you stared that thread about yourself, you seek, expect and feel relaxed by a source of logical certainty.

Are you kidding me? Way to take a statement completely out of context. She simply asked you to provide a reasonable explanation. Then you go on some tangent about how that makes her Ti valuing? You are highly mistaken. Anyone can and should want a logical explanation for claims made by other people. This does not, however, necessarily mean that they want those explanations to be conveyed in a Ti way. Stop making these contrived correlations.

[munenori2]

She simply asked you to provide a reasonable explanation. Then you go on some tangent about how that makes her Ti valuing? You are highly mistaken. Anyone can and should want a logical explanation for claims made by other people. This does not, however, necessarily mean that they want those explanations to be conveyed in a Ti way.

I agree.

[force my hand]

I leave for a few weeks, come back, people change their types.

FWIW, I consider myself Delta, as do a number of this forum's posters.

[The Greeter]

Really? I had not heard that from anyone. Does anyone else think that might be a reason for any supposed Se/Ti-ishness about me?

Not at all. I think any type can adhere to religion.

I can only speak for Christianity, but the idea of forgiving even in circumstances where, say a Se or Se-valuing, would find unforgivable is a trait, and one that is criticized for that matter, of Fi + Ne, right?

Se/Ti would be religious for or at least emphasize different reasons, in my humble opinion.

[UDP]

Why do you say/think that?

Have you been away from the forum for a long time?

[Ezra]

O, hai guise.

and tereg

Everything has to go thru Ezra. If Ezra say's you're a certain type, you can't argue because Ezra = God. Even though he changes his type on a daily basis, he knows everything.

UGH. Get out of delta, Ezra. You're annoying.

Do I? I wasn't aware that I was EII yesterday, or ILE the day before, or SEI the day before that, or EIE the day before that, or ILI the day before that, or ESI the day before that, or IEE the day before that.

UGH. Get off the forum, Nicole. You're annoying.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

and tereg

I was under impression you typed me as delta also

[jessica129]

Do I? I wasn't aware that I was EII yesterday, or ILE the day before, or SEI the day before that, or EIE the day before that, or ILI the day before that, or ESI the day before that, or IEE the day before that.

UGH. Get off the forum, Nicole. You're annoying.

Are you BEEEEEEETA today Ezra?