Phaedrus

[Jonathan]

This problem is likely to remain unsolved.

Too many people make typings with base on a superficial understanding of the types, and then using mistyped individuals as base to type others. This will continue to happen.

Yes.

And I think there are additional reasons for the "continuously unsolved" state of affairs. One was something Smilex pointed out that I think is really insightful. Socionics was developed from an Alpha perspective. As a result, definitions and descriptions for and contain virtually every intellectual interest and skill commonly associated with NTs. is left with "time," and with "business logic." From that perspective, Gamma NTs can be good at project management and logistics, but anyone who shows much more of an intellectual side than that *must* be Alpha.

And many postings and conceptions are based on that train of thought.

In Hugo's Socionics system, you (I mean Phaedrus) will always be Alpha. In the version I did here...http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5975, you're clearly Gamma.

So it all depends on which system you choose. That may seem odd coming from someone you see as an "objectivist"; but it's reality. Of course there is ultimate truth, but there are many systems, which in turn are based on different definitions.

The test of the system isn't whether it's correct. (Correct has no meaning unless it's clearly definted.) The test of the system is whether it's useful.

...which means that it all comes down to relationships. If you're satisfied with your relations with Gammas, then ultimately no theoretical validation is needed.

Also, there is some evidence in published articles that people are attracted to certain things in their opposing quadra, which proves that no relationship will ever be fulfilling in every possible way.

As Olga once attested to, super ego relationships in mature people can work out fine. I suspect that in certain situations, conflict relationships would work too. It's nice to learn the possible pitfalls and head them off.

But the point is, outside one's relationship with other people, one's type really doesn't matter that much.

The people who seem to have the greatest mastery of type...like Jung for instance, tend to take it with a grain of salt.

Smilex once posted that he doubted that type is really that stable. Ultimately, a structure, a phenomenon, and experience have type. I don't and have basically never believed that a person is confined to a type. I know we're supposed to love our dual and hate our PoLR; but I really can't think of a function that I dislike, although at any one moment emphasizing certain functions would get in the way of my current state of mind.

[Jonathan]

PS...for the people who keep disagreeing with P about his type. After a certain point, is it really productive?

I've sometimes used questions about my own "type" tendencies to try to understand ramifications of functions on behavior, since I know that at least some schools of Socionics and other Jungian typology systems tend to come to different conclusions on this matter.

But really, to discuss P's type merely in the sense of contradicting him doesn't really add much, unless one also extends the conversation to a discussion of conceptions of what, say, INTjs and INTps are really like, and the theoretic ramifications.

It's all a matter of picking versions of Socionics, and there's really no reason it should get personal.

Ultimately, besides understanding relationships, typology can be a tool for analyzing discourse, and, as Jung said, explaining things if there's a conflict between people. But sometimes we make too much of it...

[Gilly]

owned

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...word2=Gilligan

[Jonathan]

I don't know how this got started, but you know, it just has to do with Google results. Take a look at this:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...ics&word2=MBTI

[discojoe]

Quit picking on Phaedrus. He's probably a little kid.

[Phaedrus]

And I think there are additional reasons for the "continuously unsolved" state of affairs. One was something Smilex pointed out that I think is really insightful. Socionics was developed from an Alpha perspective. As a result, definitions and descriptions for and contain virtually every intellectual interest and skill commonly associated with NTs. is left with "time," and with "business logic." From that perspective, Gamma NTs can be good at project management and logistics, but anyone who shows much more of an intellectual side than that *must* be Alpha.

And many postings and conceptions are based on that train of thought.

Yes, it seems so.

In Hugo's Socionics system, you (I mean Phaedrus) will always be Alpha. In the version I did here...http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5975, you're clearly Gamma.

If we only look at Augusta's definitions of the leading functions it is quite understandable why Hugo and others can maintain their belief that their understanding of the types is the correct one. But if we take one step further and look at the type descriptions of real life people made by socionists, we will notice something else. We will realize that people might see clear expressions of Augusta's version of in real life INTps. An obvious example of that is Phaedrus, who "screams Ti like not other" if one looks at his posts ...

How should we explain that? Is is possible that Augusta and her followers made a mistake of the same dignity as the one Isabel Myers made when she assumed that the leading function of introverted perceiving types (P types) is a rational one? Sometimes I think that we can't really dimiss that as an impossibility. It is not that clear what the mistake should consist in, but it is certain that Augusta's definitions of the functions are misleading. They are not totally wrong, but they are incomplete and maybe even incorrect in some parts.

Let's now take a look at how socionists put real life people together in groups they call "types". How do they describe their actual behaviours?

On the one hand we have Stratiyevskaya's type descriptions and V.I., which both unquestionably distinguish a group of people called "INTjs". That group of "INTjs" or "LIIs" share a kind of real life behaviour and a way of thinking that is clearly consistent with Jung's description of the actual behaviour of introverted thinking types, even the little detail about their paranoic tendences.

By the exact same sources of information (type descriptions and V.I.) we can distinguish another group with just as clear boundaries called "INTps" or "ILIs". Those INTps match Jung's description of the introverted intuitive type, but not in the same clear way, because Jung's description of introverted intuitives is not that good, and, as Expat has pointed out, it is probably mostly based on real life INFps. But it is still rather obvious that real life INTps (ILIs) are, in comparison with INTjs, more impractical, more of "dreamers". When unhealthy they don't become paranoic like the INTjs, but, as Jung points out (my italics):

The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects. [p. 511]

That this is true you can see in real life INTps/INTPs and in the type descriptions of that type.

Both Jung and Stratiyevskaya describe them as mostly underestimated and misunderstood. This quote from Jung's Psychological Types captures quite well how both the socionic INTps and the MBTI INTPs are described and perceived by others (my italics):

The fragmentary and, as a rule, quite episodic character of their communications make too great a demand upon the understanding and good will of their circle; furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanour towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of showing it. We shall form a [p. 512] fairer judgment of such men and grant them a greater indulgence, when we begin to realize how hard it is to translate into intelligible language what is perceived within. Yet this indulgence must not be so liberal as to exempt them altogether from the necessity of such expression. This could be only detrimental for such types. Fate itself prepares for them, perhaps even more than for other men, overwhelming external difficulties, which have a very sobering effect upon the intoxication of the inner vision. But frequently only an intense personal need can wring from them a human expression.

The introverted intuitives see things (compare my comments on the function in this thread) but they are often unable to put their insights into words and arguments that other will understand and be convinced by. As Jung points out, they "can only confess or pronounce" like "the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'".

So it all depends on which system you choose. That may seem odd coming from someone you see as an "objectivist"; but it's reality. Of course there is ultimate truth, but there are many systems, which in turn are based on different definitions.

I must protest here. We should not accept this situation as it is. We have to come to some sort of consensus about how to define the functions and about exactly which groups of people should be called INTjs and INTps respectively. As it now stands, we have at least two totally incompatible versions of Socionics. Why accept the same name for two completely different systems?

The test of the system isn't whether it's correct. (Correct has no meaning unless it's clearly defined.) The test of the system is whether it's useful.

Then we should start to define what we mean by "correct", so that we all share the same definitions. I hope everyone notices how clearly Objectivist my attitude is here. We might expect the INTj Subjectivists to hold on to their version of Socionics and dimiss the problem as unimportant (hopefully they won't), but that is not acceptable. It is really bad science to think like that.

...which means that it all comes down to relationships. If you're satisfied with your relations with Gammas, then ultimately no theoretical validation is needed.

That is not the issue here. The problem is to come to a consensus about the theoretical framework.

Also, there is some evidence in published articles that people are attracted to certain things in their opposing quadra, which proves that no relationship will ever be fulfilling in every possible way.

Then perhaps we should not put so much emphasis on the intertype relations, until we have understood the fundamentals correctly. It might be better to focus on getting the types and the functions right. If we don't know which groups of people to compare, we cannot determine the relations between them either.

But the point is, outside one's relationship with other people, one's type really doesn't matter that much.

I disagree. It matters both theoretically and practically in many life situations.

Smilex once posted that he doubted that type is really that stable. Ultimately, a structure, a phenomenon, and experience have type. I don't and have basically never believed that a person is confined to a type.

I completely disagree with both of you. Your type is inborn. It can't change (except maybe in some very extreme cases). V.I. and body types would not make much sense if types were unstable, but since there is much truth in both V.I. and body types, I think we should stick to the hypothesis that types are rather static phenomena, based on the structure of your brain, which is genetically inherited.

[Expat]

Smilex once posted that he doubted that type is really that stable. Ultimately, a structure, a phenomenon, and experience have type. I don't and have basically never believed that a person is confined to a type.

I completely disagree with both of you. Your type is inborn. It can't change (except maybe in some very extreme cases). V.I. and body types would not make much sense if types were unstable, but since there is much truth in both V.I. and body types, I think we should stick to the hypothesis that types are rather static phenomena, based on the structure of your brain, which is genetically inherited.

Right, this is interesting. Unless I misunderstand Smilingeyes' views, they are not totally incompatible with what you have just cited.

His interpretation is that the temperament is stable. An EJ can be mostly ESFj but shift to ENTj in moments or at different life periods, but they're not going to become IPs.

A lot of VI and body types is related to the temperament, so it is not really incompatible.

I have little experience with small children, but observing the sons of an INFj friend of mine I noticed that one seemed rational and the other one, irrational. I explained the concept briefly to the father and he agreed immediately.

So - I'm speculating now - perhaps your temperament is inborn and related to body type (although I'm skeptical of the very rigid correlation Phaedrus sees), so you are EJ, IP, EP or IJ from a very early age.

As you get older, you develop your functional preferences along the temperaments, and they may even remain rather fixed throughout your life as Model A suggests, or perhaps be more flexible as per Smilingeyes' interpretation.

[XoX]

So - I'm speculating now - perhaps your temperament is inborn and related to body type (although I'm skeptical of the very rigid correlation Phaedrus sees), so you are EJ, IP, EP or IJ from a very early age.

As you get older, you develop your functional preferences along the temperaments, and they may even remain rather fixed throughout your life as Model A suggests, or perhaps be more flexible as per Smilingeyes' interpretation.

That might explain why I can see ISTp in my childhood and even teenage years but nowadays I don't see much ISTp in me. However I could imagine being IP.

Of course it might just be that back then I was trying to use the functions which were not my natural strenghts (because of pressure from environment). Or perhaps I'm doing that now.

[Creepy-pokeball]

You are Delta.

[XoX]

You are Delta.

Me or Phaedrus? And if me then which one? And are you too?

[Expat]

You are Delta.

Me or Phaedrus? And if me then which one? And are you too?

Personally I still think you are Delta and INFj, but I confess I still have to re-analyze what you sent me.

[XoX]

You are Delta.

Me or Phaedrus? And if me then which one? And are you too?

Personally I still think you are Delta and INFj, but I confess I still have to re-analyze what you sent me.

Possible The thing is I just feel a bit too...scattered or something to be INFj but I'm not sure how scattered can the intuitive subtypes get.

[Phaedrus]

Smilex once posted that he doubted that type is really that stable. Ultimately, a structure, a phenomenon, and experience have type. I don't and have basically never believed that a person is confined to a type.

I completely disagree with both of you. Your type is inborn. It can't change (except maybe in some very extreme cases). V.I. and body types would not make much sense if types were unstable, but since there is much truth in both V.I. and body types, I think we should stick to the hypothesis that types are rather static phenomena, based on the structure of your brain, which is genetically inherited.

Right, this is interesting. Unless I misunderstand Smilingeyes' views, they are not totally incompatible with what you have just cited.

His interpretation is that the temperament is stable. An EJ can be mostly ESFj but shift to ENTj in moments or at different life periods, but they're not going to become IPs.

A lot of VI and body types is related to the temperament, so it is not really incompatible.

I have little experience with small children, but observing the sons of an INFj friend of mine I noticed that one seemed rational and the other one, irrational. I explained the concept briefly to the father and he agreed immediately.

So - I'm speculating now - perhaps your temperament is inborn and related to body type (although I'm skeptical of the very rigid correlation Phaedrus sees), so you are EJ, IP, EP or IJ from a very early age.

As you get older, you develop your functional preferences along the temperaments, and they may even remain rather fixed throughout your life as Model A suggests, or perhaps be more flexible as per Smilingeyes' interpretation.

Hmm ... this is indeed quite interesting, and if you (and Smilingeyes) are right, it migh open a door to a possible solution of the problem.

David Keirsey (the "MORON", remember?) emphazises the imortance of distinguishing between three different concepts: temperament, character and personality:

There are two sides to personality, one of which is temperament and the other character. Temperament is a configuration of inclinations, while character is a configuration of habits. Character is disposition, temperament pre-disposition ...

Put another way, our brain is a sort of computer which has temperament for its hardware and character for its software. The hardware is the physical base from which character emerges, placing identifiable fingerprint on each individual's attitudes and actions. This underlying consistency can be observed from a very early age--some features earlier than others--long before individual experience or social context (one's particular software) has had time or occasion to imprint the person. Thus temperament is the inborn form of human nature; character, the emergent form, which develops through the interaction of temperament and environment.

I want to emphasize that temperament, character, and personality are configured, which means that, not only are we predisposed to develop certain attitudes and not others, certain actions and not others, but that these actions and attitudes are unified--they hang together.

(From Please Understand Me II, p. 20)

I have always thought of the types along similar lines as Keirsey. I have thought that both the Keirsey, the MBTI and the socionic type descriptions are predominantly descriptions of temperament plus character. And I have thought that the focus in all these type descriptions is on the "hardware". Maybe that is still the case.

But what happens if we change our focus away from the temperaments and the type descriptions, and start to focus very narrowly on the functions instead? Are we now focusing solely on the "software"? If that is true, then one might think that I a person like Phaedrus, who was born with an IP temperament, and who has developed certain attitudes during the years that are typical of INTPs/INTps (like being an Objectivist instead of a Subjectivist), along with that also has developed certain "software" related functions, like a strong . Someone, whose focus is mainly, or only, on the software, might then think that Phaedrus must be a type he or she believes is typically manifesting strong , like the INTj.

So, what is a type then? How shall we define it? I think that the easiest and most natural solution would be to maintain that the types are related to the "hardware". That would be consistent with how the majority of typologists, ever since the ancient Greeks, want to see it. It is clear that even the socionic type descriptions are not based solely on the functions. They are also strongly influenced by temperaments and other manifestations of our hardware. If we talk about manifestations of the different functions, maybe we should be much more cautious and not draw any definite conclusions about someone's type based on which function(s) we think that person is expressing.

In this new perspective, we would end up with at least two things: types and functions. And those two things would be much less closely related, more separate, than I (and probably others, too) have thought.

[Logos]

Phaedrus, you're an INTp, but part of the reason people tell you that you are not is simply because it gets such a reaction out of you. As you said, just like an INTj or ENTp exhibit strong subconsciously, an INTp cor ENTj can exhibit strong . This is part of the theory behind Socionics: functions do not exsist or act independently, but as a cohesive whole.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, you're an INTp, but part of the reason people tell you that you are not is simply because it gets such a reaction out of you. As you said, just like an INTj or ENTp exhibit strong subconsciously, an INTp cor ENTj can exhibit strong . This is part of the theory behind Socionics: functions do not exsist or act independently, but as a cohesive whole.

Yes, I know that I am an INTp. And I know it is part of the theory of Socionics that an INTp or ENTj can exhibit strong . But the real issue is not my type. The real issue is the types.

Many people on this forum have incorrect views on the types, based on misleading definitions of the functions in combination with the fact that they don't pay much attention to the descriptions of the types and the temperaments and the behaviour of real life people fitting those descriptions and V.I.

I insist on the importance of reaching a consensus on this.

[Gilly]

I insist on the importance of reaching a consensus on this.

Ah, right. It all has to fit into one system.

my ass.

[Logos]

Many people on this forum have incorrect views on the types, based on misleading definitions of the functions in combination with the fact that they don't pay much attention to the descriptions of the types and the temperaments and the behaviour of real life people fitting those descriptions and V.I.

I insist on the importance of reaching a consensus on this.

Well let's work on this one step at a time. Could you provide a link to the best Socionics type and function descriptions you have read?

Ah, right. It all has to fit into one system.

Yes, but it could be argued that the reason why he is seeking to reach consensus is to better establish the definitions and usage of common terminology so they can be better utilized, which is quite .

[Phaedrus]

Could you provide a link to the best Socionics type and function descriptions you have read?

The best Socionics type descriptions I have read are probably Stratiyevskaya's. But so far I'm not sure that I have read any function description that I have been entirely satisfied with. That's one of the reasons I focus more on the types themselves. I tend to leave the question open which exact functions and definitions of functions best explain the behaviours of the types. If it is necessary I am prepared to sacrifice the functions altogether. I don't see them as primary units in a theory of the types.

[Expat]

tend to leave the question open which exact functions and definitions of functions best explain the behaviours of the types. If it is necessary I am prepared to sacrifice the functions altogether. I don't see them as primary units in a theory of the types.

But they are a primary unit for the intertype relationship theory, which is what makes Socionics most valuable in my opinion.

[Phaedrus]

tend to leave the question open which exact functions and definitions of functions best explain the behaviours of the types. If it is necessary I am prepared to sacrifice the functions altogether. I don't see them as primary units in a theory of the types.

But they are a primary unit for the intertype relationship theory, which is what makes Socionics most valuable in my opinion.

Yes, I agree. But they are still not primary even in Socionics. Before the intertype relations can be determined the objects between which there are relations must be determined. Before Augusta could determine which functions were in play she had to determine the types. So, before every theoretical framework based on the assumption of the existence of functions, we have the empirical observations of real life people, whose patterns of typical behaviours helps us to identify the real types. Types are primary, not functions.

And now, when we have already identified the types, we can begin to investigate the true nature of those types. It is not the behaviour that must define what we mean by a "type". Just like the true nature of water can be defined by its molecular structure, we can also define (some day) the true nature of the types based on their brain structure or something like that.

[Jonathan]

But the point is, outside one's relationship with other people, one's type really doesn't matter that much.

I disagree. It matters both theoretically and practically in many life situations.

Well I stand corrected on that one. As I stated in my follow-up post, there are, of course, many other applications of typology.

My point, however, is that, it seems to me that the particular question of definitions under discussion matters most in terms of the inter-type relationships; and, in particular, the importance of typing a person with a stable type (as opposed to using typology as an aid in linguistic analysis or other applications), and in distinguishing between quasi-identicals, has primary relevance in intertype relationships.

Type is also used for career development, of course. However, quasi-identicals are often effective in very similar fields. The J/P dichotomy can also have an impact in understanding one's strengths and weaknesses, but from a "use" standpoint, understanding the functional basis behind it (which is what's at dispute here) may not be so important.

Of course, you've questioned the value of functional analysis itself. Actually, if you throw the functions out, there is nothing to dispute here, because the people who are saying you're INTj are really making a statement about functions. I don't think anyone here is seriously disputing that you're I+N+T+P in an MBTI sense.

I would hold that the functions are a really important part of the theory, in that they make it a predictive theory (a theory that seeks to explain the reason for the intertype relationship and other results); without functions, typology becomes merely a matter of classification.

[Phaedrus]

Of course, you've questioned the value of functional analysis itself. Actually, if you throw the functions out, there is nothing to dispute here, because the people who are saying you're INTj are really making a statement about functions. I don't think anyone here is seriously disputing that you're I+N+T+P in an MBTI sense.

I'm somewhat surprised to hear that from you. If you are right about what you claim here, that the people who are saying that I'm an INTj "are really making a statement about functions", then you are actually implying that they are stupid. But I can't believe anyone can be that dumb. They are not just saying that I am expressing , they are saying that I am an INTj, which is incompatible with what I am saying about myself. And I am, of course, not just saying that I am an I+N+T+P in the MBTI sense. That is silly. I am saying that I am an INTp, an ILI. I am also saying that that type is essentially the same type as an INTP. It is the exact same object. Do I really have to repeat all these things?

I would hold that the functions are a really important part of the theory, in that they make it a predictive theory (a theory that seeks to explain the reason for the intertype relationship and other results); without functions, typology becomes merely a matter of classification.

I agree with you here. I have never questioned the importance of explaining and predicting intertype relations. That's one of the main reasons why Socionics is superior to MBTT. But the functions are not an essential, not a necessary, part of the theory of intertype relations. Without them we can still make predictions based on what we know about the types. And we could, in principle, replace the functions with another kind of theoretical assumptions or theoretical framework, if that would make our theory correspond better with reality. As always, it is only the empirical observations that are really necessary in every branch of the natural sciences, which Socionics is a part of.

What I have questioned about the functional analysis is its reliability as a tool for typing people. The functions are not extremely well defined, they are open to different interpretations, and people seem to be able to see this or that function expressed here and there, without anyone being able to tell for sure whether the function is really there, or if they just imagine it. It is my firm conviction that good type descriptions are more reliable than a functional analysis if we want to determine someone's correct type. But of course neither type descriptions are very reliable in themselves. Only by a combination of different typing tools, like comparing a lot of different type descriptions, the temperaments, V.I, body types, the Reinin dichotomies, etc., we can begin to make typing resemble an exact science. A functional analysis is of course also valuable, but when people only look at the functions, they often make mistakes. That is as clear as day.

[Jonathan]

If you are right about what you claim here, that the people who are saying that I'm an INTj "are really making a statement about functions", then you are actually implying that they are stupid. But I can't believe anyone can be that dumb. They are not just saying that I am expressing , they are saying that I am an INTj

Well, maybe I'm missing something, but it sure seems to me that the only significant arguments I've heard from others here have been of the "I'm hearing him express and " variety. Don't assume that everyone here has as much of a holistic, fleshed-out image of the types as you do.

I see where you're coming from about the proposal to start with the types holistically. Of course since in Western typology types have always been in powers of 2, it's clear that the classification is related to dichotomies. An interesting experiment would be to get a whole bunch of people who don't know typology into a room and have them meet each other....then they would all get cards with the people's names and have to put those cards into no more than 16 piles, grouping together people who seemed most "similar"; then you could run a cluster analysis on the computer.

But ultimately, I really think that there's less consensus than you may think about how the types may come out. I think the only way to ever resolve this would be as follows:
1. Define clearly the major contenders for different definitions of the functions or dichotomies used to determine type.
2. Develop reliable testing methods (not necessarily self-report instruments, but possibly) based on those different definitions.
3. Get a very large group of pairs of people in long-term relationships, family relationships, long-term friendships, and people who work together extensively.
4. Test them on all measures developed in steps 1 and 2.
5. Interview all pairs and code the results to determine evidence of various intertype relationships.
6. Perform a statistical analysis to find out which combination of definitions was most predictive of the expected intertype relationships.

That's the only way I see this being resolved. So, while my openness to multiple definitions may seem a bit relativistic to you, it's not that I don't think there's an empirical test to be performed. It's just that unfortunately we don't really have the means on this site.

I suppose we could do a "light" version if we developed the measures and got people to describe their intertype relationships in relation to the various ways they come out. However, it might be difficult to get people to do all that, and of course the people they have various kinds of relationships with probably wouldn't be available to be tested, so it would still be kind of fuzzy....

[dreikin]

I would hold that the functions are a really important part of the theory, in that they make it a predictive theory (a theory that seeks to explain the reason for the intertype relationship and other results); without functions, typology becomes merely a matter of classification.

I agree with you here. I have never questioned the importance of explaining and predicting intertype relations. That's one of the main reasons why Socionics is superior to MBTT. But the functions are not an essential, not a necessary, part of the theory of intertype relations. Without them we can still make predictions based on what we know about the types. And we could, in principle, replace the functions with another kind of theoretical assumptions or theoretical framework, if that would make our theory correspond better with reality. As always, it is only the empirical observations that are really necessary in every branch of the natural sciences, which Socionics is a part of.

What I have questioned about the functional analysis is its reliability as a tool for typing people. The functions are not extremely well defined, they are open to different interpretations, and people seem to be able to see this or that function expressed here and there, without anyone being able to tell for sure whether the function is really there, or if they just imagine it. It is my firm conviction that good type descriptions are more reliable than a functional analysis if we want to determine someone's correct type. But of course neither type descriptions are very reliable in themselves. Only by a combination of different typing tools, like comparing a lot of different type descriptions, the temperaments, V.I, body types, the Reinin dichotomies, etc., we can begin to make typing resemble an exact science. A functional analysis is of course also valuable, but when people only look at the functions, they often make mistakes. That is as clear as day.

Forest.
Trees.
Need I say more?

[FDG]

Phaedrus+Jhonatan = Ti+Ne overflow of mindless words

[Phaedrus]

Forest.
Trees.
Need I say more?

Yes, please explain it more clearly, if you don't mind. I would really like to know that I understand you as exactly and correctly as possible. From your earlier posts we seem to think much alike. Do you agree with that or not? I'd like to know exactly where you stand on this issue.

[dreikin]

Forest.
Trees.
Need I say more?

Yes, please explain it more clearly, if you don't mind. I would really like to know that I understand you as exactly and correctly as possible. From your earlier posts we seem to think much alike. Do you agree with that or not? I'd like to know exactly where you stand on this issue.

Forest vs. Trees: The first use of this refers to your focus on the types to the detriment of the functions (or at least, the appearance of it) - While I agree that it's important to get solid and consistently true descriptions of the types, I believe that a similar focus should be put on the functions and functional analysis. Development of one does not exclude development of the others, and I'm pretty sure that progress may be made much faster through joint development (interestingly, I seem most focused on the functional analysis, you on the types, and Jonathan on the functions).

The second purpose references Jonathan's comment that many people seem to focus too much on the 'trees' of particular functions, limited perceptions of their qualities (eg, Ni and time), and the importance of the functions in the ego block/PoLR, while forgetting the 'wholistic' view of their interaction and usage.

As to a comparison between us, I would not be surprised to find us the same type, much less so that we were in the same quadra, and even less the same quadra 'team' (gamma/delta). If nothing else, we both seem to value Te very much, and I can often see where your posts are in reality Te, no matter how (superficially) Ti they may appear (speaking of which, I think it should be brought to attention that Te may often appear Ti simply because it's used to support an Pi function, meaning that what another person may get is just the end result of the Te, through the Pi, rather than a demonstration of it. Asking 'why' is usually a good way to find the Te root of it). Our conception of Ni seems to be similar, we both identify with it, and it has not struck me as overly similar to any other function such that it were simply another 'face' of that other function. In conclusion, I think you, I, and Jonathan are most likely INTps, and that socionics could (at least for us non-Russian folk) use quite a bit more development. (And also that a few forum members like baiting you on the subject, leading to a possible [and not unwarranted] persecution complex on your part :wink: )

[FDG]

Dreikin is a clear example of INTp

[Phaedrus]

Thanks for your comments, dreikin. They clarified a lot of things, and I'm glad that the way you see things is in line with what I had expected. Especially this passage is very important and well put, I think:

If nothing else, we both seem to value Te very much, and I can often see where your posts are in reality Te, no matter how (superficially) Ti they may appear (speaking of which, I think it should be brought to attention that Te may often appear Ti simply because it's used to support an Pi function, meaning that what another person may get is just the end result of the Te, through the Pi, rather than a demonstration of it. Asking 'why' is usually a good way to find the Te root of it).

I usually don't care much for conspiracy theories, but this massive resistance against seeing me as an INTp, has surprised me and made me even more eager to understand that phenomenon. I can't believe that everyone is doing it just to tease me, even though someone might. So, I'm glad to see that maybe I'm not totally alone and lost in my "inexorable, dysfunctional autistic brain" after all.

But I still don't understand why some people get so vastly different impressions from our posts that they can't see us as the same type. They must be focusing on other aspects than those I am focusing on when I see the similarities. That's the only way I can explain it.

[Jonathan]

But I still don't understand why some people get so vastly different impressions from our posts that they can't see us as the same type. They must be focusing on other aspects than those I am focusing on when I see the similarities. That's the only way I can explain it.

Yeah, it's a mystery to me too. Your posts are a little more emphatic than Dreikin's and mine a little longer and more eclectic, but basically it seems that the three of us write pretty similar posts. Why people don't think we're the same type is really, really strange.

Also, Hugo is probably correct in thinking himself INTj. He's kind of like SG (except a bit nicer of course), and you can see how he's constantly building his own internal system of understanding in exactly the way one might expect an INTj to do it. I would understand if people said "I think Phaedrus and Dreikin are INTjs and Hugo isn't an INTj." But instead their posts imply that they think you're the same type as Hugo and that Dreikin is from the opposing quadra.

Very, very weird.