A Male INTj's Dream Conversation

[jason_m]

[glam]

eh there's not much to go on, but i'm not really getting an Alpha vibe from those women. they seem

[jason_m]

Based on what you said, do you define as a quality that is essentially warm? Because this is something I would go as far as to debate not just in it's merit as the sole variation of , but as an Fe quality altogether; it could be a quality outside the theory, or even an Fi quality (think of Reese Witherspoon). Regardless, Fe often has a vibrant, enthusiastic quality, involving laughter, merriment, and, of course, enthusiasm. (Think JuJu, Sandra Bullock, Courtney Love... - some known Fe-egos from the forum, and others typed this way by famous Russian socionists.)

Further, if the people in the picture are not ESEs, then they are generally EIE, and, for the purposes of this thread, this would perhaps be hair-splitting.

The only other possibility I can think of would be that I took the picture out of context, because I haven't deeply studied the types of any of the people in that picture.

[Krig the Viking]

I get "extraverted feeler" vibes from them, but not necessarily ESE. My first impression of the woman in white, in particular, is of SEE. The woman in gray could be ESE, I suppose. One isolated photo is not nearly enough for me to come to any sort of firm conclusion.

[jason_m]

Here is the problem I have:

Look at the following list of people:

- Bill Cosby
- Sandra Bullock
- Reese Witherspoon
- Erin Andrews
- Jennifer Lopez
- Courtney Love
- Tom Cruise
- Jennifer Alba

Now, sort it in the following way, and think of their functions as you read down the list:

- Courtney Love
- Erin Andrews
- Sandra Bullock
- Bill Cosby
- Tom Cruise
- Reese Witherspoon
- Jennifer Alba
- Jennifer Lopez


Where do you draw the line as to where the Fe-egos start and where they end? (Do you see what I'm generally getting at?)

[Krig the Viking]

Here is the problem I have:

Look at the following list of people:

- Bill Cosby
- Sandra Bullock
- Reese Witherspoon
- Erin Andrews
- Jennifer Lopez
- Courtney Love
- Tom Cruise

Now, sort it in the following way, and think of their functions as you read down the list:

- Courtney Love
- Erin Andrews
- Sandra Bullock
- Bill Cosby
- Tom Cruise
- Reese Witherspoon
- Jennifer Lopez

Where do you draw the line as to where the Fe-egos start and where they end? (Do you see what I'm generally getting at?)

Er... sorry, it's going over my head.

If it helps, I would probably type Cosby, Bullock, and Cruise and ESE, Witherspoon and Lopez I'm not sure, Courtney Love I vaguely thought was SLE, and I don't know who Erin Andrews is. But I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. :/

[Brilliand]

I note from the picture that I am not in the conversation... hence I don't see why I should care whether such a conversation is taking place.

[jason_m]

I note from the picture that I am not in the conversation... hence I don't see why I should care whether such a conversation is taking place.

(I will let you in on a dirty secret.) I know for a fact that this does not appeal to ESEs:



(Whether you or I are this is another question.)

[glam]

jason_m, i think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. if you accept the idea of dichotomies, and if you recognize that everyone uses all of their functions (but not in the same way), then i think all of the questions you're asking are kind of unnecessary. (whether you believe socionics models reality correctly is another issue.)

[CILi]

3 Women (of ANY type)

+

A Dreaming Male LII

=

Conversation?

[jason_m]

3 Women (of ANY type)

+

A Dreaming Male LII

=

Conversation?

I don't know if you're taking it too literally/seriously or if you did not read my apology to Krig the Viking.

[jason_m]

jason_m, i think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. if you accept the idea of dichotomies, and if you recognize that everyone uses all of their functions (but not in the same way), then i think all of the questions you're asking are kind of unnecessary. (whether you believe socionics models reality correctly is another issue.)

I don't know why logic or intuition would choose your argument over mine; given both the complexity of the issue (the degree of variation amongst types, the number of people that need to be considered, etc.) and the empirical nature of the problem, one would think that an affirmative answer could only be given by experiment. I think it is quite intuitive that there is room for the notion of a "blurring," "morphing," "spectrum", etc. between functions mentioned above, as well as the notion that there are varieties of functions that types use differently. (I agree that whether or not this invalidates Model A is another issue.)

With respect to the issue of there being more types, consider the following thought experiment:

Take the whole world population and put it into one single room. Type every person in that room. What are the chances that every single person fits one exact, unanimous type, and that you can group any two people into one exact relation that fits perfectly with the original typings that you made? Common sense says that this is not possible, as at least some people will not fit into the system, and therefore there must logically be other factors there... (Or else there would be some, at this point, unobtainable answer which explains the disparities amongst types or relations, or what causes these disparities cannot even be classified as a "factor"... both defying logic and common sense.)

(Once again, whether Model A is generally valid or not is a completely different issue; it just is not logically possible for it to be absolutely correct.)

[Exodus]

I don't know why logic or intuition would choose your argument over mine; given both the complexity of the issue (the degree of variation, the number of people that need to be considered, etc.) and the empirical nature of the problem, one would think that an affirmative answer could only be given by experiment. I think it is quite intuitive that there is room for the notion of a "blurring," "morphing," "spectrum", etc. between functions mentioned above, as well as the notion that there are varieties of functions that types use differently. (I agree that whether or not this invalidates Model A is another issue.)

With respect to the issue of there being more types, consider the following thought experiment:

Take the whole world population and put it into one single room. Type every person in that room. What are the chances that every single person fits one exact, unanimous type, and that you can group any two people into one exact relation that fits perfectly with the original typings that you made? Common sense says that this is not possible, as at least some people will not fit into the system, and therefore there must logically be other factors there... (Or else there would be some, at this point, unobtainable answer which explains the disparities amongst types or relations, or what causes these disparities cannot even be classified as a "factor"... both defying logic and common sense.)

(Once again, whether Model A is generally valid or not is a completely different issue; it just is not logically possible for it to be absolutely correct.)

It sounds like you're projecting your own confusion onto the theory itself. Of course socionics is a little fuzzy and doesn't offer absolute answers, but it's not necessary or beneficial to invent concepts like this to "explain" why. I suppose if you're into philosophy that kind of thing can be fun, but it's not going to help you learn socionics.

One reality, many manifestations.