Sergei Ganin

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If Phaedrus questions seemingly fundamental principles, that have been held to be true (or assumed to be true) by loads of people before him, people question his sanity.

He is probably sane, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yeah, I would probably agree with that - it seems to fit me too .

[Expat]

Not emotivism as such -- in this case is really Te PoLR + Fe.

I know it sounds like the same thing, but it isn't. Emotivism is something that ENTjs and INFps have in common, but for different reasons (the way I see it at least).

[Expat]

Well, I see Emotivism as a specific behavior trait, which, if the concept of "Dichotomy" is to make sense, has to be the same for LIEs and IEIs.

What you're talking about is the difference between accepting Fe and creating Fe. Which, for Fe EJs and Fe IPs, coincides with the difference between construct- and emotion-creating but it's not the same.

[Phaedrus]

I don't think anyone here feels threatened by such a "phenomenon" as you in the slightest.

What you think here is irrelevant. And as I tried to explain to you, what I described is a way of describing what is happening at the group level on this forum. Whether people actually feel anything is of course also irrrelevant.

I do rely on the facts they are telling me. If someone says, for instance, "and I like spending many hours alone fishing", I accept it. But if then the person says "and that is one reason why I am ISFp", then I am careful because I don't know yet if such a conclusion is warranted.

But in some cases you dismiss people's report on what they identify with as unreliable data. And you also sometimes dismiss what they say about their behaviours.

I don't think I have ever seen you use intertype relationships here, nor function analysis beyond a very primitive level, usually on the Ti/Te and Objectivist/Subjectivist thing (which are the same), and perhaps some mentions of . I've never seen you use any other Reinin dichotomy. Perhaps I haven't paid attention, but I'm willing to be corrected if someone agrees with this self-evaluation.

You probably haven't paid enough attention then. I have paid special attention to my relations with ESFjs and ESFps, since so many have thought that I am an INTj. And one thing that I now know with absolute certainty is that I don't have a Dual realation with ESFjs. That fact has emerged as an inevitable consequence of all my encounters with several ESFjs during the years. Two real life ESFjs have contributed more than others in establishing that truth: my ESFj mother, and a female ESFj the same age as I, who was my coworker for a period of about 6 months. They, together with many other ESFjs that I have met from time to time, have given me more than enough empirical data on what my relations with ESFjs are like. And everything in my relations with ESFjs suggest that it is a relation of Conflict.

I haven't interacted with ESFps to the same extent as I have with ESFjs, but I know some examples of that type too, and those parts of my relations with ESFps that I have had a chance to investigate suggest rather strongly that it is a relation of Duality. But to be 100 % sure of that, I would have to spend more time with them on a regular basis. Now I am only about 90 % sure that it is a Duality relation (if you are not allowed to count other sources of information than intertype relations on which type I am).

I have also analyzed my relations with real life ENTjs, and I have known two certain examples of that type for many years. Nothing in our relations suggest that it would be any other type of relation than Mirror.

Besides those considerations, I have mentioned other things, such as the fact that independently of my intertype relations I can tell for sure that I have as PoLR, since my behaviour since early childhood fits the socionic explanations and descriptions of PoLR extremely well, both under normal circumstances and under stress.

I am not going to repeat everything I have said about myself here, since it all comes down to this: every aspect of the types, as those are described in Socionics, screams that I am an ILI. It would be an act of insanity if I would start to question everything in Socionics in order to make it possible for me to be another type. As you have said yourself, sooner or later you reach a point when you just know for sure which type you are. And I have reached the point of no return when it comes to my type. It is simply ridiculous to doubt it. Everything fits, therefore you can't be that type -- what kind of reasoning is that? It doesn't make sense.

So, I know that I am an ILI, according to the criteria you use when you type people, that is according to Socionics. That you don't see that, and make the mistake of believing that I am an INFp, is solely due to the fact that you rely too much on your interpretation, which is incorrect, since I know that I am not an INFp.

You can try to find out where you have made your typing mistake(s), or you can ignore it and stick to your false belief about my type. The choice is yours, and I won't help you find out where you have gone astray -- unless you are genuinely interested in finding the truth here and start to question your assumptions. In that case you are free to ask questions that I will try to answer -- but the moment you start suggesting any other type than INTp, you can kiss my willingness to co-operate good-bye.

[Phaedrus]

I love how the reason Phaedrus is right is because he's right.

I wish I could say that I love how the reason you are wrong because you're wrong. But, I'm sorry, it isn't mutual. The feeling just isn't there.

[Expat]

But in some cases you dismiss people's report on what they identify with as unreliable data.

It depends. If they just say, "I identify with so-and-so description", I would like to k now exactly why.

And you also sometimes dismiss what they say about their behaviours.

If I do that in things like my "fishing" example, then it's either because I've overlooked it, or because I don't see it as relevant to type, or of less importance than other things. Obviously I make mistakes, but I don't recall ever saying to someone, or even implying, "no, I don't believe that you actually spend so much time fishing". If I did, I was wrong.

The choice is yours, and I won't help you find out where you have gone astray -- unless you are genuinely interested in finding the truth here and start to question your assumptions. In that case you are free to ask questions that I will try to answer -- but the moment you start suggesting any other type than INTp, you can kiss my willingness to co-operate good-bye.

You see, I don't buy the notion that "truth" necessarily means "Phaedrus is right about his type". So it's a non-starter, I disagree with the premise on which this proposition is based, and if you recall I haven't had the need to ask anything of you in ages -- you provide enough information without being asked. So, no thanks.

[Expat]

Maybe the descriptions of the Emotivist/Contructivist dichotomy are incomplete, but they don't seem to mention anything about the criteria one uses to determine what is "trustworthy" (there is probably a better word). I don't think all Emotivist types are going to have the same critera, that wouldn't make sense.

Precisely. Which is why what you pointed out is more related to creative Fe rather than Emotivism. I see Emotivist and Constructivism as connected to how the person communicates with others - which is different from the other things you mentioned.

[Expat]

Another thing -- you see, that is the kind of thing that's confusing.

First, Phaedrus makes a broader point including this:

The lonely wolves are seen as some sort of abnormity, and people feel threatened by such phenomena.

In a context implying clearly that Phaedrus is one of such "wolves".

But when I say

I don't think anyone here feels threatened by such a "phenomenon" as you in the slightest.

He says

What you think here is irrelevant. And as I tried to explain to you, what I described is a way of describing what is happening at the group level on this forum. Whether people actually feel anything is of course also irrrelevant.

So, there is a clear contradiction here. He might say that "feel" is just a word, that "feel" in the first quote doesn't have the same meaning as "feel" in the last quote. But is one supposed to just guess exactly what the point is?

Perhaps the point is that people do not consciously feel threatenend, but that is a far cry from saying that whether they feel anything or not is "irrelevant".

Can anytone tell me what I'm missing here?

[Slacker]

That is definitely a logical contradiction. Just the kind of thing I'd do.


He is not ENFp though. Not that I think anyone's arguing that.

Actually, that's beyond even a logical contradiction. he just flat-out contradicts himself.

[Expat]

That is definitely a logical contradiction. Just the kind of thing I'd do.

Do you think so?

I wonder. The kind of stuff that ENFps do is to make statements that, if you try to connect them logically, are contradictory; but they do not contradict themselves with regards to what they are actually saying. I don't see it as quite the same thing.

[Expat]

Actually, that's beyond even a logical contradiction. he just flat-out contradicts himself.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Pretty much the same thing XoX did several times in his type thread.

[Slacker]

Yeah I realized after I typed it that what I do is say, "The sky is blue" and then later I'll say, "It seems like every time I look up the sky has a different color to it." These two things are logically contradictory, but to me they don't contradict each other at all.

But what he did is more like, "The sky is blue" and then later he said, "The sky is NOT blue." Directly contradictory.

[Creepy-bg]

Yeah I realized after I typed it that what I do is say, "The sky is blue" and then later I'll say, "It seems like every time I look up the sky has a different color to it." These two things are logically contradictory, but to me they don't contradict each other at all.

But what he did is more like, "The sky is blue" and then later he said, "The sky is NOT blue." Directly contradictory.

I thought what he did was more like saying "I say the sky is blue." then later he said "It is irrelevant what color people say the sky is."

[XoX]

Actually, that's beyond even a logical contradiction. he just flat-out contradicts himself.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Pretty much the same thing XoX did several times in his type thread.

Umm..what way is that? I don't want you to dig up zillion real world examples but instead demonstrate the concept of "contradicting beyond logical contradiction" with an example or something because this interests me. And also I'm interested how me and Phaedrus are similar in this. I mean Phaedrus and I have completely different approaches to e.g. typing where he "stubbornly" insists he is INTp and I instead have made cases of being who knows what types (INTp being one of them). So at least there is some difference between us in regarding to consistency.

[Slacker]

Yeah I realized after I typed it that what I do is say, "The sky is blue" and then later I'll say, "It seems like every time I look up the sky has a different color to it." These two things are logically contradictory, but to me they don't contradict each other at all.

But what he did is more like, "The sky is blue" and then later he said, "The sky is NOT blue." Directly contradictory.

I thought what he did was more like saying "I say the sky is blue." then later he said "It is irrelevant what color people say the sky is."

Oh yeah, that's much better!

[Expat]

Umm..what way is that? I don't want you to dig up zillion real world examples but instead demonstrate the concept of "contradicting beyond logical contradiction" with an example or something because this interests me. And also I'm interested how me and Phaedrus are similar in this.

Perhaps it's also different. What you did, several times, was to say "no, I never said that" when I quoted to you what you had said, in your very words, just one page before. It wasn't a question of, "I did say that, but in that context I meant something else" - no, you said "I never said that" or, more annoyingly, "why are you saying that I said that" or whatever; and you said yourself that you often said things you didn't really mean, without knowing why.

And don't make me dig that up in that thread.

I mean Phaedrus and I have completely different approaches to e.g. typing where he "stubbornly" insists he is INTp and I instead have made cases of being who knows what types (INTp being one of them). So at least there is some difference between us in regarding to consistency.

I agree with that, but there is a very major difference between you two -- you don't really care about being one type or the other. You have invested not nearly as much interest, time, thought, and emotion on this stuff as he has. Perhaps in things or ideas that you really care deeply about, and that are a core of your being - perhaps religion, I neither know nor do I care - it would be more visible. That's just a suggestion, though.

[XoX]

Yeah I realized after I typed it that what I do is say, "The sky is blue" and then later I'll say, "It seems like every time I look up the sky has a different color to it." These two things are logically contradictory, but to me they don't contradict each other at all.

But what he did is more like, "The sky is blue" and then later he said, "The sky is NOT blue." Directly contradictory.

I thought what he did was more like saying "I say the sky is blue." then later he said "It is irrelevant what color people say the sky is."

These are interestingly different cases. I understand how Slacker Mom's comment is logically contradictory and actually that kind of comments confuse me a lot (Ti>Fi preference?). I stop thinking "umm..what does she exactly mean? Is the sky blue or isn't it?".

However a case where someone claims "The sky is blue" and then some time later "The sky is NOT blue" is very exact way to put your thoughts and I can follow that easily. It means the person first evaluated the sky to be blue. Then at a later point after receiving new information evaluated the sky NOT to be blue after all. At any point of time the conclusion is clear and exact but it is not consistent between different time frames.

Bionic Goat's case is a bit different yes. There you form an exact opinion about the color of the sky. Perhaps use that to make some argument. Then after a while you see that it is not very important thing after all and dismiss it as totally irrelevant.

[Expat]

However a case where someone claims "The sky is blue" and then some time later "The sky is NOT blue" is very exact way to put your thoughts and I can follow that easily. It means the person first evaluated the sky to be blue. Then at a later point after receiving new information evaluated the sky NOT to be blue after all. At any point of time the conclusion is clear and exact but it is not consistent between different time frames.

Bionic Goat's case is a bit different yes. There you form an exact opinion about the color of the sky. Perhaps use that to make some argument. Then after a while you see that it is not very important thing after all and dismiss it as totally irrelevant.

That is not bad if, in this process, you can say something like "yeah I thought that for a while, but I was wrong, actually I thought of something else that made me think that -- " etc etc. But that is not what we're talking about.

[Slacker]

However a case where someone claims "The sky is blue" and then some time later "The sky is NOT blue" is very exact way to put your thoughts and I can follow that easily. It means the person first evaluated the sky to be blue. Then at a later point after receiving new information evaluated the sky NOT to be blue after all. At any point of time the conclusion is clear and exact but it is not consistent between different time frames.

Bionic Goat's case is a bit different yes. There you form an exact opinion about the color of the sky. Perhaps use that to make some argument. Then after a while you see that it is not very important thing after all and dismiss it as totally irrelevant.

That is not bad if, in this process, you can say something like "yeah I thought that for a while, but I was wrong, actually I thought of something else that made me think that -- " etc etc. But that is not what we're talking about.

Yeah. And let's all sit and think if we can imagine Phaedrus ever saying, "Yeah I thought about that for a while, but I was wrong."



Somehow, I don't think that's what was going on with him.

[Creepy-bg]

However a case where someone claims "The sky is blue" and then some time later "The sky is NOT blue" is very exact way to put your thoughts and I can follow that easily. It means the person first evaluated the sky to be blue. Then at a later point after receiving new information evaluated the sky NOT to be blue after all. At any point of time the conclusion is clear and exact but it is not consistent between different time frames.

Bionic Goat's case is a bit different yes. There you form an exact opinion about the color of the sky. Perhaps use that to make some argument. Then after a while you see that it is not very important thing after all and dismiss it as totally irrelevant.

That is not bad if, in this process, you can say something like "yeah I thought that for a while, but I was wrong, actually I thought of something else that made me think that -- " etc etc. But that is not what we're talking about.

Yeah. And let's all sit and think if we can imagine Phaedrus ever saying, "Yeah I thought about that for a while, but I was wrong."



Somehow, I don't think that's what was going on with him.

true that

[XoX]

Umm..what way is that? I don't want you to dig up zillion real world examples but instead demonstrate the concept of "contradicting beyond logical contradiction" with an example or something because this interests me. And also I'm interested how me and Phaedrus are similar in this.

Perhaps it's also different. What you did, several times, was to say "no, I never said that" when I quoted to you what you had said, in your very words, just one page before. It wasn't a question of, "I did say that, but in that context I meant something else" - no, you said "I never said that" or, more annoyingly, "why are you saying that I said that" or whatever; and you said yourself that you often said things you didn't really mean, without knowing why.

And don't make me dig that up in that thread.

In that case the thinking is a bit difficult to follow but it goes something like this: First I say "I am X". Then you say "If you are X it means that you are also Y so in essence you just said you are Y". But I realise I am not at all Y and I say "I am not X (because I couldn't be if that implies Y which I'm clearly not)". Then you say "Here is a quote where you say you are X". Then I say "But I didn't mean I am X (because I couldn't have meant it since that would imply that I'm Y which I am not so I must have had meant something else). I am Z instead (which doesn't imply Y)". And you say: "But you said you are X not Z". Then I say "I didn't say I am X (which is to be understood in this context as in I technically said X but I didn't mean I am X so in a way I didn't _say_ it, umm)". And then you go "But you didn't say Z you said X". And then I go "Why you keep bringing it up because I am not X I am Z".

Hmm. Is this roughly the kind of scenario which we are talking about? The bottom line being that in my opinion my initial wording should not be brought up because I have already rephrased that and I see no reason bringing it up anymore. It doesn't have any meaning to me anymore because it was somehow flawed to begin with and still you stubbornly keep quoting it and making it somehow a central piece of the whole argument which doesn't help us make progress.

I mean Phaedrus and I have completely different approaches to e.g. typing where he "stubbornly" insists he is INTp and I instead have made cases of being who knows what types (INTp being one of them). So at least there is some difference between us in regarding to consistency.

I agree with that, but there is a very major difference between you two -- you don't really care about being one type or the other. You have invested not nearly as much interest, time, thought, and emotion on this stuff as he has. Perhaps in things or ideas that you really care deeply about, and that are a core of your being - perhaps religion, I neither know nor do I care - it would be more visible. That's just a suggestion, though.

There might be things which I hold that high. However I would unlikely try to convince other people of those same things using arguments like he is. Let's take e.g. religion (or rather "faith" as I don't consider myself to be that religious). I wouldn't try to convince others that they should see things the way I do. Even if I could softly (ok sometimes not so softly) suggest it I would never insist it as it would be pointless (I would quite long "insist" it inside my head but not out in the open). I like it when other people see things my way but if they don't it is not my problem really. And I can coexist with these people easily and be friends with them under most conditions. So there is a difference imho. One more difference is that he talks much more with absolutes and I talk with probabilities. Which is why I am way less determined. I always admit there is a probability that I am wrong. Which is a good and a bad thing (as that is why I eventually keep dismissing my typings as in the end I concentrate too much on why I might be wrong).

Edit:
This said we can be of the same type of course. I just doubt it a bit. I can follow his thought processes well though so we do share some kind of "functional value" similarities. However I cannot verify whether he is or isn't INTp.

[Expat]

In that case the thinking is a bit difficult to follow but it goes something like this: First I say "I am X". Then you say "If you are X it means that you are also Y so in essence you just said you are Y". But I realise I am not at all Y and I say "I am not X (because I couldn't be if that implies Y which I'm clearly not)". Then you say "Here is a quote where you say you are X". Then I say "But I didn't mean I am X (because I couldn't have meant it since that would imply that I'm Y which I am not so I must have had meant something else). I am Z instead (which doesn't imply Y)". And you say: "But you said you are X not Z". Then I say "I didn't say I am X (which is to be understood in this context as in I technically said X but I didn't mean I am X so in a way I didn't _say_ it, umm)". And then you go "But you didn't say Z you said X". And then I go "Why you keep bringing it up because I am not X I am Z".

Hmm. Is this roughly the kind of scenario which we are talking about? The bottom line being that in my opinion my initial wording should not be brought up because I have already rephrased that and I see no reason bringing it up anymore. It doesn't have any meaning to me anymore because it was somehow flawed to begin with and still you stubbornly keep quoting it and making it somehow a central piece of the whole argument which doesn't help us make progress.

Not quite. The scenario I'm talking about would be more like, "why are you even saying I said was X? I never said that, don't put words in my mouth" - that is, you seemingly not even recognizing that at one point you had said it - and not once, as in a off-the-cuff comment, but over several posts making the case "yeah, I am X because of this and that".

Also, "I am X" as a description is misleading, because what I'm talking about was more complex than that.

[Phaedrus]

It's certainly possible.

No, it isn't.

[Phaedrus]

Every person who thinks that Ganin is not an INTj is an idiot.