INXp, but not sure which

[senki]

Alright. If that’s not strong demonstrative Fi with creative Fe I don’t know what is.

Well, if anything, I would think it's switched....creative/leading Fi and demonstrative/ignoring Fe.

Either way, think it's Fi>Fe

[niffer]

that's great but no ones trying to deny him the right to say what he feels later, they're saying his feeling that way is asinine. also if we want to defend his right to be honest for its own sake later in the bedroom why not hold him to that same standard at the dinner table. this is essentially the problem with this kind of ethical sommersault and its subsequent rationalizations, it all devolves into power games where its about who is allowed to control who and when. and the problem is not that people aren't entitled to be that way, its that its insufferable to even try to rationalize it out. one gets the distinct feeling they got lost in their own ritual and just expect other people to give up and let it ride when its easier to just avoid this kind of mess to begin with. the second you go down the byzantine structure of making sense of this sort of thing you realize the best game is not to play, which is what the disgust is telling you. its saying this is an inherently unnatural unhealthy way of being

And again this is why you’re Fe polr. You don’t want to touch Fe with a 10 foot pole-r.

[niffer]

Well, if anything, I would think it's switched....creative/leading Fi and demonstrative/ignoring Fe.

Either way, think it's Fi>Fe

The demonstrative is stronger than the creative.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...y-of-Functions

[senki]

The demonstrative is stronger than the creative.

Perhaps, but not as valued.

[niffer]

Perhaps, but not as valued.

So?

[Bertrand]

Read posts #74 and #75 for context. You keep jumping in quoting me to deliver your spiels without having a clue what I'm talking about or who I'm talking to.

@senki, sorry for the derail of your thread.

actually I feel like its perfectly appropriate, its not a derail, nor did I take what you said out of context, also I can see you're trying to ignore me and engage only niffer, but I don't care because what you're saying is still wrong. you're too caught up in trying to obliquely defend this guy because you know it is in fact a very beta thing but you don't like seeing them caught out like that. so you're here like the good little soldier you are to argue semantics. it just so happens niffer is the low hanging fruit for you to score points against in order to try and even things out a bit

[niffer]

Bertrand’s just in his little aspie universe, I don’t think he’s quoting you for any reason other than as his soapbox launching pad @squark

[senki]

So?

I think it's somewhat clear that I value Fi over Fe, and really only use Fe somewhat grudgingly and awkwardly, even. At some point in this thread, I was talking about greeting visitors in the office and not understanding how to engage with them. . . smiling at them and saying anything more than 'hi' felt strained/uncomfortable, and I just wanted to return to my work or whatever else it was I was doing at the time.

I would think Fe creative would
1) feel way more comfortable in such a situation and have a real confidence and command of it
2) wouldn't feel irritated by being distracted in a situation in which their Fe would be engaged. . .might even be seen as a welcome distraction.

[Bertrand]

Bertrand’s just in his little aspie universe, I don’t think he’s quoting you for any reason other than as his soapbox launching pad @squark

actually I think squark is doing an amazing job of demonstrating the LSI thought process and the general aristocratic outlook of beta by relating things to family in the way she has

also you think you're doing senki a favor by arguing shes an intuitive ethic but you don't realize its unwelcome. not in the sense that its not an interesting intellectual question, but in the sense that she doesn't want you to argue whatever you think she thinks she wants to be. i.e.: manipulate logic to make her fantasy a reality. she wants actual Ne and maybe some real Te/Si style facts like references and sources. in other words, to get to the truth of the matter, not just be told whatever you think she wants to hear

[niffer]

I think it's somewhat clear that I value Fi over Fe, and really only use Fe somewhat grudgingly and awkwardly, even. At some point in this thread, I was talking about greeting visitors in the office and not understanding how to engage with them. . . smiling at them and saying anything more than 'hi' felt strained/uncomfortable, and I just wanted to return to my work or whatever else it was I was doing at the time.

I would think Fe creative would
1) feel way more comfortable in such a situation and have a real confidence and command of it
2) wouldn't feel irritated by being distracted in a situation in which their Fe would be engaged. . .might even be seen as a welcome distraction.

Not necessarily. The creative function isn’t necessarily that strong, evidenced by Rhaegar’s thread on the demonstrative (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ative-Function) which I highly recommend reading, many people typing me SEE and ESI on here, and the multiple IEIs who believe themselves to be heavy Ti or Ti lead.

You actually emote a lot and express your emotions very appropriately on here, both your facial expressions in your video (if we ignore what you say you think you are and look at the reality before us that is) and your form of expression in posts with your wording and emoticon usage. At the least, it’s more smooth and natural and appropriate than my expression I can say, and I have 2D valued Fe. As you can see in this thread with everyone being rude, misunderstanding one another and fighting it’s also loads better than most everyone else’s here too. If you were an Fi ego, your Fe would either a) be demonstrative and used either VERY strongly and effectively, or VERY strongly and facetiously, or, b) be ignoring and you would NOT want to use it to make things smoother even grudgingly; you’d be acting however the fk you feel 110% the time.

[Bertrand]

making faces is just as much Fe polr as Fe creative, its about Si coming through with no filter

The ISTp is able to put strong pressure on other people, while never using a commanding tone. In situations when it is necessary for the SLI to subordinate others to his will, he does this by taking action on his sensing of sensations (Si) – the SLI begins to express whole "range" of unpleasant sensations: impatience, agonizing desire, irritation, suffering, offence, hostility. As a result of such displays, much sensory discomfort is created, which painfully acts on other people whose "sensing of sensations" is located on the vulnerable or subconsciously regulated positions.

source

[niffer]

making faces is just as much Fe polr as Fe creative, its about Si coming through with no filter



source

Your quote only talks about making unpleasant faces... her expressions have mostly not involved those.

Si coming through with no filter isn’t even mentioned as the reason in the quote and doesn’t make much sense outside of that either.

[Bertrand]

I know its not physically there on the page but it works both in the positive and the negative (-functions swing both ways, what you're seeing is the Se manifestation of Si valuing with no Fe filter). in essence you're projecting Fe valuing onto her because you find her sensory output pleasant without realizing its coming from a different place. for senki to even bring up that anecdote about the bill in the first place is like the deathblow to Fe valuing. there's no Fe quadral values here, despite what you can find in an individual capacity via projections

[niffer]

also you think you're doing senki a favor by arguing shes an intuitive ethic but you don't realize its unwelcome. not in the sense that its not an interesting intellectual question, but in the sense that she doesn't want you to argue whatever you think she thinks she wants to be. i.e.: manipulate logic to make her fantasy a reality. she wants actual Ne and maybe some real Te/Si style facts like references and sources. in other words, to get to the truth of the matter, not just be told whatever you think she wants to hear

I’m not going to respond to your call for attention.

[niffer]

Like, look, I obviously value being productive much more than making sure the reasoning and logic behind things is all explained and theories and systems work. I also obviously value my personal sentiments more than arbitrary social norms. Doesn’t mean I value them in the socionics sense; it’s not the same thing.

[niffer]

Well, if anything, I would think it's switched....creative/leading Fi and demonstrative/ignoring Fe.

Either way, think it's Fi>Fe

And in case you’re being too Ip and don’t feel like clicking, the very first line of Rhaegar’s post that I recommended you (which received 100% positive comments and many constructive and like clicks btw), says this:

”I have begin to think that Demonstrative function really is more like a "creative" function as Gulenko has suggested than we traditionally recognize here. The demonstrative function is a 4D function, like your base, but it is primarily reactive.“

[senki]

I was actually in the midst of making dinner so as not to sit here too long, but I will read the article at some point when I have the chance.

”I have begin to think that Demonstrative function really is more like a "creative" function as Gulenko has suggested than we traditionally recognize here. The demonstrative function is a 4D function, like your base, but it is primarily reactive.“

I don't think the argument is whether or not I use Fe and how strong or weak it is, because as far as I can understand it, everyone uses all functions in some way. . .just to different degrees and levels of proficiency. I am more arguing about my actual regard of and attitude toward the function and its use, as in, I don't value it and it's not something I feel a deep desire to develop in myself or that I take pleasure in using. If anything, I avoid situations in which I'd need to use it.

[niffer]

I was actually in the midst of making dinner so as not to sit here too long, but I will read the article at some point when I have the chance.
[...]
I am more arguing about my actual regard of and attitude toward the function and its use, as in, I don't value it and it's not something I feel a deep desire to develop in myself or that I take pleasure in using. If anything, I avoid situations in which I'd need to use it.

Did you read my post #97 before that?

Your personal valuation is not necessarily going to be the same thing as socionics valuing.

[niffer]

I don't think the argument is whether or not I use Fe and how strong or weak it is, because as far as I can understand it, everyone uses all functions in some way. . .just to different degrees and levels of proficiency.

That’s correct. I knew you weren’t arguing that there btw. It’s still obviously really relevant and important though which is why I brought it up.

[niffer]

Also in several of your posts in this thread you keep mentioning your “understanding”, your “grasp” on these socionics concepts. That’s Ti, and especially pinging that out to others, consciously or not— is Ti valuing.

[Bertrand]

im just going to copy paste from wikipedia since im lazy, but understanding is something everyone does and uses, the difference is in what the circle of understanding is grounded

Extraverted thinking (Te)

Extraverted thinking is the thinking function that is objective (being extraverted) and typically employs inductive reasoning.[4] Extraverted thinking often places information such as facts in high order; Te is a process that is concerned with organisation and hierarchy of phenomena.

Although Te prefers data that is concrete and empirical in nature, the information only needs to be external and other phenomena that cannot be reduced to some form of objective nature will be ignored by the Te function.

Te is seen as employing a level of goal-setting and results within its function properties, taking steps towards the actionable.

"In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental."[5]
Introverted thinking (Ti)

Introverted thinking is the thinking function that is subjective (being introverted) and typically employs deductive reasoning.[4] Ti is concerned with the general idea of phenomena and will attempt to explain a logical problem with subjective information. It contains a set of 'logical principles' that wishes to 'abstract' a system or structure to its bare principles. Hence, Ti is highly analytical; it also enforces a level of independence and individuality within its cognitive framework.

Ti is seen as purely analytical and points to the principles from which facts are derived.

"Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper."

"The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object."

in other words when someone talks of their grasp or understanding they're talking about the circle of connections creating the total picture, i.e.: their understanding. if subjective factors prevail in determining the thinking it is introverted, this would be something like the feeling of how deeply you understand a thing, whereas objective factors would be like how many external data points it captures. to talk of your understanding you can refer to either of those, extensivity or intensity or both since in higher dimensional thinking it entails a high degree of both. when people privilege the intensity of the thinking to the exclusion of all else its easiest to see in low res thinking like singu, its more about his personal understanding than anything else which is convincing and valid... but to say only people like him or Ti valuing types in general have a monopoly on the word understanding is wrong. understanding refers to the complete structure which extends itself across multiple dimensions. you only know if its extroverted or introverted based on what dimension is in the last resort most convincing: reference to more data points or reference to subjective factors of personal salience. another way to think of high res Ti is to think of density of the structure, like an ice cube where everything is in perfect order. this gives rise to that subjective feeling that is most convincing. its this idea of having good control over the territory with markers at every conceivable point. its how they can come to understand some trivial issue in the grand scheme of things to a high degree of depth and find such a project worthwhile for its own sake. its getting that sense of satisfaction from the perfect grid. Te instead wants to cover the most possible territory. its no surprise then one of the ultimate Te thinkers was darwin, because evolution is a killer theory that has wormed its way into almost everything. you could say the same thing about relativity (ILE) the difference is from where they proceeded! this is the demonstrative in action, as a 4d byproduct of the creative starting point

anyway too many stereotypes abound as to what Te v Ti look like and it usually stems from low res examples ("Te is [example of shitty Te]!!") battling it out because the combatants themselves lack both extensivity and intensity in their own grasp of the issues

[niffer]

Ok but valued functions are readily verbalized in discourse and unvalued ones aren’t.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...lation-Model-A

[Bertrand]

yeah thats stupid people all share one language and the point of socionics is people mean different things with the same words, not that they use different words. that would be way too easy, come on

[niffer]

Different people use certain words and engage in discussion of certain topics more than others using that same language though. Unless you’re trying to say you think that function labeling is false but since you’re so masturbatory about defending the original socionists I doubt it.

[Dee]

Well, good luck in being an Iei. An Estj has same functions in his mental blocks as Iei, so you might think you are one. Thing is, you dont need to be an unrestrainedly explosive workaholic to be an Estj. My cousin is a gentle soul, she knows how to work hard and well though, fo sho. She likewise has temper issues too though, and i do worry about her health, yes. But thing is, I seen mild Estjs. Who are very soft and gentle and nice.

[Bertrand]

Different people use certain words and engage in discussion of certain topics more than others using that same language though. Unless you’re trying to say you think that function labeling is false but since you’re so masturbatory about defending the original socionists I doubt it.

yeah I think this is a terribly shallow way to type people, you're typing their vocabulary not the person. this would elevate trying to sound smart to actually being a strong thinker and other such shenanigans, which does actually pass for valid around here, but its all part of the problem. this would at best serve to launder social presentation into base type, which is precisely how many people try to use socionics, but its anti jungian to the core

[senki]

Well, good luck in being an Iei. An Estj has same functions in his mental blocks as Iei, so you might think you are one. Thing is, you dont need to be an unrestrainedly explosive workaholic to be an Estj. My cousin is a gentle soul, she knows how to work hard and well though, fo sho. She likewise has temper issues too though, and i do worry about her health, yes. But thing is, I seen mild Estjs. Who are very soft and gentle and nice.

Oh, I don't particularly think I am IEI now either. . .I definitely haven't been convinced of that, either for a number of reasons, some described above and in that video.

Also, don't get me wrong, I think ESTjs are often gentle and kind. I definitely think my ex husband is at times extremely gentle with an unmistakable caring, almost maternal streak. . .but he's also an intense workaholic, and yes, definite choleric kind of temperament. :-)

[niffer]

yeah I think this is a terribly shallow way to type people, you're typing their vocabulary not the person. this would elevate trying to sound smart to actually being a strong thinker and other such shenanigans, which does actually pass for valid around here, but its all part of the problem. this would at best serve to launder social presentation into base type, which is precisely how many people try to use socionics, but its anti jungian to the core

We’re interacting using forum posts lol. We’re literally almost only going by words here.

[Bertrand]

yeah the natural consequence of that is its easy to mislead and hard to be accurately typed via forums, which I think is obviously true and supports what im saying. you've essentially got people going out of their way to generate just another form of the persona, but this time with the socionics seal of approval. I see people like adam strange doing this wheres its obvious they're straining to come across a certain way so they can be acknowledged as something they on some level know they're not, because why strain then. this goes for a lot of people. they lack naturalness. at least people like squark I believe are %100 straight shooters. true this is speculative and I can't prove it but you'd be a fool to think that means its not happening or can't happen. people reject psychoanalysis because the fact that people are two faced and layered is an inherent principle to the school of thought. singu is at least loyal to this exact premise when he criticizes socionics, he criticizes it on the same grounds academia rejects jung and freud etc, which is until they can find these layers in a physical measurement they're content to ignore them. another form of what I can't see doesn't exist. the point is though people live out the opposite truth. just because people didn't know at one time what vitamin deficiency was didn't mean people didnt still suffer and die from it. jung starts from the obvious truth rather than trying to find it in a microscope before proceeding. one day this will perhaps be superseded by more concrete methods but people will only know to orient themselves to these issues because of people like jung and the truth he revealed to begin with. its sort of how neuroscience is just now begining to realize the existence of a "cognitive unconscious" and trying hard to not credit Freud despite having come up with it 100 years prior. its ungrateful, but whatever. the ultimate solution if you believe in only what's seen is to reject socionics wholesale, not take half of it and essentially bastardize it anyway

[niffer]

<_>

ok but if you’re saying she’s disingenuous with her wording then you’re saying she’s Fe valuing

just kidding, you’re being a dumbass troll and I’m tempted to drop to your level but I won’t

[Bertrand]

im not saying she's being disingenuous with her wording, Im saying you've got like a tiny sample size and a flawed method to boot

[niffer]

You’re implying it though with your huge rant on how people can misrepresent themselves through their words, and using that as a way to refute my point on verbal/nonverbal functions being a thing.

[Sol]

I think ESTjs are often gentle and kind.

They often try to be "gentle and kind", including because have Fi valued. But T types mb not good in this outside of regular situations to which they have adopted. Or when they need to use logic intensively, as it's harder to take into account F norms when you load T significantly. Or when they do not care about relations with you.
What LSE will not do - direct rude insulting without any _sense_ - it's Fe valued style. Also you will not see much of bad words from them in _common_ situations.
The similar is about all Te types.

My familiar LSE woman looks polite and soft mostly.
But it's what T types more play, as about feelings of others they think not much. Deal more with them - and you'll notice the examples of this. It's not hate or disrespect - T types just think lesser about emotions, including own ones.
If they like you - they'll do more efforts. If they value the relations with your highly, if you are close friend - LSE may do a lot for you, including to tune to you to be compasionate and careful to your feelings.

LSE is among possible for you.

The most naturally "gentle and kind" types are Fi ego types. The other ones - play it significantly, as it's either weak or not valued regions.

[Bertrand]

You’re implying it though with your huge rant on how people can misrepresent themselves through their words, and using that as a way to refute my point on verbal/nonverbal functions being a thing.

actually what it does is punish authenticity and reward inauthenticity. your idea that it will work if shes authentic and therefore by me saying it wont work is suggesting shes inauthentic is the wrong premise, but nice try. this is the kind of disingenuous maneuvering I find distasteful about you. you're really not interested in being honest or authentic in any way and it goes right down to the root. this is why anyone should be wary about trusting anything you have to say

[niffer]

actually what it does is punish authenticity and reward inauthenticity. your idea that it will work if shes authentic and therefore by me saying it wont work is suggesting shes inauthentic is the wrong premise, but nice try

You’re punishing people’s expression of themselves and also other people’s analyses on them except for your own for seemingly unidentified reasons. I’m not sure how what I said “punishes” authenticity; that implies people would always take what others say at face value and also always take advantage of that and try to contort their own expression for empty gains of some sort. And in having that assumption too you give it undue power which makes you reward that behaviour more not me lol, if you’re going to try that ridiculous logic with me.

[Bertrand]

yeah whatever niffer, you're gross

[niffer]

And btw— you’ll notice I said that I was joking in the first place. I was making a satire of the kinds of provocative idiotic logic you use around here with people. I know you didn’t say she was being disingenuous but see how it feels to get trolled back?

[senki]

They often try to be "gentle and kind", including because have Fi valued. But T types mb not good in this outside of regular situations to which they have adopted. Or when they need to use logic intensively, as it's harder to take into account F norms when you load T significantly. Or when they do not care about relations with you.
What LSE will not do - direct rude insulting without any _sense_ - it's Fe valued style. Also you will not see much of bad words from them in _common_ situations.
The similar is about all Te types.

Yeah, I think what I mean by it is that I can always tell he means well. . .even if it's awkwardly expressed. He is definitely unemotional and stolid, and his 'kindness' is always limited to practical services. It is true that he would never insult someone on purpose as a way to attack them, he only insulted people by mistake sometimes. . .hahaha

He also definitely had some really weird and sudden flare-ups of anger where he would throw things and basically throw a tantrum like a child.

[Bertrand]

I have what I think to be a LSE professor and he's hilarious because he randomly lets out flashes of seemingly random anger and is always looking at the clock (I didn't really understand the always running out of time stereotype until I saw this guy in action). I really do think he's going to have an aneurysm like you said. at the same time the anger is never directed at individuals, its just like residual anger that occasionally comes out in his speech. almost like he suffers from barely contained tourettes. it sounds weird but hes a great instructor despite all that and it doesn't make me uncomfortable. its almost refreshing because you kind of get a sense of where he really stands at all times

[niffer]

Sol does that on here too lol