Enneagram type 5 considered only for introverts

[Creepy-male]

Sorry but I refuse to give in to drama. First, that quote was about misunderstanding between you and me, not about you regarding Socionics. Also I do not mean to belittle you so whatever you feel about what I say is your own business. But just to be fair and to acknowledge your feelings, I will say that contrary to what you think, I do have a quite positive image about you (and about @Galen and @MensSuperMateriam, for that matter). I've read many of your posts and you seem knowledgeable and reasonable. I just accuse you of being too narrow minded sometimes (Galen in particular). It's just that I have a tendency to focus on the negative, on the wrong, on the missing. And you have to admit that you are taking specific critic and turning it into general against your persona.

For the record, I won't back from my statement: I do hold the view that you're missing certain aspects and implications of Socionics. I'm not questioning your knowledge about the system itself, I'm questioning if you understand its true meaning and position in the grand scheme of things. You're NT, I'm NF. Keep that in mind.

Fair enough, I'm not trying to get you to give in to drama. It's just your tone is a little demeaning (imo), I like to discuss and debate things but I like to at an equal level. Disagreements are fine to me but I'd request a little respect is all. We can continue but just please keep in mind how you may be coming across to me (your audience) and I don't think there is any need for undue drama or conflict. I'd also say that I'm not completely writing off your ideas, they are just a little hard to swallow when I feel like it comes at the cost of my intellectual self-respect.

That's just your prejudice talking. It's like accusing a movie director of bragging because he narrates his casual breakfast with a famous actor. Such situations are uncommon for you and me, but for a movie director they are business as usual. And it's just the same about me being an inventor, you're simply not familiar about it.

Well normally I'd be all ears, but once again given what I'm perceiving as you being a bit condescending it makes me want to disregard any personal issues of yours and stick to the facts of our discussion. It's not really prejudice -- I never said you absolutely are being a braggart, its just my guard is up with you now because of what I've perceived as a little condescension, its nothing that has to persist though, your response is more than reasonable I think.

Right under your nose and still don't get it? Socionics is a model of information metabolism but what about information itself?

A type and a person are different levels of the same thing as I said. Personality begins with a type and develops with the addition of information. But what is information? In the context of Socionics we can describe it as the set of strategies meant to deal with real world issues effectively. Everyone is capable of being a passive receptor of such. Given enough it may even give the impression that you've become strong in some area but reality is that you do nothing but to imitate. What makes your type truly meaningful is that it gives you self sufficiency in some area. This is, in that area you can be creative and produce your own strategies.

Instinct is an area that concerns Socionics but it doesn't currently address. It's low level information, kind of a BIOS / Operating System in a computer. This is what my work is about.

Well I wish you luck with your work, and you are free to expand upon it (I'll listen to your ideas and discuss them), but I think we are both approaching the question of personality/type/identity from different ends of the spectrum. Can we at least agree to disagree for now and realize we are both under different interpretations or schools of thought? I think it would be easier to learn from your insights if you structured them in a way that was more of an exposition and less of a conflict to mine.