Phaedrus

[Gilly]

Let's hear it.

[Expat]

Honestly I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other. He does seem in that he tries to put Socionics, MBTI and the Enneagram together in a clear system, but that would make (for instance) Smilingeyes too. He seems less rigid in that than other supposed INTjs such as Dio and tcaudilllg, but who knows for sure if they are good examples of INTj *shrugs*.

[Gilly]

He seems less rigid in that than other supposed INTjs such as Dio and tcaudilllg.

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=5...r=asc&start=45

[Kristiina]

I still say that he might be INTp. But I think no one would notice, because people are so caught in their own silly ideas about the types.

Did you know that ENTjs are very serious and strict people. Always.
And did you know that ENTjs are not opinionated because if they were opinionated, they would be Fi types.
And did you know that ENTjs always know what to do in each situation, they never get confused what to do.
(PS! Don't argue about these. I was truthful, as these are the reasons that have been told to me. Reasons why I'm not ENTj. But I was being slightly sarcastic, as in I don't really agree with these.)

[snegledmaca]

He seems less rigid in that than other supposed INTjs such as Dio and tcaudilllg, but who knows for sure if they are good examples of INTj *shrugs*.

I don't think Dio, tcaud and hugo are INTj.

Is phaedrus that guy that writes those long posts or is that johnatan? (Or someone else)

[aestrivex]

i have no idea what type phaedrus is.

[Expat]

Did you know that ENTjs are very serious and strict people. Always.
And did you know that ENTjs are not opinionated because if they were opinionated, they would be Fi types.
And did you know that ENTjs always know what to do in each situation, they never get confused what to do.
(PS! Don't argue about these. I was truthful, as these are the reasons that have been told to me. Reasons why I'm not ENTj. But I was being slightly sarcastic, as in I don't really agree with these.)

No Kristiina, those would be silly reasons. The real reasons are function-related as we have tried to tell you.

[Expat]

I don't think Dio, tcaud and hugo are INTj.

What then?

[Jonathan]

The heated discussions about Phaedrus's type seem to stem from the fact that he's been at this a long time, and that it took a fair amount of work for him to come to an understanding of type that he was satisfied with; then all sorts of new people have appeared on the forum telling him he's a different type and brushing off his arguments. It could be exasperating, although he appears to enjoy debating.

Whatever type he is, one thing that's clear if you pay attention to his posts is that he's quite open to any new insights or data. So the people who accuse him of intransigence are really missing the mark.

There is a more fundamental theoretical issue at stake, which I've attempted to elucidate at http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5648.

[Smilingeyes]

Honestly I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other. He does seem in that he tries to put Socionics, MBTI and the Enneagram together in a clear system, but that would make (for instance) Smilingeyes too. He seems less rigid in that than other supposed INTjs such as Dio and tcaudilllg, but who knows for sure if they are good examples of INTj *shrugs*.

I must protest. I've never done no such thing. I don't even know what enneagram really is, except funny. And I don't believe it's really possible to connect MBTI and socionics into a single system.

Though I appreciate the publicity.

[Dioklecian]

Honestly I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other. He does seem in that he tries to put Socionics, MBTI and the Enneagram together in a clear system, but that would make (for instance) Smilingeyes too. He seems less rigid in that than other supposed INTjs such as Dio and tcaudilllg, but who knows for sure if they are good examples of INTj *shrugs*.

I am not INTJ I am afraid

[Dioklecian]

He seems less rigid in that than other supposed INTjs such as Dio and tcaudilllg, but who knows for sure if they are good examples of INTj *shrugs*.

I don't think Dio, tcaud and hugo are INTj.

Is phaedrus that guy that writes those long posts or is that johnatan? (Or someone else)

Thank you

Why do you have that (correct in my view) opinion? (ie. that I am not INTJ)

[Dioklecian]

Honestly I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other. He does seem in that he tries to put Socionics, MBTI and the Enneagram together in a clear system, but that would make (for instance) Smilingeyes too. He seems less rigid in that than other supposed INTjs such as Dio and tcaudilllg, but who knows for sure if they are good examples of INTj *shrugs*.

I must protest. I've never done no such thing. I don't even know what enneagram really is, except funny. And I don't believe it's really possible to connect MBTI and socionics into a single system.

Though I appreciate the publicity.

More publicity for Smilex

[snegledmaca]

He seems less rigid in that than other supposed INTjs such as Dio and tcaudilllg, but who knows for sure if they are good examples of INTj *shrugs*.

I don't think Dio, tcaud and hugo are INTj.

Is phaedrus that guy that writes those long posts or is that johnatan? (Or someone else)

Thank you

Why do you have that (correct in my view) opinion? (ie. that I am not INTJ)

Because you seem like the embodiment of this

This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades.

EDIT: the real reason is because you're a little too close to "home". But that (The Ni thing) is the impresion I get from you.

I don't think Dio, tcaud and hugo are INTj.

What then?

Dio =
Hugo = ISTj
tcaud I'm not sure. Perhaps ISTj. He reminds me of Dio.

But it could be just their personality so I'm not sure of my type estimations validity.

[Dioklecian]

Wow thank you, you are too kind

[Gilly]

Dio is an INFp who is still discovering his . So is UDP.

[Dioklecian]

Dio is an INFp who is still discovering his . So is UDP.

Are you still ENTP Gilligan?

Do you remember what I typed you?

[Gilly]

I'm not ENTp.

I remember you said I was ESFp.

[Dioklecian]

I'm not ENTp.

I remember you said I was ESFp.

Nope Cone I believe said ESFP, I seconded that, however finally I found your type and that of Joy, the post is somewhere in the forum.

Would you like to know what I thought it is? (Different from Joy).

PS: Do you watch "that 70s' show"?

[Gilly]

I'm not ENTp.

I remember you said I was ESFp.

Nope Cone I believe said ESFP, I seconded that, however finally I found your type and that of Joy, the post is somewhere in the forum.

Would you like to know what I thought it is? (Different from Joy).

PS: Do you watch "that 70s' show"?

Sure, I'll hear anyone out on my type It's my favorite subject.

And no, I don't.

[Dioklecian]

You should watch it, the main caracter is you (sort of)

You are ESFJ in my opinion. What do you think? Err, what do you feel about that?

[Gilly]

You should watch it, the main caracter is you (sort of)

You are ESFJ in my opinion. What do you think? Err, what do you feel about that?

Eh, it's not entirely discreditable. Fe in the ego for me is becoming more an more apparent, so yeah, it's a possibility.

[Dioklecian]

You should watch it, the main caracter is you (sort of)

You are ESFJ in my opinion. What do you think? Err, what do you feel about that?

Eh, it's not entirely discreditable. Fe in the ego for me is becoming more an more apparent, so yeah, it's a possibility.

Do I get a chocolate for finding it out? (if I am right, which of course I am )

[Expat]

I must protest. I've never done no such thing. I don't even know what enneagram really is, except funny. And I don't believe it's really possible to connect MBTI and socionics into a single system.

Though I appreciate the publicity.

That wasn't what I meant. I meant that people seem to associate putting things into a system with , and you did that with the Reinin Dichotomies. That is all I meant.

[anndelise]

You should watch it, the main caracter is you (sort of)

You are ESFJ in my opinion. What do you think? Err, what do you feel about that?

Eh, it's not entirely discreditable. Fe in the ego for me is becoming more an more apparent, so yeah, it's a possibility.

Do I get a chocolate for finding it out? (if I am right, which of course I am )

You'd have to get in line behind me.....I suggested FeSi a number of months ago.

MY CHOCOLATE!!!...if there'll be any handed out for this that is.

[anndelise]

I must protest. I've never done no such thing. I don't even know what enneagram really is, except funny. And I don't believe it's really possible to connect MBTI and socionics into a single system.

Though I appreciate the publicity.

That wasn't what I meant. I meant that people seem to associate putting things into a system with , and you did that with the Reinin Dichotomies. That is all I meant.

Did he actually "put it into a system"....or did he take what was already there and give it a visual look....as well as spending time describing what he saw?

[Dioklecian]

You should watch it, the main caracter is you (sort of)

You are ESFJ in my opinion. What do you think? Err, what do you feel about that?

Eh, it's not entirely discreditable. Fe in the ego for me is becoming more an more apparent, so yeah, it's a possibility.

Do I get a chocolate for finding it out? (if I am right, which of course I am )

You'd have to get in line behind me.....I suggested FeSi a number of months ago.

MY CHOCOLATE!!!...if there'll be any handed out for this that is.

Lets' share

[anndelise]

Lets' share

*crosses her arms*
*pouts*

NO!

[Dioklecian]

Lets' share

*crosses her arms*
*pouts*

NO!

Ok, you can have it

[Expat]

Did he actually "put it into a system"....or did he take what was already there and give it a visual look....as well as spending time describing what he saw?

At least in the big article on Reinin Dichotomies that we have here - perhaps there are others I'm not aware of - there is no direct suggestion, or empirical evidence, that they would follow those curves continuously and following the temperaments. For it to work like that, you have to assume in the first place that the temperaments - EJ, IJ, IP, EP - are fixed and that the dichotomies vary continuously along them, including the subtypes.

There is also no direct suggestion in Reinin - that I know of - that a person's type is actually fully movable across quadras the way Smilingeyes interprets it.

Reinin speaks of dichotomies - for instance, either one is Resolute or Judicious. Resolute is Beta or Gamma. That is all the dichotomies say.

To deduce then that Resoluteness reaches (for instance) in IP a peak for the Ni subtype of both INTp and INFp - since that is between Beta and Gamma - makes sense, but it does require some analysis - it is not the only possible interpretation from the data.

I happen to think that that interpretation is likely correct, just as I think that it is possible to make some correlation between the Enneagram and Socionics. This is use of , which is not the same as one necessarily being a type. That was all my point.

[anndelise]

Did he actually "put it into a system"....or did he take what was already there and give it a visual look....as well as spending time describing what he saw?

At least in the big article on Reinin Dichotomies that we have here - perhaps there are others I'm not aware of - there is no direct suggestion, or empirical evidence, that they would follow those curves continuously and following the temperaments. For it to work like that, you have to assume in the first place that the temperaments - EJ, IJ, IP, EP - are fixed and that the dichotomies vary continuously along them, including the subtypes.

There is also no direct suggestion in Reinin - that I know of - that a person's type is actually fully movable across quadras the way Smilingeyes interprets it.

Reinin speaks of dichotomies - for instance, either one is Resolute or Judicious. Resolute is Beta or Gamma. That is all the dichotomies say.

To deduce then that Resoluteness reaches (for instance) in IP a peak for the Ni subtype of both INTp and INFp - since that is between Beta and Gamma - makes sense, but it does require some analysis - it is not the only possible interpretation from the data.

I happen to think that that interpretation is likely correct, just as I think that it is possible to make some correlation between the Enneagram and Socionics. This is use of , which is not the same as one necessarily being a type. That was all my point.

But is he using a static function to do this? or is he seeing it as more of a dynamic thing? It seems to me...and i could be wrong because i don't keep up on what he writes ...that he sees it as a dynamic thing...and is following some of the movements and describing them as he follows them.

[Expat]

Uh, this is getting a bit off-topic, but --

The way I see it, Reinin himself collected a lot of empirical data from observations of real people and systematized them into his Dichotomies . Smilingeyes used those already established Dichotomies to further refine them into those charts and his mathematical-mechanical socionics, both of which are uses of .

That is all I meant. I do not mean at all that he's a type, I'm saying that that is no argument as such to say that Phaedrus necessarily is one either.

[Dioklecian]

Phaedrus is not INTJ.

[dreikin]

Some people may be forgetting that the 7th and 8th functions are STRONG and may be actively used.

7. The Control Function: it is easier for an individual to criticize others for mistakes relevant to this function, to control other people's activities, than to demonstrate his/her own initiative. Information relevant to this function is perceived as redundant, "maybe important but not now".

8. The Standard Function: a person acts on this function actively, but "automatically", chaotically, "as usual"; one needs to see a positive example which would drive his/her efforts into the necessary direction.

As they stand as individual functions, the control and estimative functions can be used exactly as the ego functions are used and with the same strength and consistency, but they can not be used permanently and are not apart of a person's default behavior.

Don't just point out - point out how it's used that would differentiate it between the eigth and the first function.

Jung also mentioned that an observer may have difficulty separating the conscious functions from the unconscious ones, and "We must observe which function is completely under conscious control, and which functions have a haphazard and spontaneous character."

[MysticSonic]

Expat, I believe the clear difference between Phaedrus' and Smilex's attempts at doing what they're trying to do is categorizing vs. organizing.

[Jonathan]

Expat, I believe the clear difference between Phaedrus' and Smilex's attempts at doing what they're trying to do is categorizing vs. organizing.

What's the difference between categorizing concepts and organizing them? Presumably, we're not talking about organizing physical things; we're talking about organizing ideas into categories. So isn't it the same thing?

[MysticSonic]

Categorizing is arbitrary and based on subjective perceptions, whilst organization is spawn from deduction.

[Jonathan]

Categorizing is arbitrary and based on subjective perceptions, whilst organization is spawn from deduction.

I see...and just to clarify then: Who do you think was categorizing vs. organizing....and what do you think it says about their type?

[Phaedrus]

That I am an INTp is now a proven fact. The pieces of evidence for that are simply overwhelming:

1. The Stratiyevskaya INTp description is one of the most accurate descriptions of my type. I identify with every part of it. In the Stratiyevskaya INTj description there are many parts that don't fit me at all.

2. I have, without the slightest doubt, an IP temperament as described here:

http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=5697

That whole thread is important if one wants to get a better understanding of the differences between the IJ and the IP temperament.

It is also quite obvious that Stratiyevskaya describes the INTp as having an IP temperament and the INTj as having an IJ temperament, if you read both descriptions and compare them.

3. It is absolutely certain that I fit the MBTI descriptions of INTPs much better than the MBTI descriptions of INTJs, and anyone who compares the MBTI descriptions with Stratiyevskaya's must come to the conclusion that the Stratiyevskaya INTp is much closer to the the INTP than to the INTJ and that the Stratiyevskaya INTj is much closer to the INTJ.

4. According to the criteria listed in the socionic dichotomies, which are now for everyone to see under General Discussion (thanks for that), I am clearly and without any doubt:

Rightist/Process
Obstinate
Serious/Objectivist. These parts of that description are extremely important:

3. The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors – evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things – but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something – in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different – we'll do something else"

3. In objectivists there is an idea of "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general (common) experience; they consider that there exist "true in general", "always correct" laws. They suppose that other people can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view (This allows the existence of "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore from the point of view of the objectivists, actions can be different – subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective (Where there is only one "correct", "best" way to do something). Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (Or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (Not propositions on how to accomplish an action like the subjectivist) which they think are the best: "No – you will do it "the correct way"". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general – "objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "best" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".

And for the record:

Some of you might remember that I, in a couple of other threads, have talked about two kinds of philosophical thinking, two "camps", which I called subjectivists/relativists" versus "objectivists". I didn't realize then that what is described here in 3 (and under "serious" also in 4) is almost exactly the same dichotomy as the one I had in mind. Very interesting.

Of course I am an objectivist in this sense. (And I was right about the INTjs being "subjectivists" ... )

Farsighted
Negativist
Democrat
Dynamic. That is clearly to be seen in my fictional writings. My INTj father and a female INFj friend of mine are both clearly Statics in their fictional writings.
Constructivist. To think of me as an Emotivist is absurd. There is no way that I can be an Emotivist according to those criteria.
Tactician

With some hesitation in my mind I also seem to be:

Declarer – especially in this respects:

1. When declarers speak they're inclined to use affirmative intonations and because of that they are often perceived as confident or as categorical. Even their questions are often relayed in an affirmative tone.
2. Declarers are inclined to ask questions to receive/get answers to them. Unlike askers, they rarely answer a question with a question or ask questions that are conversational surplus or ask questions as a way to keep the conversation going.

Resolute. Perhaps this is the most uncertain of the dichotomies in relation to me. I can see that I probably fit resolute more, but in some respects I can identify with reasonable. And especially 7 is problematic, because it is not clear that it does not contradict some parts of the descriptions of the socionic temperaments (IJ and IP).

5. Tests indicate that I am right-brain dominant.

6. I am clearly an Enneagram type 5w4.

7. According to V.I. made by myself and some friends initiated in Socionics I look more like an INTp than an INTj.

8. Especially my intertype relations with ENTps, ENTjs, ISFjs, ENFps and ESFjs clearly indicate that I am an INTp. They make much more sense if I am an INTp than if I am an INTj. That I have a Conflicting relation with the ESFj is evident from what Rick says about that relation on his site here:

http://www.socionics.us/relations.shtml

Even more important and relevant is what he says about as a leading function in relation to INTps here:

http://www.socionics.us/theory/be.shtml

9. The only relevant argument I have seen against the claim that I am an INTp is that some people are so convinced that they see so much of in my posts. There might be more than one possible explanation for that, but the simplest explanation might be the one pointed out by dreikin:

Some people may be forgetting that the 7th and 8th functions are STRONG and may be actively used.

7. The Control Function: it is easier for an individual to criticize others for mistakes relevant to this function, to control other people's activities, than to demonstrate his/her own initiative. Information relevant to this function is perceived as redundant, "maybe important but not now".

8. The Standard Function: a person acts on this function actively, but "automatically", chaotically, "as usual"; one needs to see a positive example which would drive his/her efforts into the necessary direction.

As they stand as individual functions, the control and estimative functions can be used exactly as the ego functions are used and with the same strength and consistency, but they can not be used permanently and are not apart of a person's default behavior.

Don't just point out - point out how it's used that would differentiate it between the eigth and the first function.

Jung also mentioned that an observer may have difficulty separating the conscious functions from the unconscious ones, and "We must observe which function is completely under conscious control, and which functions have a haphazard and spontaneous character."

So ... hopefully the case What type is Phaedrus? can now be considered closed.

[FDG]

You're still INTj really. My test is probably erroneous too. There wasn't even a case in the first place.