Sergei Ganin

[Expat]

If you really want to relive this, just read through this thread again.

Yeah ... Thanks for reminding me. That was fun!

Then you're a masochist.

[Gilly]

That was rather demeaning...



...for the masochists.

[Phaedrus]

INTps and INTjs - like all quasi-identicals - have superficial similiarities, but what makes them tick differently is very clear and explained by socionics. By droning on and on and on about a supposed mess, sustained by relying on MBTI descriptions, which muddle the issue rather than make it clear, you have called attention to a problem that only exists to those who don't understand socionics, as you don't.

As I have explained, it was precisely the superficial similarity between quasi-identicals - but with very real inner differences, as demonstrated by the relationships - that led Augusta to even think about types. What you've been trying to do is to unnecessarily re-invent the wheel.

We don't disagree with anything here -- except that you are an idiot when you repeatedly state that I don't understand socionics, and that Augusta knew about the types before she started to investigate the relationships between them. It is necessary to keep coming back to the differences between INTps and INTjs -- and many have done that except me, for example Jonathan and other insightful people on this forum -- because people don't understand the difference. Since you are better than I am at explaining things in a way that people can understand and accept, I think you should explain that to them once and for all, so that they stop insisting that what I say about those types is wrong.

[Expat]

No one, ever, under any circumstances, can get away with saying "I am right because if you don't agree with me then you're wrong".

Until you understand that, no one will take you seriously. Just saying.

I know that people tend to think that way, but I don't care much about it, since such considerations are irrelevant. If people are not interested in the truth, they should do something else than participate in these discussions. My only concern is telling the truth -- you can listen to it, or you can ignore it. The choice is yours.

You see, here's your big contradiction - or if not a contradiction, then a sign of -- something.

How do you solve it?

In both your and UDP's cases, you have raised the flag of "if you question my stated type, you are being disrespectful, so I don't want you to question it" (which is a huge argument, btw).

So you want people to keep their mouths shut if they are going to disagree with you on your type.

And yet you say

If people are not interested in the truth, they should do something else than participate in these discussions. My only concern is telling the truth -- you can listen to it, or you can ignore it.

So why does that apply to others when they are telling what they think to you - ie disagreeing about your type - but it does not apply to you when saying what you think to others? Then it's "you can listen to it, or you can ignore it"? That is fine, but why doesn't that apply to yourself when hearing what you don't like?

Or is it because you actually mean what you say with "truth"? You can say whatever you want because you're telling the truth, the others have to shut up because they're not? Is that it?

[Logos]

^^^^^^
Above is serious business!

Aggressive use of at the bottom.

[Phaedrus]

No one, ever, under any circumstances, can get away with saying "I am right because if you don't agree with me then you're wrong".

Until you understand that, no one will take you seriously. Just saying.

I know that people tend to think that way, but I don't care much about it, since such considerations are irrelevant. If people are not interested in the truth, they should do something else than participate in these discussions. My only concern is telling the truth -- you can listen to it, or you can ignore it. The choice is yours.

You see, here's your big contradiction - or if not a contradiction, then a sign of -- something.

How do you solve it?

In both your and UDP's cases, you have raised the flag of "if you question my stated type, you are being disrespectful, so I don't want you to question it" (which is a huge argument, btw).

So you want people to keep their mouths shut if they are going to disagree with you on your type.

And yet you say

If people are not interested in the truth, they should do something else than participate in these discussions. My only concern is telling the truth -- you can listen to it, or you can ignore it.

So why does that apply to others when they are telling what they think to you - ie disagreeing about your type - but it does not apply to you when saying what you think to others? Then it's "you can listen to it, or you can ignore it"? That is fine, but why doesn't that apply to yourself when hearing what you don't like?

Or is it because you actually mean what you say with "truth"? You can say whatever you want because you're telling the truth, the others have to shut up because they're not? Is that it?

I really don't understand why you don't understand this. I can make a new try to explain it, but I suspect that you probably won't see what I mean anyway. But if you are interested in the truth you might want to at least try to understand it, and not dismissing in the way you have been doing lately.

1. It is disrespectful to question someone's type for the wrong reasons. It is disrespectful to implicitly accusing someone (like UDP and me) of either lying or being so totally confused about everything that they don't understand anything about themselves and their type. That's what people have been doing in UDP's and my case. And that only leads to the result that we have reason to consider those people stupid and really not worthy of having a discussion with, since they are obviously not interested in a serious discussion in order to find the truth.

2. It all comes down to whether you are interested in finding the objective truth or not. I wish that everyone would be interested in that, but that is clearly not the case.

If people were interested in the truth they would seriously consider my arguments without assuming that I must be wrong, and not dismissing them on the grounds that they contradict what their subjective impressions are telling them about my type (or someone else's, like UDP's). They would check the references, and consult the sources of information upon which I (and others) are building their arguments.

But that rarely happens. Instead they stick to their beliefs, and they don't question their assumptions. An example of that is Slacker Mom's instistence that I am most likely an ISTj. She is not the only one guilty of such behaviour -- it is a general phenomenon on this forum, and many more people are to blame for it -- but it is still one of the most idiotic and repulsive things you can do.

I say that I am not an ISTj, I argue for it. I say that I am instead an INTp, and I argue for that. But what happens? People like Slacker Mom refuse to listen, they refuse to learn anything -- they just stick to their belief, and when I try to show why such a belief is false, a common counter argument is that I don't know anything about socionics and that many other people on this forum happen to think that I am not an INTp, so therefore I can't be an INTp.

Is it then so difficult to understand why it is a natural thing for people like me, UDP, and others in similar situations, to think that many people are idiots?

[Rocky]

1. It is disrespectful to question someone's type for the wrong reasons. It is disrespectful to implicitly accusing someone (like UDP and me) of either lying or being so totally confused about everything that they don't understand anything about themselves and their type. That's what people have been doing in UDP's and my case. And that only leads to the result that we have reason to consider those people stupid and really not worthy of having a discussion with, since they are obviously not interested in a serious discussion in order to find the truth.

2. It all comes down to whether you are interested in finding the objective truth or not. I wish that everyone would be interested in that, but that is clearly not the case.

If people were interested in the truth they would seriously consider my arguments without assuming that I must be wrong, and not dismissing them on the grounds that they contradict what their subjective impressions are telling them about my type (or someone else's, like UDP's). They would check the references, and consult the sources of information upon which I (and others) are building their arguments.

But that rarely happens. Instead they stick to their beliefs, and they don't question their assumptions. An example of that is Slacker Mom's instistence that I am most likely an ISTj. She is not the only one guilty of such behaviour -- it is a general phenomenon on this forum, and many more people are to blame for it -- but it is still one of the most idiotic and repulsive things you can do.

I say that I am not an ISTj, I argue for it. I say that I am instead an INTp, and I argue for that. But what happens? People like Slacker Mom refuse to listen, they refuse to learn anything -- they just stick to their belief, and when I try to show why such a belief is false, a common counter argument is that I don't know anything about socionics and that many other people on this forum happen to think that I am not an INTp, so therefore I can't be an INTp.

Is it then so difficult to understand why it is a natural thing for people like me, UDP, and others in similar situations, to think that many people are idiots?

You still don't get it, so I'll remind you;

I'll say what I said before, that you need some criteria to have a group of something. A group is a bunch of things related in some way. Before you can have a group, you have to decided what things it is that seperates them. It is not as obvious as just "seeing" things and knowing.

For example, are dogs and buffalo the same "thing" or different "thing"? Well, they're the same in that they are both mammals; the both have brains, lungs, hearts, mammalian reproductive organs, two eyes, and on and on. But then they have a bunch of physical characteristics that also put them in different groups; one a bovine and the other a canine. See? If you name criteria for one thing, they are the same, with different criteria, they are different.

You seem to think that people are all inheriently different in some way, and you group them some how, yet you don't even know what the differences are? How is that possible? It isn't. You can't seem to accept that maybe your criteria for grouping people is different from others. You can't get over the fact that other people "see" different things to you, and may group people into types differently. But at the same time critizing them for grouping people wrong. WTH happened?

Don't bother responded to this if you're just going to say "but I know there are certain types that exist blah blah blah" because then you don't get it. So if you're thinking that, just shut up. If you can't get over a simple concept like this, then there's really no point in arguing anymore.

I'm going to keep on pointing you to that thread until you get it. Read through that whole thread over and over again. I'm very proud in how it unfolded. As I said before, if you can't understand this much, then you can't understand anything about any typology related subject.

[Creepy-bg]

[Creepy-bg]

it's a picture of Sergei Genin made out of information elements and penises

[Creepy-bg]

I know looks like shit... I didn't know how to use the software when I made that one... Jung turned out much better



this is the one I was most proud of that I made for Mcnew but he didn't like it

[Creepy-bg]

this is the one I was most proud of that I made for Mcnew but he didn't like it

I like it.

thanks

[Rocky]

it's a picture of Sergei Genin made out of information elements and penises

I knew it was Ganin right away.

[Logos]

this is the one I was most proud of that I made for Mcnew but he didn't like it

Why didn't he like it?

[Creepy-bg]

I think it was something about having to change the color schemes and about to be making a whole new format and website (this was before the practicalabundance.com thing)... I'm not really sure to tell the truth. I sort of felt like I got the cold shoulder when I thought this was a great new banner for the 16t website that jazzed it up and added some color... I was kind of hurt to tell the truth *sniff*

anyways... lol

Personally- I like it and think he should have used it!

[Expat]

@Phaedrus

First, I'm not sure that UDP wants to be associated with you in this discussion, especially when you suggest that he thinks that those who disagree with him are idiots. He hasn't said so. So to use him as your "ally" is ungentlemanly, to say the least - unless he has agreed, in which case I will be disappointed in him, fwiw.

1. It is disrespectful to question someone's type for the wrong reasons.

and .

It is disrespectful to implicitly accusing someone (like UDP and me) of either lying or being so totally confused about everything that they don't understand anything about themselves and their type. That's what people have been doing in UDP's and my case.

People disagree with you on the understanding of socionics. If they disagree on that, they have good reason to disagree on your typings, of yourself and others. You want to understand that as "being confused about everything", fine. But that does not imply accusations of "lying" in any way.

And that only leads to the result that we have reason to consider those people stupid and really not worthy of having a discussion with, since they are obviously not interested in a serious discussion in order to find the truth.

What you're saying is that a "serious discussion" cannot include questioning your type due to what YOU call "the wrong reasons". So any "serious discussion" already has to be limited to your terms? You'll never get any far with that.

If people were interested in the truth they would seriously consider my arguments without assuming that I must be wrong,

That is your unwarranted assumption. I can't speak for everyone, but people don't "assume" that you must be wrong. They conclude that you are wrong - in their opinion - from the kind of argument and premises that you base them on.

Stop playing such a victim, please (not in socionics terms).

and not dismissing them on the grounds that they contradict what their subjective impressions are telling them about
my type (or someone else's, like UDP's). They would check the references, and consult the sources of information upon which I (and others) are building their arguments.

The issue is that your favorite "sources of information", like Keirsey descriptions or that by Paul James, are not seen as relevant for a socionics case. That is why people disagree with your arguments, or even dismiss them.

And for someone to spot a functional use in someone else is as good a valid argumentation as any. Slacker Mom thinks she sees intense use of in you. For her, that's a reason to see you as a type. She's not the only one to say that as you well know. She may be wrong. So? The problem is your taking it as "disrespectful". That is your issue, not hers or anyone else's.

But that rarely happens. Instead they stick to their beliefs, and they don't question their assumptions. An example of that is Slacker Mom's instistence that I am most likely an ISTj. She is not the only one guilty of such behaviour -- it is a general phenomenon on this forum, and many more people are to blame for it -- but it is still one of the most idiotic and repulsive things you can do.

I say that I am not an ISTj, I argue for it. I say that I am instead an INTp, and I argue for that. But what happens? People like Slacker Mom refuse to listen, they refuse to learn anything -- they just stick to their belief,

No. She and others simply don't see your arguments as valid for socionics. That is what happens. You are the one sticking to your belief that your own form of typology is identical to socionics. Only it isn't.

If people read what you write, and see that your interpretation of socionics is different from theirs, it is simply logical to conclude that your own interpretation of what makes someone an "INTp" is different from theirs, too.

and when I try to show why such a belief is false, a common counter argument is that I don't know anything about socionics and that many other people on this forum happen to think that I am not an INTp, so therefore I can't be an INTp.

Because the arguments that you use to show "why such a belief is false" are not socionics ones. That is what happens.

Is it then so difficult to understand why it is a natural thing for people like me, UDP, and others in similar situations, to think that many people are idiots?

You may think that anyone you like is an idiot. But don't expect then that your arguments based on being "disrespectful" are going to have any weight at all with anyone.

[Logos]

And for someone to spot a functional use in someone else is as good a valid argumentation as any. Slacker Mom thinks she sees intense use of in you. For her, that's a reason to see you as a type. She's not the only one to say that as you well know. She may be wrong. So? The problem is your taking it as "disrespectful". That is your issue, not hers or anyone else's.

But part of the problem is that he uses in ways that clearly rub even -dominants the wrong way. Slacker Mom may see intense , but that does not necessarily mean that -dominants see it.

[Expat]

I know, at no point did I say that Slacker Mom was necessarily right. FWIW I think she's wrong about ISTj. My point - that will surely be lost on Phaedrus - is that to spot a functional use on someone else is a perfectly legitimate way of typing someone. Which is not to say it will always be right.

[Logos]

I know, at no point did I say that Slacker Mom was necessarily right.

I know, I was attempting to supplement your post.

FWIW I think she's wrong about ISTj.

Still suspect INFp? It would explain a simultaneous -value, while still be weak in his use of it.

My point - that will surely be lost on Phaedrus - is that to spot a functional use on someone else is a perfectly legitimate way of typing someone. Which is not to say it will always be right.

It may not always be right, but can be a potential indicator of something at least.

[Expat]

But part of the problem is that he uses in ways that clearly rub even -dominants the wrong way. Slacker Mom may see intense , but that does not necessarily mean that -dominants see it.

Well that would be an interesting way of typing. A PoLR person thinks she sees excessive . dominants (and demonstrative and creative, for that matter) think they see crappy . Shall we go for the average in such cases?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think that banner is yabber dabber doo.

[Logos]

But part of the problem is that he uses in ways that clearly rub even -dominants the wrong way. Slacker Mom may see intense , but that does not necessarily mean that -dominants see it.

Well that would be an interesting way of typing. A PoLR person thinks she sees excessive . dominants (and demonstrative and creative, for that matter) think they see crappy . Shall we go for the average in such cases?

It would probably indicate X-function valuing, but of a type in which X-function was not present in the primary, creative, or demonstrative positions.

[Creepy-bg]

I think that banner is yabber dabber doo.

thanks man (I think... )

[Logos]

I think that banner is yabber dabber doo.

thanks man (I think... )

You should use the image anyway in your signature.

[Creepy-bg]

yeah... maybe I'll use it as the link for this forum on the other three I've already got down there (I can't add anymore to my sig because of the size restrictions... I wanted to do wikisocion and hugo's forum too)

[Not A Communist Shill]

yeah... maybe I'll use it as the link for this forum on the other three I've already got down there (I can't add anymore to my sig because of the size restrictions... I wanted to do wikisocion and hugo's forum too)

Forum-whore.

[Creepy-bg]

yeah... maybe I'll use it as the link for this forum on the other three I've already got down there (I can't add anymore to my sig because of the size restrictions... I wanted to do wikisocion and hugo's forum too)

Forum-whore.

fuck yeah... I've so infected all these places with the forum-AIDS. all yer dicks are gunna fall off by the end of the year, just watch.

[Phaedrus]

@Phaedrus

First, I'm not sure that UDP wants to be associated with you in this discussion, especially when you suggest that he thinks that those who disagree with him are idiots. He hasn't said so.

I know that he hasn't said so, and neither have I suggested that he thinks so. I have said that it is a natural thing for him and me to think so, but that statement does not imply that any of us actually do it.

So to use him as your "ally" is ungentlemanly, to say the least - unless he has agreed, in which case I will be disappointed in him, fwiw.

Bullshit again. I don't care whether he sees me as his ally or not, and neither do I need his agreement to say what I have said. I have made a general statement about people's conduct, and they have treated UDP badly, that is the truth. And I will state the truth whenever I want regardless of anyone's authorization.

1. It is disrespectful to question someone's type for the wrong reasons.

and .

Who cares which functions are in use? What's your point?

People disagree with you on the understanding of socionics. If they disagree on that, they have good reason to disagree on your typings, of yourself and others.

No, they haven't. Because what is, and what isn't, a good reason is independent of what they do. Reasons are objectively good or bad, and in this case their reasons for disagreeing with me are objectivly bad.

What you're saying is that a "serious discussion" cannot include questioning your type due to what YOU call "the wrong reasons". So any "serious discussion" already has to be limited to your terms? You'll never get any far with that.

So what? If they are so stupid that they think that I am most likely not an an INTp, then that's their problem. Why waste any time on trying to convince them, when they are not interested in the truth anyway?

If people were interested in the truth they would seriously consider my arguments without assuming that I must be wrong,

That is your unwarranted assumption. I can't speak for everyone, but people don't "assume" that you must be wrong. They conclude that you are wrong - in their opinion - from the kind of argument and premises that you base them on.

Which proves that they are idiots, as I said. They are ignorant, and they can't think logically.

Stop playing such a victim, please (not in socionics terms).

You have a funny way of misunderstanding INTps, Expat. But you are probably not aware of the fact that you often tend to misinterpret the motives behind our actions.

You are the one sticking to your belief that your own form of typology is identical to socionics. Only it isn't.

This statement of yours, and one that you made in Gilly's recent thread, is revealing. I hadn't realized before that you had misunderstood me that way. I have never meant to say that my "form of typology" is identical to socionics. Why would I think that? Of course it isn't. What I say about the types is a discovery, it is what you will see if you adopt a meta-perspective from which you analyze more than one model simultaneously. Socionics is only one of many models that have something true to say about the types (which are independent of any model). That socionics happens to be better than the other models is quite another matter -- that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't learn anything from the other models. It happens to be a fact that the ABCD = ABCd hypothesis is true, but that fact is not stated in socionics. It is, however, something that can be inferred if we compare socionics with MBTT and Keirsey.

If people read what you write, and see that your interpretation of socionics is different from theirs, it is simply logical to conclude that your own interpretation of what makes someone an "INTp" is different from theirs, too.

They may think what they want, but my interpretation of what makes someone an INTp is no different from yours.

Because the arguments that you use to show "why such a belief is false" are not socionics ones. That is what happens.

Are you kidding!? The only difference is that I haven't always used a functional language to describe my intertype relations, my behaviours, and my attitudes. It is definitely the same type of arguments that everyone else uses on this forum, so don't talk such crap.

You may think that anyone you like is an idiot. But don't expect then that your arguments based on being "disrespectful" are going to have any weight at all with anyone.

Do you really think that I have expected that for a minute? In that case you are immensely naive.

[Expat]

I will limit myself to essential points - my not addressing an issue does not mean that I agree with the last statement made.

That is your unwarranted assumption. I can't speak for everyone, but people don't "assume" that you must be wrong. They conclude that you are wrong - in their opinion - from the kind of argument and premises that you base them on.

Which proves that they are idiots, as I said. They are ignorant, and they can't think logically.

Again the "if you disagree with me you are necessarily ignorant and idiot" argument? That's all it comes down to, lately, isn't it?

You are the one sticking to your belief that your own form of typology is identical to socionics. Only it isn't.

This statement of yours, and one that you made in Gilly's recent thread, is revealing. I hadn't realized before that you had misunderstood me that way. I have never meant to say that my "form of typology" is identical to socionics. Why would I think that? Of course it isn't. What I say about the types is a discovery, it is what you will see if you adopt a meta-perspective from which you analyze more than one model simultaneously. Socionics is only one of many models that have something true to say about the types (which are independent of any model). That socionics happens to be better than the other models is quite another matter -- that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't learn anything from the other models. It happens to be a fact that the ABCD = ABCd hypothesis is true, but that fact is not stated in socionics. It is, however, something that can be inferred if we compare socionics with MBTT and Keirsey.

Precisely what you have outlined above is what I meant when I said "your typology". I totally understood it, and I disagree with it.

We already discussed this elsewhere, but more for the sake of others than of yours I will make the point again. Yes, that people exist in different types is almost certainly a fact. However, different systems - including here MBTT, Keirsey, socionics - draw the precise lines separating them differently. Even people who recognize just one of these systems disagree in that. To repeat, as you constantly do and will, that it doesn't matter because the types "exist" no matter what we call them or how we arrive them, is to miss the point totally.

And I am sure you will continue to miss it.

If people read what you write, and see that your interpretation of socionics is different from theirs, it is simply logical to conclude that your own interpretation of what makes someone an "INTp" is different from theirs, too.

They may think what they want, but my interpretation of what makes someone an INTp is no different from yours.

Of course it is different. More on that below.

Because the arguments that you use to show "why such a belief is false" are not socionics ones. That is what happens.

Are you kidding!? The only difference is that I haven't always used a functional language to describe my intertype relations, my behaviours, and my attitudes. It is definitely the same type of arguments that everyone else uses on this forum, so don't talk such crap.

This is one of the most absurd statements I have ever read. Why is it then that almost nobody here will agree with it? It goes far beyond the "language". It has to do with drawing the precise lines between the types, the criteria (no, not the theory, Phaedrus) - precisely what you always say it's "irrelevant".

As for what makes an INTp, as I indicated previously, and as can be deduced from my recent discussions with Logos, I think that INFp is a much more likely type than INTp for you.

Reasons:

- your PoLR is almost certainly . That is precisely what you keep dismissing as irrelevant, or explaining away: external data that contradict your already-held views, the conscious use of criteria before even beginning to type someone, and an inclination to essentially make statements that take no account of what you just previously said in terms of factual accuracy. Which is more like blocked with .

- your approach to typing, as per your own words, is fully + : "you begin to see a pattern" -- so you just "know" you are seeing the types, but without even having to know why. That's one of the clearest defenses of + with contempt for that I've ever heard.

- your sensitivity to (something that a true INTp, like niffweed17, does not even think about), but which appears mainly when you're really agitated, when you begin to use arguments such as these:

"this is disrespectful"
"I don't want you to question my type. Why would you question my type if not to insult me?"
"it's difficult for anyone in this forum to get accepted as INTp"
"look at your emotional state, you can't think objectively"
"dare we ask what you really think of INFps and ISFps"

Etc etc etc (these are just off the top of my head, there are lots of other examples).

- and, as most people have noticed, you clearly prefer over . Only it's a poor use of it, enough to get in the nerves of persons with PoLR like Slacker Mom, but also with flaws that are obvious to those who have it as ego or id function.

Finally, assuming that I am ENTj - and you have so far always agreed that I am, even to the point of saying I should be used as template - I ask you (and everyone else) this:

- are our interactions more similar to mirror or supervision?

If you decide to argue this - are you going to actually argue for mirror, or just quote someone's description of mirror relationships as if that explained everything?

[Phaedrus]

Again the "if you disagree with me you are necessarily ignorant and idiot" argument? That's all it comes down to, lately, isn't it?

It's not an argument. It's a statement about a belief that is likely true. And that it has come down to this lately is not so surprising, is it? You can learn a lot about typical animal flock behaviour if you study how people act on this forum. Think of the different roles we have in this, think about who are following the herd, who are the group leaders, and who are the lonely wolfs attacking those leaders and, occasionally, some weak prey at the periphery of the crowd. Think of how your role at the top of the hierarchy is different from the roles of other "guardians" lower in rank in the hierarchy, think of how your behaviours are different. Those lower ranked guardians are not as sophisticated as the top leader. Some of them are nothing but followers, and their role is to keep the group together by rather lamely "participate" when the more aggressive and tough guardians do the dirty work of attacking the lonely wolves that are seen as a threat to the group. Think of how questions of right or wrong, true or false, in an objective sense become irrelevant, and that the focus is much more on how to keep the group intact and ensure its existence by making everyone conform to the implicit norms of the group.

Your comments on my type and our relation is a good example of why such a functional analysis often looks fine and convincing on paper, but is actually a rather poor and unreliable typing method, that in this particular case is almost completely worthless since you make too many false assumptions and, as a consequence, come to a false conclusion. That, of course, comes as no surprise, since the typing method you prefer relies too much on people's appearance on the Internet. If you are serious about being a competent socionist, you really should think a lot more about the reliability of the typing methods you choose to use. You could start here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...dern_Socionist

[Hitta]

Again the "if you disagree with me you are necessarily ignorant and idiot" argument? That's all it comes down to, lately, isn't it?

It's not an argument. It's a statement about a belief that is likely true. And that it has come down to this lately is not so surprising, is it? You can learn a lot about typical animal flock behaviour if you study how people act on this forum. Think of the different roles we have in this, think about who are following the herd, who are the group leaders, and who are the lonely wolfs attacking those leaders and, occasionally, some weak prey at the periphery of the crowd. Think of how your role at the top of the hierarchy is different from the roles of other "guardians" lower in rank in the hierarchy, think of how your behaviours are different. Those lower ranked guardians are not as sophisticated as the top leader. Some of them are nothing but followers, and their role is to keep the group together by rather lamely "participate" when the more aggressive and tough guardians do the dirty work of attacking the lonely wolves that are seen as a threat to the group. Think of how questions of right or wrong, true or false, in an objective sense become irrelevant, and that the focus is much more on how to keep the group intact and ensure its existence by making everyone conform to the implicit norms of the group.

Your comments on my type and our relation is a good example of why such a functional analysis often looks fine and convincing on paper, but is actually a rather poor and unreliable typing method, that in this particular case is almost completely worthless since you make too many false assumptions and, as a consequence, come to a false conclusion. That, of course, comes as no surprise, since the typing method you prefer relies too much on people's appearance on the Internet. If you are serious about being a competent socionist, you really should think a lot more about the reliability of the typing methods you choose to use. You could start here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...dern_Socionist

I'm sorry to inform you that you may have a brain tumor.

[Phaedrus]

I'm sorry to inform you that you may have a brain tumor.

That would be a godsend gift, so don't be sorry.

[FDG]

Again the "if you disagree with me you are necessarily ignorant and idiot" argument? That's all it comes down to, lately, isn't it?

It's not an argument. It's a statement about a belief that is likely true. And that it has come down to this lately is not so surprising, is it? You can learn a lot about typical animal flock behaviour if you study how people act on this forum. Think of the different roles we have in this, think about who are following the herd, who are the group leaders, and who are the lonely wolfs attacking those leaders and, occasionally, some weak prey at the periphery of the crowd. Think of how your role at the top of the hierarchy is different from the roles of other "guardians" lower in rank in the hierarchy, think of how your behaviours are different. Those lower ranked guardians are not as sophisticated as the top leader. Some of them are nothing but followers, and their role is to keep the group together by rather lamely "participate" when the more aggressive and tough guardians do the dirty work of attacking the lonely wolves that are seen as a threat to the group. Think of how questions of right or wrong, true or false, in an objective sense become irrelevant, and that the focus is much more on how to keep the group intact and ensure its existence by making everyone conform to the implicit norms of the group.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...dern_Socionist

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Expat]

You can learn a lot about typical animal flock behaviour if you study how people act on this forum. Think of the different roles we have in this, think about who are following the herd, who are the group leaders, and who are the lonely wolfs attacking those leaders and, occasionally, some weak prey at the periphery of the crowd. Think of how your role at the top of the hierarchy is different from the roles of other "guardians" lower in rank in the hierarchy, think of how your behaviours are different. Those lower ranked guardians are not as sophisticated as the top leader. Some of them are nothing but followers, and their role is to keep the group together by rather lamely "participate" when the more aggressive and tough guardians do the dirty work of attacking the lonely wolves that are seen as a threat to the group. Think of how questions of right or wrong, true or false, in an objective sense become irrelevant, and that the focus is much more on how to keep the group intact and ensure its existence by making everyone conform to the implicit norms of the group.

I have to assume that you see yourself as one of those "lonely wolves that are seen as a threat to the group". So what kind of a "threat" do you think you are seen as?

Your comments on my type and our relation is a good example of why such a functional analysis often looks fine and convincing on paper, but is actually a rather poor and unreliable typing method, that in this particular case is almost completely worthless since you make too many false assumptions and, as a consequence, come to a false conclusion. That, of course, comes as no surprise, since the typing method you prefer relies too much on people's appearance on the Internet. If you are serious about being a competent socionist, you really should think a lot more about the reliability of the typing methods you choose to use. You could start here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...dern_Socionist

I use what I have at hand. Obviously I think that a live interview is a much more reliable method than analysing someone's online personality - when I have I said otherwise? But if I don't have a live interview, I use what I do have.

And as for the reliability of my typing methods according to that list -- well, don't you see how that list backfires at you? There isn't even any mention of "typing by comparison to type descriptions". Which is what your methods often boil down to, as in with XoX and the Paul James descriptio, and UDP and that Keirsey description.

[Expat]

And by the way -- that perception of what happens here was textbook , , , and .

[Phaedrus]

I have to assume that you see yourself as one of those "lonely wolves that are seen as a threat to the group". So what kind of a "threat" do you think you are seen as?

The details are unimportant here, but if you really want to know you should ask the "hounds" (even thouth they may not be consciously aware of why they behave the way they do). It's a general pattern that can be seen everywhere at all levels of human society when people form groups of some kind. The lonely wolves don't follow the rules of the game, according to the group people's understanding of what the game is all about, and when the group people perceive something or someone as disturbing the normal order, they react instinctively with hostility. They are better evolutionary adapted to most human interactions. The lonely wolves are seen as some sort of abnormity, and people feel threatened by such phenomena. Their reactions are not an act of free will, of course, they are just natural human behaviour, however repulsive such behaviour might seem to me and other wolves.

I use what I have at hand. Obviously I think that a live interview is a much more reliable method than analysing someone's online personality - when I have I said otherwise?

You haven't. And that was not my point either.

But if I don't have a live interview, I use what I do have.

Which you shouldn't. When you don't meet the people face to face but only through the Internet, you should rely more on what they are honestly telling you about themselves than on your own interpretations of the impressions you get from their behaviours.

And as for the reliability of my typing methods according to that list -- well, don't you see how that list backfires at you? There isn't even any mention of "typing by comparison to type descriptions". Which is what your methods often boil down to, as in with XoX and the Paul James descriptio, and UDP and that Keirsey description.

And here you are acting like an idiot again, lying and misleading people by saying such crap. You know that I have told you that I use many different typing methods, and "typing by comparison to type descriptions" is certainly not the one I think is the most reliable or the one I normally use when typing people. I don't settle for anyone's type until I have typed them according to as many typing methods I have access to, and that usually includes V.I., body type, intertype relations analysis, functions analysis, type descriptions, temperaments, Reinin dichotomies, test results, and perhaps some other things too, like using the Enneagram as a complement.

And I ALWAYS do a live interview with the person if possible. You can ask the same kind of focused questions on the Internet too, and that's what I always do, as you are very well aware of. People should try use that method much more than they actually do here on this forum, where most people jump to conclusions faster than the speed of sound. If the person doesn't fit the assumed type in almost every one of these dimensions, I don't have a firm opinion on his or her type. Instead I try to look for more information, and the search continues until every piece of the puzzle fits beyond reasonable doubt. In that respect I am clearly different from most people on this forum -- I am much more scientific in my typing process, and my typings are clearly more reliable than most people's here.

[Expat]

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

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

Which you shouldn't. When you don't meet the people face to face but only through the Internet, you should rely more on what they are honestly telling you about themselves than on your own interpretations of the impressions you get from their behaviours.

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.

And here you are acting like an idiot again, lying and misleading people by saying such crap. You know that I have told you that I use many different typing methods, and "typing by comparison to type descriptions" is certainly not the one I think is the most reliable or the one I normally use when typing people. I don't settle for anyone's type until I have typed them according to as many typing methods I have access to, and that usually includes V.I., body type, intertype relations analysis, functions analysis, type descriptions, temperaments, Reinin dichotomies, test results, and perhaps some other things too, like using the Enneagram as a complement.

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.

And I ALWAYS do a live interview with the person if possible. You can ask the same kind of focused questions on the Internet too, and that's what I always do, as you are very well aware of.

Most of your questions seem to be "do you identify with this" which is the same as using type descriptions. If we dig up the XoX type thread, that will be clear.

In that respect I am clearly different from most people on this forum -- I am much more scientific in my typing process, and my typings are clearly more reliable than most people's here.

Nah. That's another version of the "if you disagree with me you're incompetent" argument.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It seems that I am one of the few people that like Phaedrus - not that he would care one way or the other . I think he's right to be cautious about Socionics-related things, I don't think anyone would disagree with that (though I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths). I don't think he holds certain things to be steadfastly to be true as people like tcaudilllg does - I don't know why I think that - I think he wishes to question even 'obvious' assumptions, which would get up some people's noses a bit., whereas tcaudilllg is more likely to make 'obvious' assumptions out of nothing. I think the problem is, is that he holds things to be true that other people might seem as more tentative, whether rightly or wrongly (rightly I suppose, because more people hold it to be so). 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. I personally think that the fundamentals should be 'assumed' to be true, and all the faulty bricks can be replaced later - I don't agree with what he says about MBTT vs. socionics etc. + dichotomies etc., but the majority position seems to be vague and undefined sometimes - even though Phaedrus may sometimes go against the grain sometimes, and I might not agree with him, it feels wrong to ignore him . Expat is probably most certainly right, and he is always very thorough in his arguments - Phaedrus seems to like attacking the lack of a clear empirical basis, and often has an alternative way of seeing things that *might* be wrong - at least according to the hallowed theory etc. I don't think Phaedrus is an idiot - but why can't people be nice to each other . [/mushyness, get back to arguing].

[Expat]

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.

That's not what happens at all.

[Slacker]

Phaedrus - there is nothing scientific about your typings. It is all emotion, emotion, emotion. You take in only what tid-bits of science you can piece together from here and there in an attempt to get evidence for your emotionally-based typings. And then you ignore the wealth of information that doesn't agree as irrelevant, suspect, or written by stupid people. And then if anyone disagrees with your conclusions, you make all sorts of assumptions about their motives, who is one whose side, that people are conspiring against you, etc. You sound like TCaudillig when you get like that.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Well, maybe he distorts the importance of various things to make him fit the description of INTps, his understanding of dichotomies etc.