Noooo there is nothing like "I'd read what you have written". IT IS INDISPUTABLY written like that, NOT AN INTERPRETATION.Originally Posted by Joy
Noooo there is nothing like "I'd read what you have written". IT IS INDISPUTABLY written like that, NOT AN INTERPRETATION.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
She isn't a friggin democratIf this is true then it leaves basically: ESFj, ENTj, ISFp, INTp
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
oh yeah, and the intertype relations don't fit for ISTp, either... there's no way that I'm more similar to ESTjs than ENTjs. They have too much power to irritate me... I wrote a post about how they hit my PoLR.
here's a description of Fe and Si in me:
I am an excellent salesperson... sometimes. It is very difficult for me to consistently provide the emotional stimulation that others expect of me (unless it's close family, but that's different). When I am trying to accomplish something, it's not difficult for me to read other people's emotions and motivations and say and do things that either make them feel comfortable or uncomfortable (depending on my goal). When I do this, inside I am groaning and rolling my eyes and resent the fact that humans need that kind of interaction in order for me to get what I want. Whatever, I can learn the language of the natives if that's what I need to do to get around. I am warm in dealing with clients, but it is a distant warmth. It irritates me when people behave emotionally (and I'm not talking about moods). I have always dreaded holidays, particularly Christmas, because I knew that I would be expected to contribute to the warm atmosphere and feel good conversations. I would be expected to hug people and look happy when I open my presents. I would have to act like I'm happy to see people (I do love my relatives by the way... that's not the issue). It's just so draining to be in that type of situation.
I am horribly out of tune with my body. I worked the entire time I had mono because I didn't know I had mono (I knew I was sick, but I didn't realize I was THAT sick) and worked for a week with whooping cough. I have always had a hard time sleeping. My eating habits are inconsistent. I often don't know that I'm hungry until I realize that I have no energy or I get a headache. I have passed out a handful of times due to dehydration and lack of the proper amount of rest. I have also had a few issues with taking too much stimulants and losing too much weight. People around me would scold me and try to warn me about the direction my health was headed, but I didn't see their point (at least not at the time). My hygiene... ummm... well, let's just say that I am mostly aware of my appearance because of professional reasons. I mean, I take much better care of myself than a lot of people do, but it's for reasons of practicality. I feel absolutely no motivation to make (or keep) my surroundings attractive. I do enjoy good food though. Sometimes I get almost obsessed with getting a certain food if I decide I want it. I also over indulge when I go out to eat or have whatever that food was the I wanted, to the point of feeling uncomfortable for the rest of the night.
If I'm Aristocratic, I'm an ISTp... with some really fucked up Si!
Joy, to be perfectly honest, your dislike of beta reminds me of closet homosexuals. Fuck, it doesn't just remind me, it's the same thing!
If you're aristocratic... you're beta. If there is one thing that is clear about you, it's that you conform reality to your own ways.
If I'm Beta... I'm way more fucked up than any of us ever thought. I dislike Fe more than any of the other functions and I have stronger Te than Ti...
Okay... I'll level. Eh... lemme do it in Beta...
I wasn't evaluating the assumptions against realityI was just checking where her own assumptions would lead. Apparently to ENTj. I once tested her using my test principles and that came out ENTj too. So in her mind she seems to be ENTj. However it doesn't guarantee that she actually is ENTj IRL.
I agree she often makes statements which seem aristocratic on the surface *shrugs*. Anyways she doesn't seem to be as "reputation oriented" in her statements as I would imagine an aristrocrat would. Especially ENFj. I mean the "truth is what matters not who tells it" attitude. If she really believes that then it is quite anti-aristocratic? And actually in one to one chatting she comes out as pretty democratic and straightforward in her opinions. But I can't make a good case for either option so I'm not taking a rigid stance.
I had to evaluate the statement again because it started to bug me. Lol. I think I get it now. The "<3" was just tacticalNot what was meant.Did you know that INTps are supposed to be democrats o_O
Actually I think your "dislike for Fe" has nothing to do with actual usage. It's like, I like to do my job and get paid for it () but I don't like other people doing my job and getting paid for it (
). And also that's it blown out of proportion
The "stronger Te" I attribute to poor Te or more precisely the tendency to "bend" facts by wishful thinking (Does anyone else notice the grotesque irony in this statement?) and a tendency to present information to be digested.
No, no, please, by all means make a case (You don't have to take a rigid stance).I wasn't evaluating the assumptions against reality
I agree she often makes statements which seem aristocratic on the surface *shrugs*. Anyways she doesn't seem to be as "reputation oriented" in her statements as I would imagine an aristrocrat would. Especially ENFj. I mean the "truth is what matters not who tells it" attitude. If she really believes that then it is quite anti-aristocratic? And actually in one to one chatting she comes out as pretty democratic and straightforward in her opinions. But I can't make a good case for either option so I'm not taking a rigid stance.
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=119842#119842
You make a good point about one on one conversation... I've had one on one conversations with a lot of people here and I'm willing to have one on one conversations with anyone. That's where you'll see as much of "the real me" as broadband will allow. Yahoo IM is a particularly effective way of communicationg because (provided you aren't using trillian) you can see my webcam while we chat. Those who have done this have a better view of who I am, imo, than anyone who has simply read my forum posts and/or seen me in the chat (in most cases being gained up on
going there is the social equivilant to going to kickboxing practice).
Sara is INFp. I'll start a thread about it just to avoid hijackulation of this thread.I had to evaluate the statement again because it started to bug me. Lol. I think I get it now. The "<3" was just tacticalNot what was meant.Did you know that INTps are supposed to be democrats o_O
hmmmm results so far...
ESFp is in the lead with 10 votes.
ISTp is next with 9... this is interesting to me. The description fits, but functions (Si specifically) don't.
ENTj is next with 8.
ESTj is next with 7... ESTj faces the same problems as ISTp, except the description doesn't even fit.
You forgot ENTP with 15 votes. BTW, ENTP is closer to ISTP then ENTJ, without having strong Sensing.
I'm not counting ENTp since not one person posted anything in my "Where's the Ti?" thread. This implies that those were only "you're not allowed to have a type anymore" votes rather than actual opinions.
If anyone can describe or give an example of my use of Ti here, in the "where's the Ti?" thread, or via PM, I will count their vote. The way it currently stands, the only person who even half-assed an attempt to justify why I'm ENTp was Kristiina, although there was no mention of Ti in her post, or in any of her posts about my type.
We know that at least 5 people voted every single type. This means that I'm counting 6 ENTp votes.
How the fuck can you presume to interpret peoples' judgments like this? What if they actually think you're ENTp? Talk about Aristocracy: you just fucking shat it all over the place.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Please explain how this is aristocracy. I didn't know that Alphas and Gammas are willing to accept anything and everything that others say as valid reasoning.How the fuck can you presume to interpret peoples' judgments like this? What if they actually think you're ENTp? Talk about Aristocracy: you just fucking shat it all over the place.
I stated in the first post that anyone who thinks I'm a Ti type should post in my "where's the Ti?" thread. No one has ever given any description or example of my use of Ti (to my recollection).
Just because I'm not counting these "default" ENTp votes doesn't mean that I'm saying that no one else should. And I'd be perfectly happy to count all of them if people are willing to demonstrate in any way, shape, or form that their vote wasn't just a "default" ENTp vote. I counted Kristiina's, even though her reasoning didn't include any mention of Ti.
Well, until you provide some good reasoning for that statement (I'm not saying there isn't any), there's the
May I remind you of your signature:I didn't know that Alphas and Gammas are willing to accept anything and everything that others say as valid reasoning.
That doesn't mean they'll accept it (esp if they can disprove it), but they would at least actively consider it.Te also maintains an active neutral stance on all of the whole of its inputs, even if the whole of the input of one thought process conflicts with any of the other core processes it remains non-biased and registers them all as equals.
INTp
I did consider ENTp... I thought I was ENTp for like four months...
What was the reason you changed? I think you said you just really started to study socionics after you claimed ENTp, so that other opinion wouldn't really matter?
also, i think the person who is answering the Ti question (what seems like someone with Ti) is sneg. Kristiina addressed it more directly.
i dont understand this. lack of reasoning is a use of Ti? That is not true. maybe you meant "if you take a lot of time to explain in socially accepted, socially common terms"
Well, until you provide some good reasoning for that statement (I'm not saying there isn't any), there's the
ok since this was brought up i will get something off my chest.
being neutral is not the same as being objective, or at least objectively logical. and, to dreikin, it doesnt matter at all to the functional analysis if someone accepts it or not, or i assume it doesnt if we leave values and interests, desires as not completely tied to psychological functions.
No, not at all, that would go rather against it being a judging function. The type (well, apparent type) of reasoning is what I was saying is the oft pointed to Ti. Statements like that, where a judgment appears to be made arbitrarily, based on some internal logic, with no evidence provided to support the judgment (really, if this is so, I think a lot of people who don't like typing/speaking/explaining themselves/are really introverted/etc but are Te may get called Ti a lot).i dont understand this. lack of reasoning is a use of Ti? That is not true. maybe you meant "if you take a lot of time to explain in socially accepted, socially common terms"
Well, until you provide some good reasoning for that statement (I'm not saying there isn't any), there's the
Not sure I understand what you're saying after "and, to dreikin", but I'll take a guess: "Functions and functional analysis are not everything, there are also a person's values, interests, etc to take into account".ok since this was brought up i will get something off my chest.
being neutral is not the same as being objective, or at least objectively logical. and, to dreikin, it doesnt matter at all to the functional analysis if someone accepts it or not, or i assume it doesnt if we leave values and interests, desires as not completely tied to psychological functions.
If so, then I agree with both parts. As far as I can tell, the functions are simply methods of receiving and processing information. If nothing else, sometimes a judgment will come to a 'draw' (eg, lack of enough information), and that can accentuate the importance of other factors on a person's decision, such as cultural values (which comes back to the 'neutral =/= objective' statement.)
(mind you, the point in her sig I was emphasizing in connection with that was "even if the whole of the input of one thought process conflicts with any of the other core processes it remains non-biased and registers them all as equals")
(and I think I should have put a :wink: after that second section)
INTp
1.) I am not counting ENTp votes for my own purposes for two reasons (but of course, I am not saying that others shouldn't count them... do what you want):
- I have already considered ENTp thoroughly and ruled it out. However, if someone presents an argument, I will reconsider.
- ENTp is the "default" vote... if ENFj or ISFp or ENFp or any other type was the "default" vote, that type would be the vote that I wouldn't take as seriously, especially if I had already thoroughly considered that type and ruled it out. If someone gives me any reason at all to believe that they didn't vote for ENTp just because they "don't get me"... so I must be the enigmatic ENTp... "and besides, you've 'been' too many types, so I don't trust you not to change types again", then I will most certainly be more than happy to consider what they're saying.
2.) Msk, the reason I ruled out ENTp was originally because I was seriously considering ESFp due to a suggestion from Peter. Once I started actually reading other type descriptions and learning about types, ENTp no longer fit me better than other types. Kim and DeltaRho (or whatever her name was) insisted that I wasn't ESFp... that I have weak Fi and whatnot... so I started looking at ISFp. I was really depressed at the time, and I mistook depression for Si. I knew I was better at knowing how people would react to things than most people (which I now know is Ni), so I thought Fe made sense, too. As I learned more about socionics, ISFp made less and less sense for a multitude of reasons. At that point I knew that I wasn't ENTp, but I didn't think I was ISFp, either... but I was still learning about functions and model A, and I thought that Benny and Ashton were stereotypical ENTjs, and I did nto get along with them AT ALL, so it was difficult for me to consider ENTj at that point (and this is actually a large part of the reason I was even willing to consider ISFp
trigun!!!
lol <3
thought I'd add this here because it corresponds with my last post (not the lol <3 one)
I don't know if this is true for all types, but for ENTj, the most similar type in dichotomies is conflicting, then activity. This reminds me of a thread a posted a while back. I had obseved in several individuals that they seemed most similar to their activity, such as with myself and Peter and a few others.
I think this makes my previous typings for myself seem less ridiculous. ENTp is what I tested on tests that measured "P" against "J"
I thought that's what it was
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
yeah that is stupid.
I agree you shouldnt give a fuck if people say you're a certain type if they can't back it up.
What it was about ENTp after the ESFp suggestion you thought didn't fit you as well, and also the other types you thought you were at that time. Mostly, which sources gave you a better idea of the functions? The way you said it makes it sound as if learning about the functions followed after you "changed types" or rejected types, which could theoretically leave you back at ground zero. I suppose it didn't happen in a linear way, because that's not life, but yeah. I would like to read the sources which have given you a better understanding of functions.
For example, I didn't think about Ni in those terms (as you listed as not Fe).
Also, thanks for all that work in typing a response!
it goes against a judging function if it adheres to social standards? I think smilingeyes made a post a while back about how the judging functions are social; it made sense. How will you say that an animal or a plant or a rock will call something logical, or call something "right" or "wrong"? And well i know you probably weren't saying this, but I want to emphasize that providing no evidence is something any judging function can do. For example Fi also has a system of moral rules right, which they can justify or not justify according to the moral evidence.No, not at all, that would go rather against it being a judging function. The type (well, apparent type) of reasoning is what I was saying is the oft pointed to Ti. Statements like that, where a judgment appears to be made arbitrarily, based on some internal logic, with no evidence provided to support the judgment (really, if this is so, I think a lot of people who don't like typing/speaking/explaining themselves/are really introverted/etc but are Te may get called Ti a lot).i dont understand this. lack of reasoning is a use of Ti? That is not true. maybe you meant "if you take a lot of time to explain in socially accepted, socially common terms"
Well, until you provide some good reasoning for that statement (I'm not saying there isn't any), there's the
EDIT: uh also if someone is making an arbitrary statement that doesnt mean that it has to do with any particular kind of logic, meaning in what "realm" it takes place, or whether it is expressed or not. Also i do realize you are talking about stereotypes, and i am talking about them being groundless (for the most part)
For me, I learn best when I see examples. Abstract descriptions can only teach me so much. Reading poorly translated Ne and Ti heavy descriptions of functions didn't help me much when what I needed was to be shown examples of functions in use. Having incorrectly typed myself and others, I was a mess as far as understanding what functions were. You may or may not recall, but at some point I started making threads about model A and functions, trying to simplify and give examples of each as well as trying to sort out who was talking out of their ass and who knew what they were talking about. I think one of the biggest times of learning for me was when I started reading about [irl=http://socionics.us/theory/information.shtml]information elements[/url]. Suddenly the differences between things like Se and Te started to make a lot more sense. A few yahoo IM conversations with Ann helped as well. She's written a lot of posts containing the information she discussed with me, but I hadn't read them and in all honesty, still don't (<3 Ann). Having a conversation about it and hearing examples taught me a lot more than posts ever could. Mcnew's type descriptions helped a lot as well. They're quite Te imo. If you go to http://socion.info/cgi-bin/index.cgi and click on a type and then scroll down to bottom half of the page, there are descriptions of functional analysis.What it was about ENTp after the ESFp suggestion you thought didn't fit you as well, and also the other types you thought you were at that time. Mostly, which sources gave you a better idea of the functions? The way you said it makes it sound as if learning about the functions followed after you "changed types" or rejected types, which could theoretically leave you back at ground zero. I suppose it didn't happen in a linear way, because that's not life, but yeah. I would like to read the sources which have given you a better understanding of functions.
For example, I didn't think about Ni in those terms (as you listed as not Fe).
Also, thanks for all that work in typing a response!
As far as knowing how people will react to something, I always thought of that as Fe... I thought I had strong Fe because it's pretty easy for me to know how people will react to various things (some people call me manipulative for making decisions accordingly
I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of the peices just sorta came together. Socionics was sorta like a puzzle... changing my understanding of the expression of one function would make something else not fit. Finally understanding that what most people around here had considered Te was actually Ti, Se, or the combination of the two helped. Understanding what "the intuition of time" means helped me see that what I had considered to be Ne was actually Ni.
Eh I'm tired and starting to talk in circles. Does my post clarify what you were wondering about?
/me misses watching anime
it does if you say that you mostly used Rick's site's description of the functions, and you also used Mcnew's. Then there is something to refer to when discussing functions or typing people. I wasn't sure what you were using, so there was no conversation to be had; i especially dont like talking about something if i don't have the right reference point (not really talking about perspective, but the right "system").
For me, I learn best when I see examples. Abstract descriptions can only teach me so much. Reading poorly translated Ne and Ti heavy descriptions of functions didn't help me much when what I needed was to be shown examples of functions in use. Having incorrectly typed myself and others, I was a mess as far as understanding what functions were. You may or may not recall, but at some point I started making threads about model A and functions, trying to simplify and give examples of each as well as trying to sort out who was talking out of their ass and who knew what they were talking about. I think one of the biggest times of learning for me was when I started reading about [irl=http://socionics.us/theory/information.shtml]information elements[/url]. Suddenly the differences between things like Se and Te started to make a lot more sense. A few yahoo IM conversations with Ann helped as well. She's written a lot of posts containing the information she discussed with me, but I hadn't read them and in all honesty, still don't (<3 Ann). Having a conversation about it and hearing examples taught me a lot more than posts ever could. Mcnew's type descriptions helped a lot as well. They're quite Te imo. If you go to http://socion.info/cgi-bin/index.cgi and click on a type and then scroll down to bottom half of the page, there are descriptions of functional analysis.
As far as knowing how people will react to something, I always thought of that as Fe... I thought I had strong Fe because it's pretty easy for me to know how people will react to various things (some people call me manipulative for making decisions accordingly
I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of the peices just sorta came together. Socionics was sorta like a puzzle... changing my understanding of the expression of one function would make something else not fit. Finally understanding that what most people around here had considered Te was actually Ti, Se, or the combination of the two helped. Understanding what "the intuition of time" means helped me see that what I had considered to be Ne was actually Ni.
Eh I'm tired and starting to talk in circles. Does my post clarify what you were wondering about?
I am grateful that you take the time to write stuff out.
<3
I also think the dichotomies are useful
Forum ENTps, please state whether or not you believe that I am your identical. If you're not ENTp and have an opinion to share, go do it one of my other type threads. Thanks.
:wink:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote