Krig the Viking & MegaDoomer, Te & Ti split from "Type changing"

[Krig the Viking]

i could be wrong about Krig, i guess he could be LII, but to me he is very "literal" and dry, and he likes to expound upon facts and write descriptions, substantiating and clarifying various information. for example stuff like this thread, i see as Te. what Expat used to do for general socionics concepts, Krig does for DCNH. he doesn't seem to seek Fe either.

I wouldn't say that I expound upon facts so much as I seek to correctly categorize information logically. Ti looks at the world and tries to sort it into static categories. Te looks at the world and tries to keep track of the changing states of the objects in it. Consequently, Ti is more focused on correct reasoning and precise definitions, while Te is more focused on empirical data and efficient actions.

My posts tend to be purely theoretical and almost completely void of empirical data, which annoys actual Te types.

I can see the similarities between Expat and myself, but since I haven't really tried to type Expat for myself, I don't really know what to make of that. I've wondered if he might be some kind of Ti type in the past, but haven't looked into it.

As for my Fe-seeking -- I mostly post here when I'm in the mood for intellectual exercise. People here haven't really seen me in my sillier moods.

[golden]

As for my Fe-seeking -- I mostly post here when I'm in the mood for intellectual exercise. People here haven't really seen me in my sillier moods.

This reminds me that I've noticed on this forum how hard it is for me to see Alpha NTs' Fe-valuing online. IRL, it's easy for me to connect with them around some very silly Fe.

Krig may not be indulging in extensive antics here, but he seems lighthearted enough. The way he expresses himself in writing is not too different from an LII I know very well, who can be quite dry and serious in his writing and sometimes very playful in person.

[krieger]

I don't understand this "Live and let live" attitude toward's people's self-typings. It's not what type you think you are but what type you really are.

I wouldn't say self-typings are irrelevant, though. It's generally a good idea to take them in account as strong arguments in their own right. To sum up the reasons for this:
1. people tend to have a tremendous amount of information about themselves unlike anything you can gather about them from an outside perspective, let alone through the internet.
2. the most basic claims of socionics aren't generally very difficult to understand. What's more, when people begin to study socionics longer they typically start delving into the more experimental side of the theory, which has the potential of confusing them more than improving their understanding. Hence, the argument that people that have more experience with the theory type better than people who are new is not a very strong one.
3. people typically take what others say about them in account, so if you tell them casually what your impressions are, this information is included in their self-typing.
4. the person him/herself is the one that has thought about their typing problem longer than anyone else.

General recommendation: don't type people. Help people find their type.

[squark]

. . .

General recommendation: don't type people. Help people find their type.

Yes.

[Jarno]

My posts tend to be purely theoretical and almost completely void of empirical data, which annoys actual Te types.

you got that right, you freak!

'-)

[glam]

I wouldn't say that I expound upon facts so much as I seek to correctly categorize information logically. Ti looks at the world and tries to sort it into static categories. Te looks at the world and tries to keep track of the changing states of the objects in it. Consequently, Ti is more focused on correct reasoning and precise definitions, while Te is more focused on empirical data and efficient actions.

My posts tend to be purely theoretical and almost completely void of empirical data, which annoys actual Te types.

I can see the similarities between Expat and myself, but since I haven't really tried to type Expat for myself, I don't really know what to make of that. I've wondered if he might be some kind of Ti type in the past, but haven't looked into it.

As for my Fe-seeking -- I mostly post here when I'm in the mood for intellectual exercise. People here haven't really seen me in my sillier moods.

well your posts make me think that you are very concerned with empirical data. when you talk about socionics you do not actually focus on the theory, you elaborate on a given concept, give examples (including your real-life experiences) and are interested in hearing such information from others.

also, i disagree that Ti is concerned with "precise definitions." it is Te that is concerned with objective data and information such as "precise definitions". Ti (esp. from Alpha NTs) will cut things down to the nitty-gritty, the absolute fundamentals, even to the point where it may be hard for someone who does not have enough background information to understand it, but Te will elaborate and clarify things to make sure the information being explained is "objectively" accurate and correct - which is what i see you do.

i am not saying for sure you aren't LII, but based on your posts here i think there is good reason to think you might be a Te type instead.

[Krig the Viking]

well your posts make me think that you are very concerned with empirical data. when you talk about socionics you do not actually focus on the theory, you elaborate on a given concept, give examples (including your real-life experiences) and are interested in hearing such information from others.

also, i disagree that Ti is concerned with "precise definitions." it is Te that is concerned with objective data and information such as "precise definitions". Ti (esp. from Alpha NTs) will cut things down to the nitty-gritty, the absolute fundamentals, even to the point where it may be hard for someone who does not have enough background information to understand it, but Te will elaborate and clarify things to make sure the information being explained is "objectively" accurate and correct - which is what i see you do.

i am not saying for sure you aren't LII, but based on your posts here i think there is good reason to think you might be a Te type instead.

Ah, I see. I think you have a common misunderstanding of the nature of Te. While Te is concerned with objective data, that's not its primary focus. Te is a dynamic element: explicit dynamics of objects. It keeps track of the way objects in the world change and move over time, and understands how to cause and influence that change. The stock market is a good example. Your stereotypical LIE uses Te to keep track of how companies are changing over time, making and losing money, and uses Ni to extrapolate from the past to predict the direction that change will head in the future. While Te is concerned with getting accurate objective data on the current and past states of the companies, its goal in doing so is to figure out how that data changes and how to influence that change. Te is about profit, productivity, efficiency, practicality -- actions. It seeks the best method for doing things -- spending a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how to precisely define a thing would be a waste of time to a Te type; all they want to know is how to use the information they have, not how to define and categorize it.

On the other hand, Ti is a static element: explicit statics of fields. It seeks to understand the static, unchanging logical connections and categorizations of things. Data about constantly changing things (like the stock market) is uninteresting to a Ti type; they try to see through the constant changes in the world to the unchanging truths underneath. So a Ti type is more interested in things like philosophy, science -- something like socionics appeals to a Ti type, because the whole point is finding the unchanging commonalities underlying the seeming shifting chaos of the human mind. It's no coincidence it was developed by an ILE (Aushra). Ti is about categorization, precise definitions, logical frameworks, analysis -- sorting information into correct static logical systems. Understanding how to use information to accomplish some purpose is boring to a Ti type; they want to precisely and accurately sort information to arrive at a clearer understanding of the world.

Stereotypically speaking, Alpha NTs are pure scientists (seeking unchanging truth), while Gamma NTs are engineers (seeking the best method for making changes in the world). Clearly, I am the former: I seek to understand how the human mind is structured; I have no interest in figuring out the best method of using that information.

[glam]

Ah, I see. I think you have a common misunderstanding of the nature of Te. . . .

er no, i don't, but thanks

i predicted that you might reply in this way - i figured that if you are a Te type you'd seek to correct my knowledge (which you did), and if you are a Ti type you'd try to further clarify your own viewpoint (which you didn't do.)

also compare yourself to MegaDoomer in this thread, he doesn't try to correct Maritsa's knowledge when defending his self-typing to her. he just explains why he believes he's LII "according to my own understanding, i must be LII". you take a different approach: "according to the objective data, i must be LII."

hah, this kind of thing makes me understand why Reinin calls Ti valuers Subjectivists, and Te valuers Objectivists...

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Hm, yeah. Knowing the IM elements is essential to understanding and identifying one's type. Two people can express the same IMEs in a different manner, so it becomes important to look at more than just superficial behaviors.

[HERO]

A lot of this is stuff people already know or have read --
INTj's and INTp's are quasi-identicals and have some things in common, including: they are both Negativists (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...st#Negativists), Obstinate (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...bstinate_types), Farsighted (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...rsighted_types), Democratic (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ic#Democrats); and in addition they are both Introverted NT's (Researchers) that dualize with Extraverted SF's (Socials), so it can be easy to confuse them with each other.

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

"Secondary extraverted intuition (the types Analyst and Humanist, XXX-intuitive introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Critic and Lyricist with the dominant introverted intuition) for their being modest intellectuals who do not strive “into the center of events”, their certain idealism. However, the difference is remarkable: both Analyst and Humanist are consequent in their thoughts, often have well-structured speech (and often prefer to communicate in written than in spoken). They are rigid in their everyday life: while Critic and Lyricist can well adapt to changing circumstances, Analyst and Humanist rather suffer when plans change. And they both believe that people are full of positive potential, which should be discovered and developed."

'Secondary extraverted logic (the types Critic and Craftsman, XXX-logical introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Analyst and Inspector with the dominant introverted logic) for their calm logical emotionless manner of explaining their views, and for certain vital conservatism. However, the difference is, that they do not strive for being consistent and systematic in their thoughts – on the contrary, they strive for adaptation to ever-changing situation, and thus their sayings often look incomplete or vague. Carl Gustav Jung, although some typologists think he was an Analyst, not Critic, wrote in a very vague, ambiguous way, often left his ideas uncompleted, and even his typology was for him just a “by-product”. Often the facial expression of Critics and Craftsmen is skeptical, with a characteristic grin (Critic: Meg Ryan, Woody Allen; Craftsman: Meryl Streep, Harvey Keitel). They prefer not to present their own concepts but rather to criticize our people for imperfect, contradictory concepts. These two types may be also called “anti-enthusiasts” – they like to warn other people against insufficiently considered, unreasoned spontaneous actions, and hate very much excessive emotions.'

And here are some other links (I'm sure a lot of people have already read the last one):

http://www.socionics.com/articles/on_being_intj.html

http://www.socionics.com/articles/intjorintp.htm


And I think I was probably a bit too negative in some of my interpretations of Ti. Most Ti-egos are probably not like that. And I guess when I start continuing my education I'll be able to appreciate more.

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

"Secondary extraverted intuition (the types Analyst and Humanist, XXX-intuitive introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Critic and Lyricist with the dominant introverted intuition) for their being modest intellectuals who do not strive “into the center of events”, their certain idealism. However, the difference is remarkable: both Analyst and Humanist are consequent in their thoughts, often have well-structured speech (and often prefer to communicate in written than in spoken). They are rigid in their everyday life: while Critic and Lyricist can well adapt to changing circumstances, Analyst and Humanist rather suffer when plans change. And they both believe that people are full of positive potential, which should be discovered and developed."

"Secondary extraverted logic (the types Critic and Craftsman, XXX-logical introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Analyst and Inspector with the dominant introverted logic) for their calm logical emotionless manner of explaining their views, and for certain vital conservatism. However, the difference is, that they do not strive for being consistent and systematic in their thoughts – on the contrary, they strive for adaptation to ever-changing situation, and thus their sayings often look incomplete or vague. Carl Gustav Jung, although some typologists think he was an Analyst, not Critic, wrote in a very vague, ambiguous way, often left his ideas uncompleted, and even his typology was for him just a “by-product”. Often the facial expression of Critics and Craftsmen is skeptical, with a characteristic grin (Critic: Meg Ryan, Woody Allen; Craftsman: Meryl Streep, Harvey Keitel). They prefer not to present their own concepts but rather to criticize our people for imperfect, contradictory concepts. These two types may be also called “anti-enthusiasts” – they like to warn other people against insufficiently considered, unreasoned spontaneous actions, and hate very much excessive emotions."

These are new, thanks. I really do think the functional differences should be stressed and compared in Socionics, because the practicality is left open to interpretation.

[Pa3s]

also compare yourself to MegaDoomer in this thread, he doesn't try to correct Maritsa's knowledge when defending his self-typing to her. he just explains why he believes he's LII "according to my own understanding, i must be LII". you take a different approach: "according to the objective data, i must be LII."

I know that you believe I'm LII. And since you question that Krig is LII as well, you use my posts as an example to show the difference between us. But Maritsa is telling me now that exactly the same posts imply that I'm not LII. That means either one or even both of you are wrong. Whatever I 'choose', the members of this forum will never fully agree.

[glam]

I know that you believe I'm LII. And since you question that Krig is LII as well, you use my posts as an example to show the difference between us. But Maritsa is telling me now that exactly the same posts imply that I'm not LII. That means either one or even both of you are wrong. Whatever I 'choose', the members of this forum will never fully agree.

i know. you don't have to agree with my opinions - it's not my goal to get everyone to think the same way. i agree that will never happen.

[Pa3s]

Thanks Krig, I couldn't explain it myself actually.

i know. you don't have to agree with my opinions - it's not my goal to get everyone to think the same way. i agree that will never happen.

That wasn't directed against you, it was just a general observation.

[golden]

Whatever I 'choose', the members of this forum will never fully agree.

Yes. Note my self-type is listed as Beta NF. It's just not worth the interpersonal hassle to assert a more specific type. If I say I'm IEI, many forum members continually point out that I'm not, and why; same if I say I'm EIE.

At least I'm not being pegged into more than one quadra, though.

[Krig the Viking]

er no, i don't, but thanks

i predicted that you might reply in this way - i figured that if you are a Te type you'd seek to correct my knowledge (which you did), and if you are a Ti type you'd try to further clarify your own viewpoint (which you didn't do.)

also compare yourself to MegaDoomer in this thread, he doesn't try to correct Maritsa's knowledge when defending his self-typing to her. he just explains why he believes he's LII "according to my own understanding, i must be LII". you take a different approach: "according to the objective data, i must be LII."

hah, this kind of thing makes me understand why Reinin calls Ti valuers Subjectivists, and Te valuers Objectivists...

Then it appears we have a fundamental disagreement as to the natures of Te and Ti. In my opinion, both Te and Ti (like Se and Si) deal with external/explicit information, which is what most people call "objective facts". Both Te and Ti focus on "objective facts", the difference is in what sort of explicit information they focus on -- explicit information on the changing dynamic state of objects in the world (Te), or explicit information on the static logical relationships between objects in the world (Ti). MegaDoomer is focusing on the static logical relationships between type descriptions and himself, while I'm focusing on the static logical relationships within the descriptions themselves, but we're both focused on static logical relationships. Neither of us is talking about how type descriptions dynamically change over time, or how to effect explicit dynamic changes in people.

In short:
MegaDoomer: My personality correlates with this type description.
Krig: This IE correlates with this description.
Both are examples of static logical relationships, not dynamic changes in how things work.

[ashlesha]

Neither of us is talking about how type descriptions dynamically change over time, or how to effect explicit dynamic changes in people.

i don't recall ever seeing a post by a Te type that talked about the dynamic changes in type descriptions or anything - do you happen to have any examples for contrast?

i have trouble working out the differences between Te and Ti and have wondered about your type because the way you present information just "feels" really sensible to me, in the way reading expat's posts was like (in contrast to several Ti egos i have trouble understanding). but i'm aware that a "feeling" doesn't really say much and maybe you're just good at explaining things, hah... since i have trouble understanding the difference between Te and Ti conceptually, which is why this conversation and the matter of your type is really interesting to me. i hope you don't mind it.

[krieger]

Then it appears we have a fundamental disagreement as to the natures of Te and Ti. In my opinion, both Te and Ti (like Se and Si) deal with external/explicit information, which is what most people call "objective facts". Both Te and Ti focus on "objective facts", the difference is in what sort of explicit information they focus on -- explicit information on the changing dynamic state of objects in the world (Te), or explicit information on the static logical relationships between objects in the world (Ti). MegaDoomer is focusing on the static logical relationships between type descriptions and himself, while I'm focusing on the static logical relationships within the descriptions themselves, but we're both focused on static logical relationships. Neither of us is talking about how type descriptions dynamically change over time, or how to effect explicit dynamic changes in people.

My view of the notion of "objectivity" and how it relates to the two T functions is as follows:

Te is epistemically objective, i.e. it removes perspective dependence from the "how-do-you-know" part of the issue. It seeks to base knowledge on the smallest number of assumptions that are only justified privately.
Ti is ontologically objective, i.e. it removes perspective dependence from the "what-it-is" part of the issue. It renders a picture of reality that is to the greatest possible extent independent of the experiential form through which it is presented.

It is generally very, very difficult to combine the two, so in human psychology, one is usually sacrificed in service of the other. Science, I believe, is the field that tries to unite the two despite these difficulties.

[Beautiful sky]

Then it appears we have a fundamental disagreement as to the natures of Te and Ti. In my opinion, both Te and Ti (like Se and Si) deal with external/explicit information, which is what most people call "objective facts". Both Te and Ti focus on "objective facts", the difference is in what sort of explicit information they focus on -- explicit information on the changing dynamic state of objects in the world (Te), or explicit information on the static logical relationships between objects in the world (Ti). MegaDoomer is focusing on the static logical relationships between type descriptions and himself, while I'm focusing on the static logical relationships within the descriptions themselves, but we're both focused on static logical relationships. Neither of us is talking about how type descriptions dynamically change over time, or how to effect explicit dynamic changes in people.

In short:
MegaDoomer: My personality correlates with this type description.
Krig: This IE correlates with this description.
Both are examples of static logical relationships, not dynamic changes in how things work.

Oh I see, this would make him a different type from you than. He does Te because he finds similarities between type descriptions and himself, Like saying I relate to this part and that part; that applies to me and that too. Taking what's from outside himself and applying it to his behavior. You're comparing two things outside yourself that has nothing to do with you but reflects back to your psyche making it subjective, rather then objective. He might actually be dynamic because there's nothing in the clue you've provided that indicates what he's doing is static activity.

I agree both are static, introverted, not the same though.

[silverchris9]

er no, i don't, but thanks

i predicted that you might reply in this way - i figured that if you are a Te type you'd seek to correct my knowledge (which you did), and if you are a Ti type you'd try to further clarify your own viewpoint (which you didn't do.)

...Ti-egos don't correct people...?

How many Ti-egos do you know...?

Seriously, Krig corrected your reasoning (or attempted to anyway). That's what alpha NTs do: they look at an idea, find the spot where the idea deviates from the logical path, and shows why it is off the logical path.

On the other hand, Te-egos find the spot where the idea deviates from the facts (kinda like Ashton, with his refrain of: but that doesn't fit experience! when talking about socionics concepts, which is simultaneously really important for growing and really annoying when you think you've got a great concept going).

But both types correct people when they think they've done things wrong. ESPECIALLY beta STs.

Also, Ti is incredibly interested in "absolute truth." This differs from "objective facts" in some ways. Ti is interested in truths deduced from reason in the individual. In a Ti-ego, truth will generally be thought of in terms of general propositions: "All chairs are made of wood," "all batchelors are unmarried," "homework should be completed in the order it is received," "Ti is concerned with logical contradiction and coherence." Even SLEs can be very hardcore about the "truth."

In Te-egos are not interested in truths deduced from reason in the individual. Te-egos are interested in facts, data, information from the outside world. In a Te-ego, truth will generally be thought of in terms of particular facts "That chair is made of wood," "75% of men under thirty-five in the United States are batchelors," "of the 45 students in the class, the seven students who completed their homework as soon as they got it performed the best."

The hinge statement is "Ti is concerned with contradiction and coherence," because that is right on the border. You can either look at it deductively (derived from the External Statics of Fields definition or some such), or look at it as a fact (as the basis of inductive reasoning) about the exterior world. Also "Ti" is simultaneously general (the aggregate of all the individual uses of Ti) and specific (one IM out of eight).

Also, Ti-style reasoning is incredibly neat, and above all, that's what Krig's reasoning is. It's clean, and clear, and easy to follow insofar as the steps of the argument are laid out (unlike Ni--and possibly Ne--which is associative and leaps from thought to thought, skipping several steps in-between, as in Timeless' illustration of Ni).

Te, at least NiTe, is more like wading into a mass of data and organizing it into a narrative/story/trend. But again, it is not explicit the logical steps you take to get from point A to point B, although the gamma NT (with strong but unvalued Ti), would probably first tell you that they followed the correct heuristic, and then, if pressed, explain exactly "why" in Ti-terms, the inductive leap (from data to narrative) they made is valid. In a related notion, this is basically what economics does. It takes a few basic Ti general principles (which Smith derives in the standard Ti-style, if you read Wealth of Nations; also his argument is stolen from Plato, just expanded), and then wades into this enormous mass of data about people's purchasing habits, how markets have worked in the past, etc., and makes a story out of it that explains what we should do with our money.

Also, let me just take a minute to say how much I love Ti. Ti is like a brain bath as far as I'm concerned. It's so neat and clean and organized and I love it.

Anyway, I don't see any way to seriously doubt Krig's typing. It is hella obvious. Everything he's posted on this forum is pure Ti.

[The Ineffable]

In a Ti-ego, truth will generally be thought of in terms of general propositions: ... "All chairs are made of wood," ... "homework should be completed in the order it is received,"

Certainly not Ti. Both are based on experience. "The chairs are made of wood" (or any hard material) is based exclusively on observation; as a concept, the chair can be made out of thin air - doesn't matter, anything that can be sit on, moved and so on is a chair, but what can be sit on - including materials - belongs to empiricism.
The homework conviction may be based on a convention or belief, too (basically it can be either Te or Fi); the time it is started or finished is not included in its concept and from a Ti POV the association is nonsensical, absurd, stupid.

"All chairs have a place one can sit on" and "homework is expected to be completed" would do.

Anyway, I don't see any way to seriously doubt Krig's typing. It is hella obvious. Everything he's posted on this forum is pure Ti.

You base you conclusion on your preferences and the assumption that you're IEI. I agree that your reasonings fit very well together, though considering that I type you as IEE, our views radically diverge. In fact you make the mistake to take yourself as an absolute reference, while other Ti valuers have a hard time grasping his information, it looks like a headless barely intelligible amalgam of facts, but the the rules for its consistency fail to emerge. Saying that means that you retype these people who don't process what you call "pure Ti" as Te valuers.

The workings of Ti doesn't need something to be objectively true. Ti only need the information to not contradict any other information used in the same context.

Yes!

For example you could say: “Blue=Red”, and Ti would reply “Under what circumstances?”

Hmm Ti doesn't not "reply". There is Ti and there are Ti types, besides, that sounds to me as Logic + Intuition. Maybe "under what definitions?" would do.

Under no circumstance Blue=Red to Ti, because by definition they have some different properties. That proposition can be true only in synthetic judgments: "Red=Akai because all Japanese use 'akai' for all red objects". Ti can't use this information, "akai", as it is not yet defined, but when akai is defined as "red" then it can't mean anything else (Ti).
Though I agree that your question may refer to the completion of the definitions, eg "under what circumstance" = "in what languages each", the full meaning being rather "English Red = Japanese Akai". In other language akai may mean something else.
---

I also think a flawed idea floats around this forum, that ILIs are practical people, while in fact they're often highly theoretical. People quit considering the descriptions of types, using the functions as a replacement. ILI is primarily an Ni type, so is IEI, which is Te-PoLR.

[plotter]

Hmm Ti doesn't not "reply". There is Ti and there are Ti types, besides, that sounds to me as Logic + Intuition. Maybe "under what definitions?" would do.

Under no circumstance Blue=Red to Ti, because by definition they have some different properties.

Meant Ti-types And you're probably right about the +. It might have been a bad example. I thought something like: "If someone says that Red and Blue is the same thing, then the person saying it must have given the words a different (less precise) meaning, for example that they are just words describing colors." But didn't give it that much thought.

[silverchris9]

Certainly not Ti. Both are based on experience. "The chairs are made of wood" (or any hard material) is based exclusively on observation; as a concept, the chair can be made out of thin air - doesn't matter, anything that can be sit on, moved and so on is a chair, but what can be sit on - including materials - belongs to empiricism.
The homework conviction may be based on a convention or belief, too (basically it can be either Te or Fi); the time it is started or finished is not included in its concept and from a Ti POV the association is nonsensical, absurd, stupid.

"All chairs have a place one can sit on" and "homework is expected to be completed" would do.

Good point. I mean, I think you're incorrect to assume that Ti can't be based in experience (I mean, that's why Beta STs exist...), but the examples you gave are better examples of pure Ti.

You base you conclusion on your preferences and the assumption that you're IEI. I agree that your reasonings fit very well together, though considering that I type you as IEE, our views radically diverge. In fact you make the mistake to take yourself as an absolute reference, while other Ti valuers have a hard time grasping his information, it looks like a headless barely intelligible amalgam of facts, but the the rules for its consistency fail to emerge. Saying that means that you retype these people who don't process what you call "pure Ti" as Te valuers.

You're like the only person on this forum who types me anything but IEI... anyway, you're right insofar as it is a particular style of Krig's writing that I see as Ti, but if the rules of its consistency fail to emerge, I think that the failure is in your perception rather than his writing.

[Park]

er no, i don't, but thanks

Ouch! PoLR hit? Loosen up and have a beer. My opinion? Krig might as well be your conflictor. How does Te-LSE sound?

And as it usually happens, labcoat makes the most sense in this thread. No, but wait. How is that possible? Labcoat uses Ti. I don't seek Ti, I seek booty.

Anyways, my £0.50.

[ashlesha]

Ouch! PoLR hit? Loosen up and have a beer. My opinion? Krig might as well be your conflictor. How does Te-LSE sound?

And as it usually happens, labcoat makes the most sense in this thread. No, but wait. How is that possible? Labcoat uses Ti. I don't seek Ti, I seek booty.

Anyways, my £0.50.

lol, what is this?

[EyeSeeCold]

Can't really say about Te here, but it's all about pragmatism. Te-people I know seems to resonate that if something is accepted by most people/most “experts”, that is the truth, and objective is a word.

It's not about majority rule or consensus. has no time for the "science". For example, once I find that there is at least some useful consistency when it comes to reality correlating with a theory, I deem that theory not "true" but applicable. They are two different things. The truth is relative, but application is irrefutable: either something is or it isn't.

Also because doesn't have time for the science, it would prefer to make applications that are the most applicable to reality the standard. From a Socionics perspective, MBTI is heavily flawed and riddled with misconceptions. Egos would prefer to make Socionics the standard instead of presenting arguments to every person that logically shows how MBTI is a crap system. It's a waste of time when Socionics is obviously more applicable than MBTI, but not necessarily "truer".

[mu4]

Ah, I see. I think you have a common misunderstanding of the nature of Te. While Te is concerned with objective data, that's not its primary focus. Te is a dynamic element: explicit dynamics of objects. It keeps track of the way objects in the world change and move over time, and understands how to cause and influence that change. The stock market is a good example. Your stereotypical LIE uses Te to keep track of how companies are changing over time, making and losing money, and uses Ni to extrapolate from the past to predict the direction that change will head in the future. While Te is concerned with getting accurate objective data on the current and past states of the companies, its goal in doing so is to figure out how that data changes and how to influence that change. Te is about profit, productivity, efficiency, practicality -- actions. It seeks the best method for doing things -- spending a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how to precisely define a thing would be a waste of time to a Te type; all they want to know is how to use the information they have, not how to define and categorize it.

On the other hand, Ti is a static element: explicit statics of fields. It seeks to understand the static, unchanging logical connections and categorizations of things. Data about constantly changing things (like the stock market) is uninteresting to a Ti type; they try to see through the constant changes in the world to the unchanging truths underneath. So a Ti type is more interested in things like philosophy, science -- something like socionics appeals to a Ti type, because the whole point is finding the unchanging commonalities underlying the seeming shifting chaos of the human mind. It's no coincidence it was developed by an ILE (Aushra). Ti is about categorization, precise definitions, logical frameworks, analysis -- sorting information into correct static logical systems. Understanding how to use information to accomplish some purpose is boring to a Ti type; they want to precisely and accurately sort information to arrive at a clearer understanding of the world.

I don't think this is all that meaningful, ILE have Te as eighth function, so fundamentally this is something they engage in automatically.

ILE's are plenty good at stocks, take George Soros for example. Ultimately, they are a type that learns by doing, creating, designing and seeing what went wrong and what went right.

It's actually a bit funny, because in this post you're disseminated thru your ego functions plenty of "factual/accepted factual" data at least as far as it pertains to Socionics yet ignored the structural side of Socionics, i.e Model A and the importance of where the function is within the psyche vs the strength of the function or just the ego functions.

Stereotypically speaking, Alpha NTs are pure scientists (seeking unchanging truth), while Gamma NTs are engineers (seeking the best method for making changes in the world). Clearly, I am the former: I seek to understand how the human mind is structured; I have no interest in figuring out the best method of using that information.

I think this is wrong, because Alpha NT's described as either "Inventors" or "Architect". These are two engineering tasks. ILE is a type primarily concerned with how to use information in new innovative and hopefully better ways. This is because their 1st and 8th function are Ne and Te. The difference between the mental and vital ring is that the ego ring is a area of social activity and control, while the vital ring is a area of individual activity and control. This is one of the reasons why the ILE's tend to formulate their own methods and practices. I think fundamentally a scientist is a reverse engineer and it is the universe that is being reverse engineered and the means of proof, designing a prototype or the creation of some working design. However, the creating of attractive and economical products is a different form of engineering not just constrained by physical laws but also by personal preferences and resource management.

LII's can easily blueprint something out and never involve themselves in the build out of said product, rather they use designs and models and abstract representation and simulations of those products in order to substantiate their private predictions(Ni). However, the actualization and production of those models may be left to others(Te).

[Jarno]

ILE's are plenty good at stocks, take George Soros for example.

maybe he was just lucky and it had nothing to do with his type?

[mu4]

maybe he was just lucky and it had nothing to do with his type?

Naw, he capitalized on the investor bias where it did not match up with reality and fundamentals. Therefore these areas were not in equilibrium.
He basically did arbitrage based on his analysis of investor bias and speculated on that. I.E shorted the bubbles.

Basically Anti-Fi. Pro-Ne/Ti. Using analysis and economic structure versus available pricing information and trends.

[Jarno]

Naw, he capitalized on the investor bias where it did not match up with reality and fundamentals. Therefore these areas were not in equilibrium.
He basically did arbitrage based on his analysis of investor bias and speculated on that. I.E shorted the bubbles.

Basically Anti-Fi. Pro-Ne/Ti. Using analysis and economic structure versus available pricing information and trends.

I think you are seeing to much connections.

He was just lucky. He could as easely have been wrong and nobody would have heard of him.