Doubt my ILE-ness? Well come on in

[Phthalate]

May I also add that dichotomies are not part of Model A, which is what I'm using to type myself.

[mu4]

@hkkmr

I don't relate to emotivist, serious, aristocratic and obstinate, which are dichotomies for IEE. Why is me not relating to asking and process more decisive than me not relating to the other 4? Are those 2 more important (even though I was the one that brought them up)?

Again, my point flew over your head. I brought this up as a way of saying "I don't relate to ALL ILE dichotomies, and rarely do people relate to all of the dichotomies (at least as described by wikisocion) for their type, so it's not a reasonable approach". Even @FoxOnStilts relates more to 'results' than process, and you type her an ILE. If anybody wants to link me to better descriptions, I'll be happy to read them.

I ultimately don't like the dichotomies approach, because it becomes illogical. Going by this, I have NO type. I've read the wikisocion descriptions on all of them, I made my own excel spreadsheet to determine my type (even though the dichotomies approach doesn't make sense), and there wasn't a single type that was compatible with all of the dichotomies I related to. The one that had the most? ILE, followed by ESE, follows by a tie between LIE and IEE.

Using a dichotomy approach, 15^2 != 16, and that's the huge undercoming with this type of approach of typing. Some dichotomies are dependent on another, and thus the approach of using one as 'self-standing' is non-sensical.

15^2 != 16. Remember. If every dichotomy was self-standing, there would be 225 types,

Oh, wow, you really don't understand Reinin.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reinin

Reinin is a derivation of Model A, prediction of possible traits.

Also I don't care how many dichotomies you relate to or don't relate to. What you relate to is only meaningful if it happens to be true. If you are in a situation where you don't relate to all 15 reinin dichotomies, then you have made a error somewhere(at least this is what socionics suggests).

IMO, nobody can really know all 15 reinin traits with 100% certainty, but socionics does allow for typing without knowing 100% of reinin traits with certainty. So if you analyzed all 15 traits, and had some contradiction within that analysis, either the model is wrong, and/or your understanding of Reinin is wrong and/or your analysis of yourself is wrong.

Right now I know for a fact your understanding of Reinin is wrong.

[Phthalate]

Oh, wow, you really don't understand Reinin.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reinin

Reinin is a derivation of Model A, prediction of possible traits.

Also I don't care how many dichotomies you relate to or don't relate to. What you relate to is only meaningful if it happens to be true. If you are in a situation where you don't relate to all 15 reinin dichotomies, then you have made a error somewhere(at least this is what socionics suggests).

I read that, and I'm quite familiar with discrete mathematics to understand it. Dichotomies are useful to describe a type, but not to make the typing itself. If we start going by dichotomies, there are 225 possible outcomes. It's not that hard to comprehend :\.

I was messing with the dichotomies the other day on paper, and I even showed fenryrr here how some of the groupings seems quite arbitrary (as in, how some groups are put together). I'll make a thread about it later on, but my wasn't happy with some of the assumptions made when these were created and described.

[mu4]

I read that, and I'm quite familiar with discrete mathematics to understand it. Dichotomies are useful to describe a type, but not to make the typing itself. If we start going by dichotomies, there are 225 possible outcomes. It's not that hard to comprehend :\.

Reinin dichotomies are derived in a way that they are colliding.
E & P = static. you cannot have a E&P that is dynamic
I & P = dynamic. you cannot have a I&P that is static
Merry & Judicious = democratic You cannot have a Merry & Judicious that is aristocratic.

I was messing with the dichotomies the other day on paper, and I even showed fenryrr here how some of the groupings seems quite arbitrary (as in, how some groups are put together). I'll make a thread about it later on, but my wasn't happy with some of the assumptions made when these were created and described.

If you're doing it this way, without understanding/using the traits as combinations then you will naturally come to the wrong conclusions.

What Reinin describes is the collisions/combinations that occurs in the 4 bit system that is socionics.

X*Y = (X & Y) or (~X & ~Y)

Basically with this being the most basic of hash functions.

static = E*P = (E & P) or (I & J)

In the same way Static & E = P and Static & I = J

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...in-Dichotomies
Also theHotelAmbush did some analysis here.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...hread-w-edits)
And Smilingeyes commentary

When using Reinin traits(and dichotomies in general), you should use only the most certain ones, and derive the not so certain ones(as descriptions are always ambiguous). If you're more certain of a trait that goes against your self typing vs the other dichotomies, then it is possible you are not your self typing or your analysis of the other dichotomies is wrong.

One can choose to discard all dichotomies entirely, or only use the Jung dichotomies, but if one uses all 15 Reinin without recognizing their interdependence, it's useless. Also if someone don't understand the Reinin dichotomies, I highly recommend they don't use it, as it's very easy to come to bad conclusions.

Also more on Klein 4 group here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_four-group
http://plus.maths.org/content/power-groups

[mu4]

May I also add that dichotomies are not part of Model A, which is what I'm using to type myself.

Ultimately functional analysis is the best way to type someone. However, the evaluations that have been made leads various people to think in way contrary to your self-typing.

You use , sure, but some think you primarily use vs . And when you do attempt to use you are often wrong or misrepresenting.

The fact you criticize my logic while misrepresenting what I said and the conclusions I came to, you also did this with Glam, while misunderstanding Reinin and trying to use it in a way it is specific not intended to be used, it all lead to me to believe you do not have strong and in fact devalue it.

Using a dichotomy approach, 15^2 != 16, and that's the huge undercoming with this type of approach of typing. Some dichotomies are dependent on another, and thus the approach of using one as 'self-standing' is non-sensical.

15^2 != 16. Remember. If every dichotomy was self-standing, there would be 225 types.

Reinin dichotomies are not self-standing(and it should be extremely clear I don't use any dichotomies this way), and for that very fact there are not 225 types.

When someone say you're emotivist, they also means all the interdependence that come with it. If the system becomes too error prone if used a certain way, you also don't have to use it that way.

Part of you recognize it, yet you refuse to connect the dots so to speak. Why?

[Absurd]

Didn't you mix up cog styles, hkkmr?

[mu4]

Didn't you mixed up cog styles, hkkmr?

Eh, what do you mean. By Gulenko's assessment ILE's are convergent thinkers(positivist), while IEE are divergent thinkers(negativist).

[Absurd]

Eh, what do you mean. By Gulenko's assessment ILE's are convergent thinkers(positivist), while IEE are divergent thinkers(negativist).

Thanks for the geography lesson but my question still stands unaffected. What you said before goes against Gulenko's Cognitive Styles, that is, you wouldn't make it ILE just going by those cog styles alone. A trait I noticed in few members as well.

I can be wrong, though.

[mu4]

Thanks for the geography lesson but my question still stands unaffected. What you said before goes against Gulenko's Cognitive Styles, that is, you wouldn't make it ILE just going by those cog styles alone. A trait I noticed in few members as well.

I can be wrong, though.

[Absurd]

This is upside down unless one is damn heavy in use of their demonstrative functions, but thanks anyway.

EDIT: Thought longer this time, took me a cigarette - what I wanted to say is, as long you associate that with C-D, then there's a shitload C-D native people on here and they do self-type differently than C-D postulates. Ergo?

Plus C-D is blessed by cause and effect logics, what you scribbled isn't cause and effect logic, if it isn't cause and effect logic, then what is it?

This is my utter most issue with Gulenko's Cognitive Styles for I know how they have been used before and how they come to bare the names they bare not to mention people who profess to be hailing of Style X when they do exhibit Style Y, Z and so on.

[InvisibleJim]

I read that, and I'm quite familiar with discrete mathematics to understand it. Dichotomies are useful to describe a type, but not to make the typing itself. If we start going by dichotomies, there are 225 possible outcomes. It's not that hard to comprehend :\

Not at all, there are only 16 choices each from hats of 4; if you manage to pick 2 opposing dichotomies then you have done something wrong. The complexity of the number of solutions is irrelevant: Only the finding of converging solutions is important.

Therefore if you have extreme confidence in 1 dichotomy you can limit the solution space in other dichotomies with a high degree of confidence and if you really do manage to pull something that doesn't make sense then you've made a mistake, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Review and revert.

Comment: The solution space is limited to a 4 letter type code; therefore 4 Renin dichotomies are a suitable solution space to solve the problem; at worst, (4x4) = 16 Types.

[Absurd]

See, hkkmr - Jim is somewhat of a C-D thinker and guess what, self-types ILI. Again, as long they're not upside down and the reference to other members you have made is not upside down as well one can conclude they're emulating their duals or not.

And if not, then we're dealing with different other types altogether that are able to use several, which is a bit surprising to say the least. Wonder how V-S people deal with this stuff for I heard on here they're better at "getting C-D style of thinking". Ehh, another mystery.

[InvisibleJim]

See, hkkmr - Jim is somewhat of a C-D thinker

Whats a C-D thinker?

[Absurd]

Whats a C-D thinker?

One of Gulenko's Cognitive Styles tossed around freely. You get a boot in yer face when you manage to throw it over 16types.info board.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...e_Styles(wiki)

[mu4]

See, hkkmr - Jim is somewhat of a C-D thinker and guess what, self-types ILI. Again, as long they're not upside down and the reference to other members you have made is not upside down as well one can conclude they're emulating their duals or not.

And if not, then we're dealing with different other types altogether that are able to use several, which is a bit surprising to say the least. Wonder how V-S people deal with this stuff for I heard on here they're better at "getting C-D style of thinking". Ehh, another mystery.

C-D thinking's dual is D-A thinking and there are certain characteristics which are attractive to the other.

But D-A thinking deals also with the else of if the else. CD tries to solve If then else by providing the variable which would determine the solution. Why it is Determinism.

This is because of the divergent nature of D-A thinking and this creates a problem for D-A individuals in creating ambiguity and uncertainty.

I would say my goal is to eliminate this uncertainty at least to a extent where clear action/conclusions can be made.

So if trait X then Y else Z

My goal is to eliminate Y or Z by determining X leading to a singular solution.

[Absurd]

C-D thinking's dual is D-A thinking and there are certain characteristics which are attractive to the other.

But D-A thinking deals also with the else

This is because of the divergent nature of D-A thinking and this creates a problem for D-A individuals in creating ambiguity and uncertainty.

I would say my goal is to eliminate this uncertainty at least to a extent where clear action/conclusions can be made.

So if trait X then Y else Z

My goal is to eliminate Y or Z by determining X.

That's exactly what I said but phrased it differently and for the record D-A by definition can't deal with if-then-else per Gulenko of course. Cause and effect logics does not operate nor manifests this way. Cause and effect logics is the thesis whereas D-A is the antithesis of C-D, at least that's what I think. I know cause and effect logics and can differentiate between C-D and D-A. You're not cause and effect unless you're faking, trying to prove something or just farting around. At least now.

And I do not see any if-then-else in C-D unless Gulenko had a one beer too many. All in all, emulating duals can be a tricky task, unless the duals are mixed up.

[mu4]

That's exactly what I said but phrased it differently and for the record D-A by definition can't deal with if-then-else per Gulenko of course. Cause and effect logics does not operate nor manifests this way. Cause and effect logics is the thesis whereas D-A is the antithesis of C-D, at least that's what I think. I know cause and effect logics and can differentiate between C-D and D-A. You're not cause and effect unless you're faking, trying to prove something or just farting around. At least now.

And I do not see any if-then-else in C-D unless Gulenko had a one beer too many. All in all, emulating duals can be a tricky task, unless the duals are mixed up.

The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing.

DA thinking provides the algorithmic form. CD logic provides the variable which determines the solution.

So for

function A(param X)
{if X = b then Y else Z}

DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable.

By supply X, Y or Z is determined.

I don't create if-then-else propositions.

By supplying variables to pre-existing functions, I determine the singular result.

Its advantages are obvious: it is the most subtle and flexible style. It can easily switch to an opposite direction, and possesses predictive ability, accompanied by an effective type of associative memory. Algorithmic thinking is also good at solving problems of classification, given their gift for recognizing complex patterns. Beyond the circumstantial conditions of a problem, it perceives a fundamental algorithm for its solution.

These are interrelated styles of thinking and I can see why you would see the similarities.

Also I would say my paraphrasing of what I said before was somewhat inadequate in describing CD thinking.

[Absurd]

The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing.

Well, they do. They have to, it is the static-dynamic "properties" of, say, LSI and EIE. This is nothing new nor groundbreaking.

So for

function A(param X)
{if X = b then Y else Z}

DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable.

By supply X, Y or Z is determined.

I don't create if-then-else propositions.

And this is exactly where I can conclude people you reference to are not D-A, in fact, they're C-D unless you want to argue otherwise and I do not go against your interpretation of C-D. Excuse me, I do, for it doesn't make any sense whatsoever and you're actually crusade against yourself. Cause and effect logics as you interpret it is not cause and effect logics unless you're not ILE at all nor any of cause and effect bimbos in Gulenko's Cognitive Styles, again, unless you do not emulate your duals.

These are interrelated styles of thinking and I can see why you would see the similarities.

It is you who sees that

[mu4]

And this is exactly where I can conclude people you reference to are not D-A, in fact, they're C-D unless you want to argue otherwise and I do not go against your interpretation of C-D. Excuse me, I do, for it doesn't make any sense whatsoever and you're actually crusade against yourself. Cause and effect logics as you interpret it is not cause and effect logics unless you're not ILE at all nor any of cause and effect bimbos in Gulenko's Cognitive Styles, again, unless you do not emulate your duals.

I am not crusading against myself, I did paraphrase poorly before, my original posts were not in that form. I have changed my paraphrasing to reflect Gulenko's writings in order to avoid any further confusion. So you are right, I did have cog style mix up earlier as far as verbalization.

[Absurd]

I am not crusading against myself, I did paraphrase poorly before, my original posts were not in that form. I have changed my paraphrasing to reflect Gulenko's writings in order to avoid any further confusion. So you are right, I did have cog style mix up earlier as far as verbalization.

Allah be fucking praised, I mean Elohim. Cough. Thank you very much. I was right the whole time. Oh and check his film, anyone:



Masterpiece.

[Phthalate]

*BUMP*

Phthalate.

I know before I gave my reasons for IEE, of which you responded with a video, and I’m finally now responding and giving my more in-depth reasoning, which you had wanted.

Ok now I can respond!

In the video:
1) @0:46, when you say you don’t respond to Fe, because you’re busy listening to music, or that ‘people talk about stuff you don’t really care about’, I find that quite indicative of type <-- because it shows WHAT you care about, therefore what functions you value. In a sense you’re telling me you don’t care about Fe-related things.

Huh no. I am saying I'm not paying attention to when it happens. Just because I'm in Tinychat doesn't mean that I am looking at the screen at all times. Sometimes I'm listening to a song. Sometimes I wandered off to eat something. Sometimes I'm playing a videogame. Me not paying attention to Tinychat isn't type related.

2) @2:21, talking about ‘not being a crybaby’, and annoyance, and more emotionally subjective things for your judgment, nothing really logically significant.

Not everything... has to be? I mean, having a 'taste' is not type related :\.

3) @2:56, the desire to here the methodical reasoning behind a decision is more Te-valuing, as opposed to process-of-elimination, which tends to be accepted more by Ti-valuers.

I value both, and process of elimination is a way I type people in Enneagram much more often, since I consider this system to be easier to infer things and be consistent rather than socionics.

The big reason why I ask about reasoning in socionics is because a lot of them arise from things that are just... weird. The other day, for example, Maritsa was convinced she thought somewhereisgone is a IEI (I don't disagree, but this is not the point). When asked why, she started going off about how the position of the neck made the difference between EII and IEI, and ... I don't even remember, I just remember it being bullshitty. And yes, I know what you will say. "It's Maritsa! Of course she will do that!"... but is her the only one that does that? I doubt it.

The definitions of socionics are not entirely consistent among members, and this is the reason why I ask 'why'. When I learned about socionics in Personality Nation, @Radio argued that (in a nutshell) relying in personal experiences to describe the world was , while others would argue that dependence and adherence to a established 'factual' system without any sort of subjective interpretation was reasoning... the definition isn't consistent with everyone, and this is why it seems necessary to establish the why.

Basically, what you call 'red', I might call it 'blue', and in some other cases, I might call it 'dog'.

4) @3:30 … you admit you are annoyed by someone who DOESN’T want to admit they’re wrong about your type ON your self-type thread. This is huge.
Ti-egos tend to stick with something when they KNOW they’re right. You seem to want to have a ‘friendlyI debate’ more, and EXPECT people to yield and agree with you.

In truth, I don't believe this thread has gone at all like you’d expected. I get the impression you used it to try to convince everyone you’re ILE, as opposed to openly hearing their opinions. Again, something I’ve done in the past too . I’ll address this point more later.

Huh no, you're misinterpreting me here. I dislike when people can't admit they are wrong when they HAVE been proven wrong. I am not saying that they have to agree with me, not at all. I see when an argument is sound, and I have reconsidered m type based on this. My first type me thread here, for example, had me going 'oh ok you are right' several times, because my knowledge here was still a work in progress.

I just express annoyance when a person is so emotionally attached to not being wrong, that they use red herrings and other distractions to win some battle one way or another. I don't see what's the point in getting emotionally attached to an argument, especially an online one. Why not just discuss ideas and take it all as a learning experience?

People have brought up my type to question several times. Outside of my self-typing of ILE, I've been typed a LIE, a LSE, a IEE, a SEE, a ESE, a IEI, a EIE... And lately, this whole 'doubting' my typing seemed to have sparked up again. I want to discuss it.

I just find it funny that I'm expected to yield to people's arguments, as if others' arguments are sturdier than I am. @lungs, for example, argued me being - valuing, and when I asked her what were her definitions of the 4 judging functions, she described and the exact same way... And I'm supposed to yield and agree to that just because?

6) @4:50 You’re saying that you would prefer people to CITE something, or direct you to something, sounds very Te-valuing. It sounds like you’re smart with judging credibility, and realize there can be mistakes when comparing with other people, as opposed to an article.
… I don’t feel the need to find an article which you so desire lol, or dig up Jung for you. I’m just pointing this out.

It's easy. If people can't logically infer something, then they should use some sort of factual justification. If they can't do either, then there is no reasoning behind their statements, and I will discard them.

@5:10 It’s not necessarily Ti-vulnerable, so much as it is Te-valuing. Of course IEE’s are still able to think in a logical sequence and make logical deductions.
In fact, here’s what Wikisocion (Some Te credibility for you) says about Ti-POLR:

“ as a vulnerable (4th) function (SEE and IEE)
The individual has a tendency to either completely reject or completely embrace a source of theoretical knowledge, but does not like to reveal the source or his adherence to it.

Nope. I don't have a personal bias based on who it's coming from. I judge the argument, not the source.

He prefers to limit the number of theoretical categories he works with and tends to see new terminology, systems, and rules as being arbitrary and unnecessary until he at last discovers their necessity for himself through extensive personal experience.

I agree with this for myself. I believe in the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" mentality, mainly because of my math & science background. Too much restrictions don't allow ANYTHING to breathe, and thus, makes it almost impossible to descibe the natural state of a being.

He may be able to express his views clearly when given the time, but he is not prepared to deal with people who challenge his views and draw him into logical arguments and disputes. For this reason, he is reluctant to publicize new determinations and opinions until he is absolutely sure that they are right and that he can support them thoroughly to anyone who challenges them."

No to the first statement, yes to the second one (except the 'for this reason' part, duh). I love arguing. I love discussing ideas. There is a reason why I'm still here, debating my type, trying to make sense to the reasoning behind other people. I actually to get called 'nitpicky' when arguing other systems, because I tend to call out people on some inconsistency in their words.

The second one is true in that I tend to think 'How do I convey my message as clear a possible so it doesn't get misconstrued?'. I tend to write something, then edit it out over and over, trying to watch for any way a person might misinterpret something and continue arguing something I did not say. I also tend to lay out traps in my words to test if people are actually reading into my words, or if they have some attachment to an idea, and they are, again, trying to nitpick something out of my words to prove their point. This is what I did with @hkkmr when I used something like (too lazy to look back) 'reputation' or 'prestige' in my words. I used it as a way to describe the strength of an argument, and he immediately went 'AHA! You rely on the reputation of the source and not the argument itself! " Which was... not what I said. And when I called him out on it on the shoutbox, he only said "Well I guess you're going to be a good psychologist huh?"...

This is the reason why I don't trust @hkkmr's arguments . Because I don't think he's here to debate this, but rather impose his thoughts on to me. Call it an ad-hominem if you wish, I'm just smart enough to know what battles are worth fighting.

7) ^ I just find this more indicative of Ti-POLR, the timing of this thread, that you post this ‘doubt my ILE-ness’ almost a year after joining the forums, as opposed to when you first started. It seems like you wanted to be more sure of yourself, to refute anyone who doubted you, before opening up discussion at all.

Huh... no. I did it because people are doubting it right now. This is your projection of things, because I had made several type-me threads before (in most, I wasn't even considering ILE).

It was @woofwoofl who typed me ILE the first time I was around here, and he provided some really good reasoning back then. I don't know if he's made up his mind about my type now, but I remember him helping me out big time in my first days here in T16T.

9) @7:00-7:10 Haha, all the possibilities. We can definitely agree you’re Ne-ego.

12) I do see you try to make things laid-back, polite, in a manner which reminds me of other IEE’s, like @Galen or Smalls.

The less emotional the argument is, the fewer the chances are of someone just feeling insulted and retaliating against the person instead of the argument. This is why I often try to keep it tasteful.

I get the impression you want to be seen as ILE because you’re a scientist, and your arguments you want to be viewed as sensible. There are many IEEs who are also great scientists, and I think you’ll find the open-minded methodical exploration of a subject can be strongly linked to Ne, not necessarily to either Ti or Fi.

Oh I'm well aware that IEEs can have strong scientific backgrounds. My ex, for example, is a IEE and she's finishing up her MD next year, as well as applying for PhD schools as soon as she finishes. A close IEE friend of mine is currently doing research in Mexico City. I also have seen that some IEEs around have similar stories to the ones of my friends which I shared, and some have justified it that this is -HA, and it manifests itself on the user becoming VERY attracted to factual knowledge to describe the world around them (I guess because of their inferior usage of ...?).

The thing is, I don't rely on factual knowledge at all :\. I can speak of several of my short-comings in college because of the same issue. I hate studying. I hate having to sit down and read out facts after facts of knowledge acquired by experiments, and expect to memorize what goes on. In fact, this is the reason why I always got Cs in classes like History, Cultural Geography, Political Science, etc., while always getting high marks in classes like Thermodynamics, Calculus 3, Physics 2, etc. I like the power of induction. I like being able to be given a sentence and try to come up with a way that it makes sense internally.

This is actually what I did in thermodynamics. I remember that while studying for a final, I was going over the concepts of adiabatic/isothermal/isenthropic processes. While I kept reading the paragraphs, it just didn't click with me because it seemed too arbitrary at first, as if I was just expected to memorize how they work. It wasn't until I started perceiving 'molecules' as behaving in a 'claustrophobic' matter, where decreased volume increases energy and therefore pressure and temperature, and so on and so forth, that I was better able to understand the concepts given, and even make huge intuitive leaps in the following chapters. It just 'clicked', and THIS is what I rely on for my own personal understanding of things.

In a way, you can say that a lot of 'Socionics' just hasn't clicked all that well, because it seems that the moment you think you understand something, someone else comes along with a different description of a different model, which challenges everything you've learned and...

Ugh. Socionics.

Overall I still see you as pretty clearly IEE. Hopefully some of my comments and observations made sense to you. I apologize for the belated response, but I hope you can appreciate the observations, and I ask that IEE be something that you consider.

Thanks for this post . I really appreciate it, and I think you have some good points about something, but maybe you're misinterpreting what I say.

[ashlesha]

i did a shit job of describing fi and ti but I wasn't trying to describe those elements themselves, what I was trying to do was illustrate a broader concept about the structure of functions that it shouldn't take that much ti to understand ti and fi ARE similar. have you read up on the aspects yet?

[Radio]

in my defense i was very new to socionics and i didn't quite understand it, i was mostly repeating what i read on wikisocion.

anyway, phthalate is a well-rounded and balanced individual with a high enough intelligence to recognize the difference between being logical and being reasonable, as well as knowing when and how to be personable and friendly, which makes it harder to pigeonhole him into a type. typing works best for people who aren't balanced and who are more strongly one-sided. lungs gets typed as INFj/ISFj and labster INTj/ISTj, etc. pthalate's T/F functions are similarly well-balanced such that it's harder to pick them apart. but zooming out, it's a lot easier to peg him as an NT than a NF, and Fi-polr over Ti-polr. so i think ENTp works best regardless.

> my 2c's worth.

[FoxOnStilts]

in my defense i was very new to socionics and i didn't quite understand it, i was mostly repeating what i read on wikisocion.

anyway, phthalate is a well-rounded and balanced individual with a high enough intelligence to recognize the difference between being logical and being reasonable, as well as knowing when and how to be personable and friendly, which makes it harder to pigeonhole him into a type. typing works best for people who aren't balanced and who are more strongly one-sided. lungs gets typed as INFj/ISFj and labster INTj/ISTj, etc. pthalate's T/F functions are similarly well-balanced such that it's harder to pick them apart. but zooming out, it's a lot easier to peg him as an NT than a NF, and Fi-polr over Ti-polr. so i think ENTp works best regardless.

> my 2c's worth.

His right leg is three inches shorter than his left; how is that in any way balanced?

[mu4]

Basically, what you call 'red', I might call it 'blue', and in some other cases, I might call it 'dog'.

Lol

I just express annoyance when a person is so emotionally attached to not being wrong, that they use red herrings and other distractions to win some battle one way or another. I don't see what's the point in getting emotionally attached to an argument, especially an online one. Why not just discuss ideas and take it all as a learning experience?

Lol

Nope. I don't have a personal bias based on who it's coming from. I judge the argument, not the source.

Liar

This is the reason why I don't trust @hkkmr's arguments . Because I don't think he's here to debate this, but rather impose his thoughts on to me. Call it an ad-hominem if you wish, I'm just smart enough to know what battles are worth fighting.

Pants on fire...

As you can see Phthalate is accusing me of doing ad-hominem while performing a ad-hominem attack. LOL. Even if I was trying to impose my thoughts on him(which I am not), it doesn't invalidate my arguments. I've repeatedly stated I don't want to persuade him and my analysis of him is for other readers other than him. Also note how he uses the mentions to get my attention and other's attention. He wants to get specific people's attention. Also he questions my motivations rather then deal with the reasoning.

Note that I've tried to keep my observation of him factual, although I've made an interpretion about it.

In a way, you can say that a lot of 'Socionics' just hasn't clicked all that well, because it seems that the moment you think you understand something, someone else comes along with a different description of a different model, which challenges everything you've learned and...

Ugh. Socionics.

Lol

Thanks for this post . I really appreciate it, and I think you have some good points about something, but maybe you're misinterpreting what I say.

Lol

I think the multitude of people who have typed Phthalate IEE are right, irregardless of my opinion, there are some clear ethical function clues he dispenses in all his posts which take a primary ethical position vs his logical arguments, which are often defensive or wrong. It's impossible to prove this at the moment, but we'll see who's right when mechanisms to determine this is developed.

[ashlesha]

if you're going to pout and think I'm mean for seeing you as IEE I'm more than happy to pretend I don't, I mean I don't really care and I only talk about it when you bring it up. you have kind of a crappy attitude for someone who is supposedly open to discussion. "only if it meets my standards" isn't really open and its kind of bratty and disrespectful when people are only trying to give you what you ask for.
(not including hkkmr in this)

[Pookie]

No, you're a towel.

[mu4]

if you're going to pout and think I'm mean for seeing you as IEE I'm more than happy to pretend I don't, I mean I don't really care and I only talk about it when you bring it up. you have kind of a crappy attitude for someone who is supposedly open to discussion. "only if it meets my standards" isn't really open and its kind of bratty and disrespectful when people are only trying to give you what you ask for.
(not including hkkmr in this)

I might be the only person not giving him what he's asking for.

[InvisibleJim]

Liar

Amen to that.

Phthalate is beta quadra.

[Phthalate]

Amen to that.

Phthalate is beta quadra.

Ding ding. We have a winner.

[mu4]

Yet hkkmr seems to say ( although I'm not entirely sure though) the whole "X + Y = Z" is ,,, this is exactly what I mean by people here having different labels for the same thing.

Phthalate has misunderstood me again. What I said had nothing to do with . I talked about positivism and how Gulenko talked about positivism/negativism(convergent/divergent thinking). There positivists of every quadra, and C-D thinkers of every quadra. If an individual request this from someone else, rather then providing it for yourself, it pegs them as a negativist. Every dual of a negativist will be a positivist.

There is a great value to divergent thinking, something I have a hard time providing for myself, which is why I rely on others to provide it.

[Phthalate]

TIL: Negativists can't induct a statement.

[mu4]

TIL: Negativists can't induct a statement.

I'm not sure what Phthalate is saying here. But divergent thinking is inductive/negativist are supposed to be more inductive. Convergent thinkers/positivist structure inductions and produce concrete results via deduction.

[Phthalate]

The whole "socionics is dumb/hard/unreliable because everyone has different descriptions" thing strikes me as Te-valuing. See e.g. jetcitywoman.

Last I heard, she was being typed a LSI...? I don't really know what was the general consensus for her.

And I guess if doesn't value consistency, then I could consider .

@hkkmr, you edit your posts too much :\. It seems they say something different every time I reread them.

[FoxOnStilts]

Last I heard, she was being typed a LSI...? I don't really know what was the general consensus for her.

She self-typed LSI, but the general consensus was ESI.

[mu4]

@hkkmr, you edit your posts too much :\. It seems they say something different every time I reread them.

Yea, I edit a lot. But that post I only edited a little bit. I think this is one of those defining characteristics of ILE as described by Aushra.

[Eliza Thomason]

Here is my opinion which I cannot back up with a lot of Socionics function explanations. This is my impression from watching the video on the first page. I think you are ILE. You remind me of my ENTP friend (with the nice ISFP wife). Whoever is saying IEE, I totally disagree. Thats my type and my type of answers to the quesitons would be completely different, with much less focus on T part of the answers... though I respect you had so much T to answer with, my replies would have been quite different, more reflective of my IEE type.

Its messy in the background, same as my ENTP's house, he is just into so many things. Its all his wife can do to keep up with him and her other P children; even if she is P, she strives to keep order (and is probably not J enough to demand it of everyone). More about my ILE friend - - I don't know if this is like you, Phthalate, but he is kind of a Rennaisance man, IMO. To me it seems he can do anything. His work is head the computer security system for a large company here, that deals in technology so its an important position with a lot responsibility and necessitates being up on the latest developments and having extensive working knowledge and an openness to continually learning and figuring things out.

Also He has a talent for teaching what he knows. When he had his own computer consulting company, employees loved working for him; he is fair and patiently teaches. He played piano for our choir years back, and he made it such fun - someone would make a comment and he would play music that went with the comment. That takes talent. Also my second soprano group was small, and I had a hard time reading new music for the first time, not beign good at that (I learn by hearing) and he was an understanding help with that (like he could analyze my learning process).

I should add, he has a pleasant, level, agreeable, patient speaking voice, and you do, too. And you look a bit like him in face and type, though he is blond hair, blue eyes.

He takes his family on many different various vacations, and he is a good family man and gives his kids good advice for their lives. Very faithful to his family and also very dedicated to his career... having a great devoted Dual wife helps. Faithful to his church. He can fix about anything, puts computers together from various things he has around the house. Was taking the family clocks apart and putting them back together when he was a little kid. Very outgoing and friendly in social situations. Well, that's my ENTP friend, sound similar to you?

[Ryan]

I would say there has recently been some evidence of his Ti-weakness/devaluing, his total dismissal of the logical conclusions in socionics.

His considerations of declarative/result would invalidate any ILE typing, unless these were too ambiguous to determine. The thing about this is that it's impossible to know everything about everyone, especially for a outsider and people have to make choices based on very limited information. However socionics allows type to be deduced from limited amount of info, although it is diffucult to even ascertain that. Where we do not know we have to simply realize we cannot make that assessment, however socionics allows one to make the predictions which can then be investigated.

Two dichotomies that have been brought up by someone else, this is not his argument, and likely wasn't something he thought of throughly, just a general impression. I may agree with Result since he seems to have discussed it before with FoxOnStilts. Maybe.. It does need to be verified though. He also dismissed the dichotomies, so you can't really consider that as sound evidence since he doesn't see any of it as a sign of his type. But it's worth noting.

Anyway, I generally agree with what you're saying but I think you're being way too unreceptive of his input to really pin him down. And I don't agree that he is has weak Ti. Not to be a downer but, for all you convincing talk about him being an Emotivist - which I have no way of verifiying since I don't know him - you made no attempt to explain why he is a Feeling type. Him being supposedly Ne base + Emotivist is not enough to type him IEE, that's bad practice. I do agree that he probably isn't ILE though. For the reasons you have stated and a couple more.. Okay, I'm done with this.

Phthalate, you have considered LII before, I gather - so why not LII? I'm almost positive you're one.

[InvisibleJim]

Ding ding. We have a winner.

Take your pick:
EIE
LSI
SLE
IEI

[silke]

Also, if you notice the way I talk, which is very representative of CD thinking of ILE's.

"emotivist, therefore not ILE(also 7 other types)"
" base and emotivist therefore IEE"

There is a strict formal logic to CD thinkers and how they talk. Compare to how he talks.

"I will say that I don't relate to ALL of the ILE dichotomies. I consider myself more 'declaring' than 'asking', and more 'results' than 'process'."

He is willing to say these yet, he's unwilling to take his considerations to their logical conclusion, which is that either he is wrong about declaring/result or he is wrong about a host of other considerations.

Now this shows another side of him which is divergent thinking, which is associated with negativism.

This can be due to subtype differences between you two i.e. you being Ti-ILE and Phthalate most likely being Ne-ILE.

Something that I've noticed some time ago is that people will periodically 'flip' into cognitive style that is dual to their own, meaning that duality of cognitive styles is a concurrent process - all V-S types have some H-P going on, all C-D types have some bit of D-A churning in their minds, and vice versa.

I've also noticed that the relative proportion of each is influenced by person's subtype where for irrationals it is the inert/leading function subtype that will display instances of dual cognitive styles more frequently, and for irrationals it's the other way around. What this means is Phthalate as a Ne-ILE will more often manifest cognitive traits of his dual type, the SEI, than a Ti-ILE such as yourself. This will include instances of negativism (SEIs are negativists), greater degree of uncertainty since in his mind would be generating more of those if-then-else propositions, and hence more flexible approach to logical deduction. This may be what you're picking up on - Phthalate being Ne-ILE sporadically displaying instances of negativism that belong to his dual type.


Cognitive style are based on these three Reinin dichotomies: static/dynamic, process/result, negativist/positivist
Two of these differ between dual types: static/dynamic and negativist/positivist
What this can possibly mean is that these two dichotomies will periodically alternate as the person 'flips' to their dual cognitive styles, though greater preference will be given to the one that corresponds to one's true style. The only dichotomy that is conserved at all time is process/result.

From this follows that typing someone by static/dynamic and negativist/positivist dichotomies using one or two examples may be misleading, since they are liable to change. Instead one needs to gather multiple samples and see which one the person relies upon most frequently.

The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing.

DA thinking provides the algorithmic form. CD logic provides the variable which determines the solution.

So for

function A(param X)
{if X = b then Y else Z}

DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable.

By supply X, Y or Z is determined.

I don't create if-then-else propositions.

By supplying variables to pre-existing functions, I determine the singular result.

This is where I disagree. An ILE would generate some small portion of these if-then-else propositions, and Ne-ILE in greater proportion than a Ti-ILE. Everyone utilizes some bit of their dual cog-style, because any cognitive style on its own, in isolation, would be inoperative.

I read that, and I'm quite familiar with discrete mathematics to understand it. Dichotomies are useful to describe a type, but not to make the typing itself. If we start going by dichotomies, there are 225 possible outcomes. It's not that hard to comprehend :\.

you don't start with dichotomies, you start with the person you're trying to type and then eliminate types based on what dichotomies don't seem to fit

I was messing with the dichotomies the other day on paper, and I even showed fenryrr here how some of the groupings seems quite arbitrary (as in, how some groups are put together). I'll make a thread about it later on, but my wasn't happy with some of the assumptions made when these were created and described.

how did you come to that conclusion? my perception was that the traits that were assigned to dichotomies were picked somewhat arbitrarily