Ni-leadings vs Se PoLRs

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Its related to a lacking appreciation of money to the point one would rather engage in the badassery of rejecting such a sum. The plan worked, cause I now know about the guy whereas otherwise I wouldn't have.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

There's no need to "switch" operating systems. One can use multiple operating systems and use that versatility to one's advantage.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

There is already enough information in what you have revealed of the person to conclude that he most likely isn't an INTj. The average INTj here on the forum is very eager to review possibilities and try to make sense out of everything said to them.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

that perpetual motion device he builds because he thinks that it will work.

Weak Logic.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

I told him to try it first, I begged him on my knees to just *try* it. No result, he was needing a justification from me, even if he could use it himself and see.

Although, if he computes anything like I do, one man's computer is one man's private space, which is not where others should be making suggestions to.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

... (even when what they say is sensible) - another good example of Se-PoLR. Do you actually disagree with this, with the fact that this uncompromising reticence of yours comes from Se-PoLR?

No, it's just because it's more or less my area of expertise and I don't appreciate backseat computing when I'm fully aware of what I'm doing. I'd say it's hubris more than type-related phenomenon. It's just that I might be initially offended if someone suggested an operating system to me, seeing as anyone who would know me on the level to make that suggestion would know that I'm up-to-date on my operating systems and it would be insulting to insinuate that I'm not already informed on what they have to say. Personal anecdote, though.

[Beautiful sky]

Se = Calling my attention to things, constantly

SEE- "Look at this dress, look at this color, look at this show, look look look....."

Se Polr = getting tired of having attention to objects or thing easily

Ni- It's time for this that and the other thing....

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

Considering that this applies to the LIIs I know, I don't see why I would consider it not type-related. This is what I'm usually doing, gathering evidence for what's type-related, the descriptions are just a little glimpse of the types IRL.
Besides, it perfectly matches the understanding of Se-PoLR (in the context!! - that means the person's history and similarity with other LIIs) - you may call it "hubris", I have no problem with that, actually.

No one likes their areas of confidence undermined. It's a natural response to snap back when one is being told how to do their job by an outside observer. It's nothing more than the ego (not in the Socionics sense) natural defenses. Depressed organisms are selected against, giving us modern brain chemistry that favors fabricating an exaggerated sense of self worth to sobering worthlessness. People in existential crises simply don't get as many chances to reproduce. Depression is part "nature" in the question of nature vs. nurture. We are mentally rewarded more for applying our worldview and rationalizing its application than rationally figuring out such a worldview. -insert speech about psychological maturity- For the majority of computer users, a choice of Operating System is almost completely irrelevant. À la buyer's remorse, a person prefers keeping that status quo for their OS, regardless of potential benefits of a switch.

Back to the idea of ego, the thought of "I do my job well" or "I am competent" helps people proverbially sleep at night. I would not consider the desire to get a metaphorical good night's sleep type related. It's an instinctual human desire.(have fun considering weak or unvalued for the non-metaphorical context) This LII feels competent in the realm of technology and is human, ergo he prefers his expertise not shaken. -insert second speech about maturity and accepting one's imperfections and ability to grown from accepting them-

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

In contrast, an Se-Creative, if he/she suddenly realizes that he's on things different that the majority or the established ones, he feels like he went mad. If no one has done that before, if no one has used that before, it feels like the ground swept off under their feet. Someone must have said that before, someone must have used that before, otherwise it's not good - and not anyone. While for ESIs it's easy to adhere to the big personalities based on preference - eg choosing the thinkers they prefer, not paying attention to what "nobodies" and other personalities alike say in contradiction, LSIs try to reduce this redundancy of ideas to "the one" - because there can't be two contradicting ideas equally true, this is why they can easily become opponents of establishments (eg labcoat told SG that he can't type not long ago), when these establishments are redundant and contradict each other

Bolded never happened. I just disagree with him on the type of Judge Judy. His typing was ISTj, whereas mine was ESTj. I am at a loss as to what else you could be referring to.

Also think for a moment about what you are saying here. Has anyone ever used Limiting/Empowering the way I do beside me? Looks like the ISTj typing doesn't even work under your own set of principles.

I also want you to realize that there are several rethorical techniques I use that aren't part of my own deeply seated beliefs but I nevertheless use because they hold argumentative weight with other people. Consensus and authority reasoning are part of this. I don't consider these arguments anywhere near infallible, but they still work as indications in the absence of better arguments for the position in question.

ps. I do support the view that only one interpretation of events can be correct in the face of contradicting alternatives, but this is a matter of philosophical maturity rather than type.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[buckland]

Man, I'll let you think about it. What I could add is that I don't relate to that confidence in myself, and I discussed previously about this overemphasized fear of LIIs of loosing control and independence of thought. Because it's one thing to keep independent and in control, and other thing is how anal are LIIs about it, stepping on reason with many occasions. I actually can't sleep at night thinking "what if I was wrong"? The opposite of you - and IME LIIs - considering this aspect, I have the constant feeling that I'm doing things wrong, unless there's something I'm sure of (like "evika!" this is it) or I don't care too much about - this last one is my overall attitude.
This is Ne-Creative vs Ti-Creative clear as daylight to me.

This is applicable to LIIs for two reasons, like I said, both Ti (control) and Ne (independence) - therefore their false confidence is different from LSI confidence - LSIs can be extremely loyal persons (and actually Se-Creative can't stay independent of establishments, they're lost without the authority of the social "big things"), while LIIs are loyal to none but themselves, they can't be loyal - this doesn't include cheating on spouse. Sorry MatthewZ, but if you think that everyone is instinctively confident and self-sufficient, how can you explain so many people who join diverse leaders, their ideas, etc? Gurus, politicians, philosophers, simply personalities or just local voices, social movements, advertising, and so on.

I identify with what you're talking about here, and know that there is an arrogance to "disregarding" what others are saying and sticking to my knowledge entirely. However, I wouldn't peg it entirely as a confidence within LIIs, but rather that there's no way you can know what the other party's based their conclusion on. The unpredictability in people that you mention later in your post is exactly the reason that (at least in my case), I need to ensure that I have gone over everything before making a decision, no matter how close/trusted the person making the suggestion is. It's time consuming but my preferences will never 100% match up with another person, so the belief that another's choice will work for me is as unlikely as the number of possibilities presented by the decision to be made.

Looking back, this may be seen as your description of "control=Ti", but I think it's more along the lines of reduced compromise.

So to be honest, I find LIIs overly concerned with people's agendas. They use to prefer people who "think loud", eg. philosophers who don't put their ideas in an actual context (historical, political, etc) but to the general. Once those ideas are applied (eg. as you said MatthewZ, "name calling"), those ideas suddenly become "evil", no matter if they are true or false. You will like my story about Lucifer.

This is the naivety of LIIs, if you ask me, because someone may appear disinterested in influencing others, but that's exactly a played act, or on the other hand someone may be right but full of self-interest (which sometimes is the good of the person in cause). For me truth is truth no matter of anything else. (*)

But considering that I managed to realize that this disability is type-related, I can cope with it and like LIIs the way that they are. I have an LII friend who I try to convince about a lot of things, especially in software usage, he drives me crazy with his stubbornness when I want his good and try to convince him of something, on the other hand he keeps things there somewhere in his mind (Strategic) and he contacts me months or years later to offer him some details, usually having a clear list of needs, conditions and questions.

In this case, opinion change is so easily manipulated by the leader's agenda, that the agenda becomes the only thing worth taking note of. I see what you're referring to in the case of a poor opinion maker passing across a decent "proposal?", but the fact remains that this may be a one off and therefore retaining this person is asking for further trouble. I may be misunderstanding the point you're putting across though.

From another POV, the agenda that someone comes with underlies all their decisions. This all ties in with the above, since the LII is unable to really trust another person's decision making, then the only consistent predictor of an opinion maker's next decision is their agenda/motivation. Disregarding everything the person says is basically an energy saving measure, you can't sift through all the ideas generated to determine which ones are worth pursuing, so you disregard them all. It's not as irrational as it may seem from outside. However, all these opinions will always be kept, and are used as stepping stones for further research, hence bringing it up a few months after you made the suggestion.

[MatthewZ]

...

In the case of anecdotes, the default is always that any given behavior is NTR. Surely one is capable of accepting that one has reasons for action other than one's type. It would be fallacious to assume that a given person is, from a psychological standpoint, nothing more than their type plus personal experiences. People simply aren't that predictable or limited.

I at no point insinuate that people are self-sufficient or self-confident, merely that everyone has the psychological need for a sense of self-worth. That need can be fulfilled through a variety of means, but it still exists nonetheless.

As for your anecdote about laptops, would you mind explaining that one again? I'm failing to see how your mere prediction of an LII's behavior without supplying his response is relevant to anything at all. In all honesty, I couldn't care less about the types of the predictable mental images in your head. I can't see how supposing what one would have said could possibly be used to support a typing or type-related behavior. It's nothing more than weak evidence, if it can even qualify as evidence.

Get your -PoLR in check, Pinocchio.

[krieger]

You told him something afterward, I recall it was something ugly - but I don't login to copy word-by-word because I quit the forum in protest for ethical misjudgment. It was drastically disputing his authority, if I remember correctly, because it was addressed to his person not that particular typing he did.

I said he was borrowing the work of Gulenko and other Eastern European thinkers, which is a truthful and unassuming statement considering he lists the type descriptions of Gulenko on his website. Also, anyone who uses socionics at all owes something to Eastern European socionists. As long as there don't exist scientific proofs of socionics, there will always be such an authorative debt. Checking the entire world to see if the intertype relations hold across all cases doesn't work either. You can't use socionics on an entirely individual basis this way and have to contrast your view against that of others, starting with the people who have been at this stuff the longest.

Please explain - but without Limiting/Empowering, I remind you that I don't acknowledge that dichotomy.

Re-read the comment. All I said is that I use Limiting/Empowering in a way no one else does. There is only one other person here on the forum who uses it at all. That means I don't act as a part of some establishment like you would predict I do.

I agree and relate to this (the first part) as well, when there's no other way to make a point. I still see that your foundation is based on establishments, I personally could not agree with many authors - even with some fragments of authors I agree with in general, eg Augusta - from the ground up when they didn't make sense. IMO, in comparison, you have taken them as official and finally when you understand them, you removed only what what could not logically fit together. I compare them against my experience, but IMO you compare them with each other.

Note that "from the ground up", that is the difference, otherwise it is normal to have an independent opinion once you know enough.

My attitude towards them is not different from yours. As always the picture you paint of me holds no water. I reject the work of Augusta almost in its entirety, crediting her only for her type descriptions and her discovery of the intertype relations.

Yes, indicators, this is exactly what I was referring to, when I talked about Se-Creative: an establishment, an authority, a title - including the idea you adhere to that the self-typing is such indicator. The last one was actually a big problem between you and me, I by default go with the idea that when someone's self-typing contravenes even in the slightest the understanding - description, experience, doesn't matter - the default state of things should be that the person is rather not that type. Your default state of things is based, in contrast, on this indicator, you go first by their self-typing. These indicators are exactly the "reference points" I was talking about, to find out what's worthy of credibility.

Here you reveal that you hold your understanding of things to be sacred. The question is, why should your understanding override that of the other person? They have an "understanding" of socionics just like you do. What makes you so special? Is it the fact that you have more experience with the theory than him/her? That's authority based reasoning. Is it because their description doesn't match a consensus view of what a type comprises? That's consensus reasoning. Is it just because you are you? That's solipsism and ridiculous as a reason to believe anything at all. You can't say I am acting on behalf of some majority opinion when I express this position. I am the first person ever around here to defend the trusting of self-typings on rational grounds, even if just about everyone employs the principle on some half-conscious intuitive level.

Getting back to that understanding you hold so sacred, what kind of conditions would it take for you to accept that your understanding is wrong and in need of revision? If there is no counterweight to the authority of this sacred understanding of yours how can it ever be adjusted?

Also, like I have to repeat to you a million times, my trust in self-typings is far from infinite. They are just another indication among many others. They are, however, to a certain extent self-sustaining. If you believe your own brain is capable of reaching relyable judgments about socionics, it is ridiculous to suppose another person's brain can not. To do so implies that you believe there is something about you that makes you "different" from the other person, such as thinking only ENTps type correctly or some other bullshit view.

Hell, authority based reasoning is actually the only thing that comes close to lending a basis for making such judgments. If you're going to arbitrate one person to be a better typer than the other, experience is the least preposterous thing to base such a judgment on.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

It appears that we can't continue the discussion as long as you take each post out of the big picture - aka all I've written in this thread about the matter, and optionally what we discussed about the matter previously. You dismiss them with no justification. This "mere prediction" is part of this big view which you dismissed.

I can't disregard the fact that your main purpose is to prove me that I can't predict your irrationality, as an LII, so here we are :|.

My point isn't to prove that you can't predict my "irrationality." My point is that, simply, I disagree with the connection being made here between behavior and -PoLR. I think a lot of what is being supposed to being type related here is, in fact, NTR. I cannot follow a weak example of a concept I don't agree to. It may be explainable by the concept, but that isn't a reason for me to accept the concept. I don't believe that the response to other's suggestions is related to -PoLR.

That, and I took the bait by trying to combat the description of LII ineptitude. I believe it doesn't apply, and I'm going to point it out. That's all.

[krieger]

But yes, the way I put it, that Se-Creative would stick indefinitely to already established rules by others, you actually make an exception. I could have said more on the subject if I'd be more accustomed to that understanding of yours - considering that I have the confidence that these ideas are based on some other things that you know - you read a lot of things like the pyramid of necessities, political compass, and so on. This confidence is an intuitive one, based on the pattern of your conclusions that I could investigated so far, which did not step aside of already established definitions. You read much and have a great capability of compiling things together, so I'm not acknowledging that your ideas are truly independent, but neither deny the possibility.

I do not make just one exception. My interpretation of the functions and IE are unique (that Pi and Pe relate to phenomenal views and noumenal representations respectively and J functions to distinctions). So are my views of how the Base and Creative function work in relation to eachother. So are my views on subtypes (that they exist relative to an environment or field of inquiry only and are capable of change). You must have your head stuck in the sand not to notice how great the degree of innovation and independent thinking is throughout my writing.

Limiting myself to what I know already, I'm constrained to relay on this view I expressed previously - for example you once stated that Ti is subjective because Jung wrote this term about the Introverted and Thinking type which you identified as Ti by finding "Introverted Thinking" together in his writings. My experience and understanding in Ti made me exclude subjectivity - in the way it was described there, by you - based on my experience. You instead, excluded all the possible explanations other than Jung's words, taking them, besides, even literally. It's most likely that he was describing an I + N + T type - I think I justified that with something, but I can't remember it right now. Nevertheless, we have a great indication in the fact that Jung stopped describing all the sixteen types, but only eight, based on their first function.

You make a subtle interpretation error that has disastrous effects on your understanding of the situation. I don't cite Jung as the a-priori reason for these claims being right. I arrived at the claims by my own means and demonstrated that my view isn't just in some quirky, subjective, random way mine alone by showing that others have independently arrived at it. This is not a perfect indication of my being right, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

And lest I don't repeat this often enough: you are not an objective thinker. You leave a huge portion of your beliefs poorly justified at all times. You are content with subjective hunches as to what is right and even willing to force these beliefs on others.

It does hold water based on what I said previously, not on this shallow resemblance. Even in this case, if you dismiss the Model A - and you do - you provide further evidence that the resources you acknowledge are the ones which are convenient to let your construct stand. You see, the relationships are based on the mechanism of the model - how the blocks "kiss" each other, you dismiss it only because it contradicts what you adopted, on the other hand simple descriptions of the relationships could not harm definitions.

I don't dismiss the model-A so much as I consider the model largely redundant as a means of lending explanation to the practical facts it relays. "INTjs have an Se PoLR" doesn't say anything meaningful in addition to "INTjs experience supervision in the presence of ESTps and ESFps". None of what I claim in socionics contradicts the practical effects related by the model A.

Aside from any of this, I don't see particularly much wrong with using Model A terminology to discuss observations in socionics. There isn't much of problem with saying I don't reject the model A at all, but just think it's overrated and obstructs people from interpreting observations in a more fluid way.

AFAIK, some dichotomies of the model conflicted with your system based on the four of the "Jungian foundation", this is where you disqualified them. So far so good, what doesn't work - doesn't, but the problem is that you reject some things that happen to types, including the traits based on the Creative and Base functions, using them - which is also my understanding - would make everything fall in place, including a lot of empirical observations like PoLR and HA.

You've got it wrong. The model A does not claim anything that conflicts with the 4 Jungian/MBTI dichotomies, nor do I consider the importance of these dichotomies unnegotiable beyond just thinking they are right in more cases than they are wrong. Also, like I said, I don't reject the model A in practically significant ways. I just interpret its claims fluidly.

You're wrong in many places. First, you use another such rule of thumb that points towards Se-Creative, in proclaiming that an arbitrary person has and understanding like mine with the same rights to be agreed upon.

This is the NEUTRAL assumption. The burden of proof is on you when you claim otherwise.

Let me tell you my friend that I disagree, as long as that someone comes with claims out of the void while my understanding was constrained by empirical evidence, even if this evidence is not commonly acknowledged, seeing it IRL make one have an endless resource of arguments, easy to pick at any moment by the use of observation, while the other who build it out of nothing will eventually fail at some point.

In all your writings throughout those scattered over the forums, you have never provided a piece of "empirical evidence". To mention evidence in socionics is almost always a non-sequitur. Its hard to even prove a personality exists, let alone demonstrate its properties in ways that can't be disagreed on (ie that subjective opinions aren't a factor in the interpretation of). Meanwhile you just call "evidence" whatever suits your subjective fancy. And this is how your answer to my question is that you do base the judgment entirely on the fact that you are you, and you are fit to make the call solely on account of being somehow special.

None of what you listed applies to me - about my reasoning. Firs, I never used my experience as argument and was clearly against that. You confuse it with something else: the probability that someone who either mixes MBTI with Socionics or someone who just entered the field to be right in justifying exclusively with people who "are" a certain type. Like nanashi, for example, my problem with her was that she justifies herself with a circular reasoning which has no stable reference - "I'm this type because that guy I know is that type and we do this and that". The moment these people are faced with the fact that they use a different reference, that their understanding in the values and functions are different, they refuse to clarify, just taking all over again. There are more people like this on the forum, she above was only an example. Therefore, there is no "authority-based reasoning" involved, it's just what you want to label it.

It would be GOOD if you used authority based reasoning to do what you do, because that would be ever so slightly better than having NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL.

To mention ones relation to another person is to increase the number of points in the typing puzzle at which a stable reference point is created by means of an assessment of what a person is "generally like". If the fact that Nanashi estimates herself to "generally be like" an INTp is not enough, she can mention a person that seems "generally like" an ISFj to reinforce her view of her typing situation.

The condition is to find sensible evidence and explanations. Like in that case of the +/- dichotomy that you must remember. Es I got used, people who defended the idea that time had a very misguided view on the matter - they considered that there are different flavors of the IEs which was ridiculous from the ground-up. That was easy to tell by their previous and existing agreement with the meaning of these IEs combined with the opinion that these IEs possess some sort of other magic quality out-of-the-void that they can't explain. Easy, there's not trick involved. How can one say "Ti is like this" then say "but +Ti and -Ti are different" - it's just absurd.

So everything I use for revision is based on logical reasoning and evidence - the only condition, as long as one is not focused on that, it's impossible to tell the difference between say me and Maritsa even - you've made this confusion many times. And btw, using to dismiss someone accusing "random typing" demonstrates your lack of interest in whether that person is correct or not, being incapable to tell what the errors of that person has done, and what errors that person is prone to, based on his/her history.

Bullshit. You don't use evidence. You don't have a laboratory setting in which people engage in controlled tasks where the type of a person is measurable in terms of a set of discrete values. If you meant anything less, its just more unjustified subjectivity on your part.

The only ridiculous thing here is to claim that someone can self-type without first knowing his/her understanding in Socionics. This is my answer number one million and one.

You have just committed intellectual suicide. You are not exempt from proving that your understanding of socionics holds water.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Maybe. Your concepts are not easy to be understood, it must ring a bell first. But that's some sort of "take it or leave it" kind of of things.
I acknowledged there's no certainty if your ideas are completely based on research or just a compilation of writings and hypotheses, but the fact that you can't justify them experimentally - eg. "I concluded that this dichotomy is applicable because I observed that [8 types enumeration] do these things: [examples partial - at least - enumeration]" - is the current indication that your theory is speculative. I can't take what you say for granted while the available evidence is against it.

The fact that you don't accept my theories doesn't bear any relation to the issue we were discussing in the first place, namely that I primarily propone theories that are uniquely my own and this contradicts your views of what an ISTj is supposed to be like.

Since you are no longer speaking in disagreement to my point, I will consider this issue concluded in my favor. You have just admitted there is a reason for you to see me as something other than an ISTj.

I agree, but the cases I presented to you against it were rejected for no reason, besides, that view contradicts some descriptions of the IE, which in the case of Ti, points exactly towards theoretical correctness - the opposite of subjectivity. I wrote down the keywords in that specific thread.
So we have Jung on one side - about which we have no guarantee that he addresses what we're talking about - and the definition of Ti on the other. The fact that Ti Irrationals are too permissive with their Logic and Ti Rationals make exceptions based on their Creative/PoLR addiction is something else. Nobody is perfect, but logic is, by definition.

Saying "better than nothing" while there are also observations on people and the descriptions demonstrates your deafness to what real Socionics IEs/functions actually are, when they don't fit your view - and also to the evidence someone brings before you.

I have never denied that there are also sources that contradict the claims. Again you ignore the issue we were intially discussing. I'll take your "I agree" as an admission of your being wrong that time.

Also, the "observations on people" you mention always involve people of which the types are established by an interpreting observer. This means the interpreter him/herself is the antecedent of any conclusion contingent on these "observations". "Evidence" requires that the data is both public and invariant to interpretation. None of what you ever supply meets these criteria.

Maybe, but that's me, not Ti. Again we may discuss here about the difference between Rational and Irrational Ti types. Ti Irrationals prefer to use experimental things, which are not yet clarified when they don't have the required understanding - it's based on their Base function, usually. Ti Rationals are prone to use "technically correct" explanations which is a source of errors, too - it's something an Ti-Creative can't accept. As a result, Ti Irrationals are more flexible - they don't lock the safe until counting the money - therefore it's much easy for them to correct their errors. Ti Rationals, on the other hand, are less prone to jump into battle with empty ammunition box.
An accurate rifle doesn't make one a good hunter, that's all.

I don't do it either, so your ideas about Ti crash and burn. I base my views on subjective estimations and personal criteria because objectivity is too slow and cumbersome.

Haha, it says much, actually, this points to a big hole in the reasoning of your typings - and self-typing. As long as your typings are based on one another, you're caught in the "chicken and the egg" dilemma in an infinite loop. How did you get to the reference ones? I'm telling you my friend, superficial indicatives like self-typing and establishments - eg about Da Vinci.

None of what you say here even adresses the quote it responds to. The level of your comments has descended to that of clownhood and inanity. Only a superficial masquerade of rational thought remains.

As long as it continues to make sense, I don't see the point to dismiss it. You can't rewrite physics just because you can't understand it. But I guess that it's typical for LSIs to put their rules instead of others' - this is hinted by those goddamn Russian descriptions.

Like I said, I don't dismiss it. I just read it critically.

Yes it does and fuck off with your total denial! I demonstrated you previously that based on Socionics, some of those shitty mathematical dichotomies - fucking pen and fucking paper, nothing else - are additional. I don't have the time to search for older posts every time you deny what was demonstrated previously. You're doing this all the time and it starts to piss me off! Do you want us to have a constructive discussion or what?

What you demonstrated is that when you start out with your dogmatic beliefs, you can arrive at them in composite form derivatively. What a complete waste of time. What a joke that you think you acheive anything with this. What a trite repetition of the useless trick you always use.

The Model A limits things for a reason: to stay accurate to real people, real types and real dichotomies. This extravagance of ignoring these rules brought the worst in these communities: the anomalies of type-hybrids, and all this variety of typing fiction. Better like Ganin than like JohnDo, tcaud or you, I assure you, at least he can type.

Sounds like you're the one dogmatically adhering to a rigid model again.

This is self-explaining, assuming that you understand the functions, there's nothing to prove. You want proofs for proofs?

It is self-explaining that your understanding overrides that of another person by default? I've been saying all along that this is how you think, and here you are admitting it verbatim!

I already warned you about your stubborn denial. Check the old posts in case you have such short memory. In this post there's even a link to my demonstration which debunks your bullshit, please click on it - at least that you can read yourself.

Your demonstration is itself debunked and therefore doesn't debunk anything.

Nanashi proved to have a different understanding in functions and types than Socionics. She might be the INTP she knows, she's not ILI in Socionics, this is the idea. Accepting her self-typing yourself, as ILI, then being proved that she uses the opposite understanding in Ti and Te - from that website - this is the ultimate proof of the errors you are prone to.

In short - you typed someone as its Contrary/Id.

Socionics INTps typically put a lot of time into reaching an understanding of things and are socially reticent in ways MBTI INTPs are too. There is nothing incompatible between the types in the two systems and it is very common for a person to relate to both.

I refuted this prejudice of yours with other occasion. To refresh your memory: you have to type people in real life, in their normal day-to-day living, not artificial conditions. That's one thing. The other is the reality that people can be typed even in their absence - this is how celebrities and authors are typed. The brain of Einstein is not placed in a Socionics "laboratory", as far as I know.

You're just rambling, you confuse this with chemistry or simple evaluations of sight or hand-eye coordination.

There are very few celebrity typings being made on a cleanly objective basis. Typing people in real life typically gets done using a set of subjective criteria and poorly justified assessments of what the person "is like". This is almost inevitable, considering types create tendencies rather than absolutes of behavior, and any single instance of behavior doesn't ever exclude a typing. This is amplified by the fact that people "use all of their functions". You never have a solid basis for concluding that a person is a Ti type rather than just using Ti a lot in the context you observed them in.

Red herring fallacy - the issue was different: do you think that someone can type himself without proper Socionics understanding? This is what you do, you declared that you take most self-typings for granted, without having any certainty in the understanding of these people.

Socionics just isn't a complicated theory when one sticks to the reliable basics. It doesn't take long for any person to reach the modicum of understanding it takes to exclude 14 out of 16 of all typings.

Also, you can not reach certainty of another person's understanding by contrasting it to your own. If you disagree with the person, this can be both because their understanding is wrong and because yours is. You make a philosophical mistake when you favor the former of these options. And again, if you favored this option because you reason you have more experience than the other person, you would still have a leg to stand on.