Why do you think I'm Ethical?

[thePirate]

No. What you've done is ASSUMED that F = values, emotions, relationships and T = logic, intellect (w/e), reasoning

Then you went on and based your typings ON THAT ASSUMPTION.

So you would, in your experience, think F's are better at that shit precisely because its criteria for them being F's!

What? How do you know this is what I've assumed? So because I have thoroughly tested & have found thinkers outmatched in this area, my assumption MUST have been wrong?

How arrogant can you get?

Where the hell did I say that it is what I assumed, anyway?

Can you quote me?

The fact of the matter is Feelers, THOROUGHLY show a MUCH deeper natural understanding of human relationships than feelers as a whole. I could assume that Feelers = logic, intellect, and that thinkers = values, relationships, and it would still be the fucking same!

If the evidence clearly goes another way from a given assumption, that would obviously make said person re-evaluate their hypothesis. Saying I did operate under that assumption, I STILL arived at Feelers being more adept, meaning the evidence did not steer me in a different direction.

Logic and ethics - Wikisocion

Logic / ethics is one of the 4 Jungian type dichotomies. Ethical types have strong ethics (in the ego and id) and weak logic (in the super-ego and super-id), while logical types have strong logic and weak ethics. Ethics (the information elements and ) in socionics is the understanding of the human, social, moral, and emotional content of reality, whereas logic ( and ) is the understanding of the inanimate, measurable, systemic, and procedural content of reality. Hence, logical/ethical types are distinguished by the relative facility with which they understand these aspects of reality.

Seriously, what are you studying?

It sure as hell isn't socionics.

[ArchonAlarion]

What? How do you know this is what I've assumed? So because I have thoroughly tested & have found thinkers outmatched in this area, my assumption MUST have been wrong?

thoroughly tested? you can't just spout shit like that and think im going to have any reason to accept your beliefs based on that.

How arrogant can you get?

You've seen nothing.

Where the hell did I say that it is what I assumed, anyway?

Can you quote me?

What? How do you know this is what I've assumed? So because I have thoroughly tested & have found thinkers outmatched in this area, my assumption MUST have been wrong?

The fact of the matter is Feelers, THOROUGHLY show a MUCH deeper natural understanding of human relationships than feelers as a whole. I could assume that Feelers = logic, intellect, and that thinkers = values, relationships, and it would still be the fucking same!

You have seen people who are good at X and labeled them as F. You have seen people good at Y and labeled them T.

Of course you think F's are good at X!!!! To be an F (iyo) you have to be good at X!

It would make sense if the people you think are F are good at X then wouldn't it????

If the evidence clearly goes another way from a given assumption, that would obviously make said person re-evaluate their hypothesis. Saying I did operate under that assumption, I STILL arived at Feelers being more adept, meaning the evidence did not steer me in a different direction.

The issue is not F's so much as Fe and Fi. I cannot see how you derive these behavioral qualities from internal object dynamics and internal field statics. Tis silly.

Logic and ethics - Wikisocion

Logic / ethics is one of the 4 Jungian type dichotomies. Ethical types have strong ethics (in the ego and id) and weak logic (in the super-ego and super-id), while logical types have strong logic and weak ethics. Ethics (the information elements and ) in socionics is the understanding of the human, social, moral, and emotional content of reality, whereas logic ( and ) is the understanding of the inanimate, measurable, systemic, and procedural content of reality. Hence, logical/ethical types are distinguished by the relative facility with which they understand these aspects of reality.

Seriously, what are you studying?

It sure as hell isn't socionics.

That's not elemental socionics. That's Jungian dichotomy stuff.

People are not F's or N's or T's, etc. They are Fi's and Ti's and Ne's.

What are you studying?

[Creepy-male]

Chill, guys.

"I'm Jake. FUCK. Anyway, here's my point."
"I'm ThePirate. DID YOU JUST FUCKING SWEAR AT ME?! *rage*"
<angry argument>

[Brilliand]

and just to be clear the demonstrated attraction is more Ti than Fe. Fe is internal after all.

Interesting... I hadn't thought of that.

The fact of the matter is Feelers, THOROUGHLY show a MUCH deeper natural understanding of human relationships than feelers as a whole.

Yeah... there are other explanations for this than the assumption, of course; my guess is that you're testing Thinking against precisely -oriented situations, which is not what you will normally have in Merry environments. Of course, if by "relationships" you mean then we're silly to argue with you, but if by "relationships" you mean all connections between multiple people, I have already stated what I know to be true for theoretical reasons.

Your observations have the problem of being a convenience sample, probably of people interacting with a group that you are generally comfortable with, which will indeed select for ; this is not to be considered representative of the usefulness of in all places at all times.

[thePirate]

Interesting... I hadn't thought of that.



Yeah... there are other explanations for this than the assumption, of course; my guess is that you're testing Thinking against precisely -oriented situations, which is not what you will normally have in Merry environments. Of course, if by "relationships" you mean then we're silly to argue with you, but if by "relationships" you mean all connections between multiple people, I have already stated what I know to be true for theoretical reasons.

Your observations have the problem of being a convenience sample, probably of people interacting with a group that you are generally comfortable with, which will indeed select for ; this is not to be considered representative of the usefulness of in all places at all times.

Oh yeah, dude Ive actually agreed with all your posts in this thread. I see a great usefulness for Ti. I also agree that there are Ti/Te types who understand interpersonal dynamics better than Fe/Fi types. However, as a whole, as a generality, I havent seen Ti/Te types to be more adept, to have a naturally deeper understanding in that regard. Thats all Im saying, and that is what archon is mind numbingly retardedly battling against.

[Creepy-male]

Well, Brill, on the flipside of that...

Fi could naturally be better at understanding relationships (in the most general sense of "the connections between people") and the sentiments between people, but Merry types will devalue that aptitude and instead prefer the more explicit domain of Ti (which deals with social boundaries set by agreement, as opposed to Fi's more subjective factors). Even if, to Serious types, it's a clunky (or restrictive) "tool", it's the natural world for Merries.

So, yeah. In the end, I wound up agreeing with you.

[thePirate]

thoroughly tested? you can't just spout shit like that and think im going to have any reason to accept your beliefs based on that.



You've seen nothing.







You have seen people who are good at X and labeled them as F. You have seen people good at Y and labeled them T.

Of course you think F's are good at X!!!! To be an F (iyo) you have to be good at X!

It would make sense if the people you think are F are good at X then wouldn't it????



The issue is not F's so much as Fe and Fi. I cannot see how you derive these behavioral qualities from internal object dynamics and internal field statics. Tis silly.



That's not elemental socionics. That's Jungian dichotomy stuff.

People are not F's or N's or T's, etc. They are Fi's and Ti's and Ne's.

What are you studying?

I dont expect you do anything, but ceasing your ridiculous allegations.

WHY DO YOU KEEP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH? Dude, I know feelers who SUCK at understanding human relations. I never said to be an F you have to be good at F. Where do you keep drawing these conclusions from?

Yes, you can't see where I draw anything from because your not naturally equipped to. Do you not see yourself proving my points?(rhetorical ?)

Right, because jungian dichotomys serve no purpose in socionics. Thats why its on a wiki for socionics. Because it is to be completely disregarded as usless.

[ArchonAlarion]

eh I didn't think i was strawmanning you.

Jung has interesting descriptions for some of the elements, but the mechanics of his functions are different than socionics.

[Creepy-male]

Jung has interesting descriptions for some of the elements, but the mechanics of his functions are different than socionics.

Socionics is still derived from Jung. Socionics still uses dichotomies, and these are referred to as "the Jungian basis".

But seriously, guys. Not in my thread. Go rip chunks out of each other somewhere else.

EDIT

As in, I think ThePirate was referring to the dichotomies, not Jungian functions.

[mu4]

Socionic function strength has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with preference.

It's about how your you prioritize your go-to(Ego) functions.

As far as dichotomies, you can reject Jungian dichotomies all you want, but socionic dichotomies are the basis for compatibility and conflict.

So as far as socionic study, socionic dichotomies exists as theoretical concepts to be studied, 4 of them being termed the jungian dichotomies and originating from Jung's observations, 11 of them hypothesized by reinin producing some initial observations.

Model A, intertype relations simply would not exist without the establishment of dichotomies within socionics.

[krieger]

This is the first "type me" thread from brian that I came across, so I'm just going to post this here.

Gul, I think you are the same type as one of the characters (and his actor) from this video:

Player omroep.nl

(wait through the advert)

The character I'm talking about is the jovial guy of around 30 years old that appears at times: 6:27, 13:25, 31:23, 38:58 and 45:31

If you can't access the video try these:


4:10, 6:20


0:20, 3:46


2:49


I also have a strong opinion on his type: it's ESFj, not ISFp.

See for yourself how relevant this is. I just thought I'd let you know.

[ArchonAlarion]

yeah.

That's why Ti likes lots of demonstrated "attraction" and Fi can deal with subtler "attraction".

and just to be clear the demonstrated attraction is more Ti than Fe. Fe is internal after all.

On reflection I think this is misleading.

Fe is more demonstrative in this way than Ti is.

[UDP]

You keep asking for other people's reasoning. You don't trust yourself or your own logic. You are very relationally focused.

How many threads have you started ASKING other people for their opinion of you?

[Mediator Kam]

On reflection I think this is misleading.

Fe is more demonstrative in this way than Ti is.

IDK, I just want someone I am attracted to to prove that they are attracted to me. Not just by saying it or looking at me in a special way or something.

[UDP]

IDK, I just want someone I am attracted to to prove that they are attracted to me. Not just by saying it or looking at me in a special way or something.

I'd give you a spanking right now, Kam.

[consentingadult]

...This is why I wear glasses...

Definitively ILE.

[Beautiful sky]

How many threads have you started ASKING other people for their opinion of you?

I see that repeated pattern in others too.

[Creepy-male]

Definitively ILE.

Oh?

[consentingadult]

Oh?

Yes!

[Creepy-male]

Yes!

...are you going to explain why?

[consentingadult]

...are you going to explain why?

Why should I, you don't want to be what you are. Besides, in the past I actually have explained it to you.

[Creepy-male]

Why should I, you don't want to be what you are. Besides, in the past I actually have explained it to you.

That's a very cynical attitude. Anyway, I don't even remember you having explained anything to me. Where was this? Link? Thread? Any hints at all?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

That's a very cynical attitude. Anyway, I don't even remember you having explained anything to me. Where was this? Link? Thread? Any hints at all?

I remember him saying you were ILE before, but I don't remember the explanation.

I considered doing a search for you, but then a) remembered you changed your name b) realised that the fact that I can remember more than what you can remember yourself about yourself even when i'm not really paying attention suggests to me you never really listened in first place and that you are still not particularly listening as presumably you could have searched yourself instead you ask the other person to do all the work for you even although you type yourself as SEI you are still asking why people think you are ethical so I suppose the best thing to do here is talk about cynical attitudes because rather than answer the question you are so lazy you just react with a defensive rhetorical mechanism so it's not really about what it says on the label of the tin thread you see you see so I said which has been said before do you remember who said it?

[Creepy-male]

you are still asking why people think you are ethical

No I'm not. This thread just got bumped.

[consentingadult]

That's a very cynical attitude. Anyway, I don't even remember you having explained anything to me. Where was this? Link? Thread? Any hints at all?

A long time ago, it would take ages to find it: but let me repeat it for the record: you are ILE. why so?

You employ lot of Fe, but it's not the kind of Fe as employed by Fe-ego types, since they have control over how they dose it. You on the other hand apply over the top Fe to an annoying extreme in the style of the mobilizing function (thus xLE). I mean, of all attention/recognition seekers, you are by far the most active on this forum in those terms.

The videos where you interact with Isha, clearly show someone with strong EP temperament. Your hyperactivity cannot be explained as SEI or ESE with a mood disorder or something like ADHD. It is very clear from your videos that you have mood shifts, or either genuine or emotional ADHD (the latter being a rationalization of personality pathology), but these can not be used to rationalize why you are an socially extroverted, hyperactive SEI

You are an ILE with too much emphasis on your mobilizing function.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

No I'm not. This thread just got bumped.

Thank you for taking tiny part out of what I said.

How many threads have you started ASKING other people for their opinion of you?

Is what it's about.

You are an attention whore, Fe mobilising. Isha = ISFp? Maybe you really are ENTp.

A long time ago, it would take ages to find it: but let me repeat it for the record: you are ILE. why so?

You employ lot of Fe, but it's not the kind of Fe as employed by Fe-ego types, since they have control over how they dose it. You on the other hand apply over the top Fe to an annoying extreme in the style of the mobilizing function (thus xLE). I mean, of all attention/recognition seekers, you are by far the most active on this forum in those terms.

The videos where you interact with Isha, clearly show someone with strong EP temperament. Your hyperactivity cannot be explained as SEI or ESE with a mood disorder or something like ADHD. It is very clear from your videos that you have mood shifts, or either genuine or emotional ADHD (the latter being a rationalization of personality pathology), but these can not be used to rationalize why you are an socially extroverted, hyperactive SEI

You are an ILE with too much emphasis on your mobilizing function.

Be careful, you're an information element junky.

[consentingadult]

Be careful, you're an information element junky.

Guilty as charged

[Creepy-male]

You are an attention whore, Fe mobilising. Isha = ISFp? Maybe you really are ENTp.

What do you think about Bee? Is she an attention whore? [EDIT: I'm asking because as far as I can gather from having talked to her, she has much of the same underpinning motivations for being what you call an "attention whore".]

Why would you think Isha is ISFp?

but these can not be used to rationalize why you are an socially extroverted, hyperactive SEI

What if I say, how I am on video/giving a performance is very, very different from how I normally am? I'm also not socially extraverted or hyperactive, I think; and despite the fact that there is a distinct possibility I'm deluding myself, I'd like to hear where you got the impression I'm either of these things from. I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just curious

At the moment, I'm somewhat fascinated by how it's seemingly utterly impossible for anyone to type me.

Something else that is also of interest is how I've seen both Ne and Fe ego for me discounted on the grounds that I'm "faking" the elements. So who's right?

EDIT

The videos where you interact with Isha, clearly show someone with strong EP temperament.

How are you defining and diagnosing EP? Energy?

Also, how do you type Isha?

You are an ILE with too much emphasis on your mobilizing function.

This one is non-essential, but I'll ask anyway: why do you believe me to be ILE?

[consentingadult]

What do you think about Bee? Is she an attention whore?

Why would you think Isha is ISFp?



What if I say, how I am on video/giving a performance is very, very different from how I normally am? I'm also not socially extraverted or hyperactive, I think; and despite the fact that there is a distinct possibility I'm deluding myself, I'd like to hear where you got the impression I'm either of these things from. I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just curious

At the moment, I'm somewhat fascinated by how it's seemingly utterly impossible for anyone to type me.

Something else that is also of interest is how I've seen both Ne and Fe ego for me discounted on the grounds that I'm "faking" the elements. So who's right?

Your video could be different from your normal self, but no SEI would be able to do what you did in these videos, or any other video of yours for that matter. In real life there might be people who respond to you appropriately, in which case you don't have to apply attention seeking behaviors. Or it could be that irl people do not respond appropriately, and your behave distanty and socially more introverted. There is no way for us to tell, since we are not part of your real life.

and I know you're not combative, you're just unsure aboutwho you are and how to be yourself.

As to Ne ago, I think it's quite clear that you are, but you don't allow much space for it to come to it's true and authentic form: it's completely overruled by mobilizing Fe.