Quote Originally Posted by Flaxe View Post
Yes, you are correct in that - although it's unrelated to what I wrote. Please keep in mind that I said "stronger", which does not automatically equate to increased in dimensionality.
You sounded like you equated the two like other people do but it's great if you don't.


Ah, I see what I did there. Thanks for pointing it out. ^^Original post corrected to reflect what I intended to say: Leading Ti and Ignoring/Normative Te.
Np. Why do you call Ignoring Te Normative?


Alright, would you mind elaborating on what you see, in regards to the case? (Mathematical dimensionality being applicable to Socionics dimensionality. Post #603)
Next time please link to the post... Anyway, I don't see how it's necessarily applicable in the way Jeremy imagined it, no.

What I see is him parroting the theory without real comprehensive understanding of it and coming up with silly illogical ideas.

I'm not following you on the actions vs functions part of your post. I see IEs as types of information, nothing more nothing less.


That's right, although stubbornness manifests differently for different types.
But that, together with the posts I read, I consider an indicator to the Holographical-Panoramic Cognition.
I don't really see cog styles that clearly displayed by default. Too ambiguous without conducting a deep interview with the person (and even then it may be...).


If you want to be specific, I was going for Linda Beren's theory of the 8 functions, which are considered a subsection of MBTI theory. Just like the Reinin dichotomies are a subsection of what we call "Socionics". No?
Speculative crap. I don't like to guess at function positions from a couple ambiguous tidbits of data, let alone utilize two theories together that are far from being fully consistent with each other.


Well, I'm glad I could surprise you!
Lol ok


My notions may seem "weird" because I prefer to relate existing information mainly to personal experience, while correlating what I can to knowledge I found relevant, rather than imagining behaviour based solely on descriptions. Just like I base my understanding of the functions to how they have come to manifest in my own experience.
Well yes that's fine. What I called weird is how you -several times in your earlier posts here about the LII type in general- conflated personality traits with the IE's as defined in a purely information processing model.


(Mind you, that I haven't looked over all of his activity, but only looked over the last few pages in a couple threads he has been active in. Also keep in mind that from where I am, there is no reference to age, gender, cultural upbringing or traumatic events which could have affected someone's personal development.)
Right. I've seen two sides of Jeremy so far, one is this brainwashed socionics fan, the other one is when he talks about people related issues outside socionics.


As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, as I am relating this to personal experience of the LIIs I've known. Those who came to mind, when reading his posts, were unhealthy individuals with strong narcissistic traits. It is just as likely that I may be reacting more to the narcissistic traits perceived in the posts, rather than to the function stack. But ultimately, I'm not here to force people into boxes or insist on their psychological state.
Yeah.


I'm here to check how my understanding holds up, where it goes wrong - and why.
Fair enough


I may as well be outright wrong - about any of the points I've ever made - but in that case I want to know; where I went wrong, and how.
(Disagreeing or saying that I'm wrong, without providing any information on where one perceives my error to be, will however make it quite difficult for me to troubleshoot my own line of thought.)
OK if anything is unclear, just ask.