Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
Must've went over your head on that. It doesn't make a difference who posted it.

You clicked the constructive for the information posted. I stated that Peterson is a dead ringer for Ti based on Jung's description and then posted excerpts from Jung's description of Ti.
Over my head...? It was a joke.

And I agree that Peterson is Ti. I'd still click constructive for that post. And it's totally unrelated to the posts here.


Well the only logic in my post was that Peter's story described Te based upon Jung's description of Te and in the aspect of model A, creative Te. That's typological reasoning in socionics since Jung is a primary resource on the functions. MBTI and Socionics both branch off from Jung although each have aspects that make it unique from the other. You will recall that I used the same logic on the Jordan Peterson thread when I posted Jung's description of Ti and said it was a dead ringer for Jordan Peterson. I note that you didn't state it being MBTI logic then. Also, an hour before you made the post to me on this thread, you notified me on another thread to let me know that I was an idiot over something having to do with me typing you ILE.
My pointing out the MBTI logic here has zero to do with your typing me ILE etc.

The Peterson post didn't utilize MBTI logic. Your post in this thread did. It's as simple as that, no need for you to weave elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts.

Basically. Your logic was MBTI logic because it failed to appreciate the Rationality of Ti lead, trying to explain all Rational intentionality as Te. Jung's Te definition being used or not, this is the same logic that MBTI's function stacking utilizes.



He is certainly not a God. However, his descriptions are the primary resource for understanding each function, so it's essential to know if you're interested in Socionics. As far as Socionics goes, Jung's descriptions have a permanent place in the theory. Keep in mind that the chosen names for the functions are Fi, Ne, Te, Si, Se, etc. It's one thing to make elaborations upon Jung for sound reasons. Updating Jung because what Jung says doesn't fit the way some people type themselves or some set of possibilities you want to explore is not a sound reason for doing so, and by updating, it doesn't mean throwing Jung away (his descriptions still inform on the basic qualities for each function). If you're just going to make up your definitions for these functions, you would do better to rename them and start your own typology system.
I'm not exploring "some set of possibilities". It's simpler than that, if some description or reasoning matches my observations, good, if not, then the logic needs fixing.

In general, with the update thing I meant that there have been advances in the science of psychology since Jung that I find describe and explain some observations better than some of Jung's stuff. I was not referring to making my own typology system.


Well, if anybody can grasp the possibility for a Socionics without Jung it's you. I would expect you to want to 'innovate' socionic concepts including descriptions for the functions to fit with your own personal vision of Socionics.
Nice of you to see me as this creative but no, I'm not creative enough to innovate possibilities and I don't care either. Like I said, I wasn't talking about any personal version of Socionics.


I recognize them just fine, thanks...maybe when you can see yourself with more detachment, you will come around to it.
No. My cognition is anything but that divergent creativity of Ne or consideration of various possibilities. That shit just hurts my head and I find it pointless.


and I haven't retyped Peteronfireee. I typed what what he described in the story as more Te-creative. I noted it sounds more Si/Te. That doesn't automatically mean he is SLI.
Okay. I think you misinterpreted what he wrote, tho'.