# Thread: Is it possible for an IE to annihilate itself?

1. ## Is it possible for an IE to annihilate itself?

So here is what I'm picturing, but feel free to interpret the question differently:

1. Person values Ti. Let's say it's a Ti base

2. Person uses Ti to make argument against the existence of Ti

3. Person is convinced of this argument and accepts it

4. Person ceases to value Ti any longer

5. Then what? Person becomes another type? Does their creative become their base now?

And the same pattern, but with other IEs. Is this a thing?

Tbh, I think that step 2 and/or step 3 would be basically impossible for a Ti base; even if such argument could be made, a Ti base would not allow themself to go there because it is too ego dystonic, and the same principle would apply to other IEs as well. Just my guess.

2. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
So here is what I'm picturing, but feel free to interpret the question differently:

1. Person values Ti. Let's say it's a Ti base

2. Person uses Ti to make argument against the existence of Ti

3. Person is convinced of this argument and accepts it

4. Person ceases to value Ti any longer

5. Then what? Person becomes another type? Does their creative become their base now?

And the same pattern, but with other IEs. Is this a thing?

Tbh, I think that step 2 and/or step 3 would be basically impossible for a Ti base; even if such argument could be made, a Ti base would not allow themself to go there because it is too ego dystonic, and the same principle would apply to other IEs as well. Just my guess.
Between steps 3 and 4 is where the issue arises. What happens is that the true self becomes buried/repressed. But it continues leaking out, because it can never really be destroyed. The dominant function is so strong, though, that you could possibly envision a person as being the expression or embodiment of that element itself. If anything, people just don't express themselves in constructive ways when they learn not to value themselves.

I typed you LII btw, by reading this post. Your semantics and syntax are pretty similar to my own.

3. Originally Posted by Aramas
Between steps 3 and 4 is where the issue arises. What happens is that the true self becomes buried/repressed. But it continues leaking out, because it can never really be destroyed. The dominant function is so strong, though, that you could possibly envision a person as being the expression or embodiment of that element itself. If anything, people just don't express themselves in constructive ways when they learn not to value themselves.
Hmm ok, thinking about it more now, it would make more sense if they thought that they were not using Ti but they were still using Ti in reality because, yes, the base function is so strong. But the key part is that they're still using Ti even when they think they're not.

I typed you LII btw, by reading this post. Your semantics and syntax are pretty similar to my own.

4. I've known an LSI-Ti who was dead set on being IEI with very strong Ti. Her whole system was build around herself being IEI, so.
I guess each person could have reasons to logic or feel a type they aren't.

5. Originally Posted by phi
I've known an LSI-Ti who was dead set on being IEI with very strong Ti. Her whole system was build around herself being IEI, so.
I guess each person could have reasons to logic or feel a type they aren't.
2nd line - yes.

And I've seen this HA mistype more than once. I saw EII-Fi mistype as SEI. It happens more with the inert subtypes.

I think this is a good example of my latter point: she thought that she was not using Ti (as much or as well) but in reality she was still using Ti.

6. 1- A values logic, let's call him a person.

2- person uses their logic to make an argument against the existence of a label to define logic

3- he's sure of that

4- person ceases to believe in self-fulfilling prophecies

5- person gets finally rid of nonsense labels

7. Originally Posted by ooo
1- A values logic, let's call him a person.

2- person uses their logic to make an argument against the existence of a label to define logic

3- he's sure of that

4- person ceases to believe in self-fulfilling prophecies

5- person gets finally rid of nonsense labels
lol

8. Originally Posted by redundantoxymoron
So here is what I'm picturing, but feel free to interpret the question differently:

1. Person values Ti. Let's say it's a Ti base

2. Person uses Ti to make argument against the existence of Ti

3. Person is convinced of this argument and accepts it

4. Person ceases to value Ti any longer

5. Then what? Person becomes another type? Does their creative become their base now?
If a person thinks Ti doesn’t exist, then it’s just they themselves that no longer believes that Socionics is valid (the existence of Ti being a crucial component of it). It doesn’t change what their type would objectively be in the system. “Valuing an IE” in Socionics terms is not synonymous with believing in its existence. It is not individual opinions that evoke the existence of Socionics (IEs, types, etc) or not. Otherwise obviously people who are unaware of Socionics or who have denounced it would not have types, but that isn’t the case. The only way that this would be possible would be if almost all other people had denounced or had disproven Socionics’ existence too, and it largely ceased to be a system able to be used by people as a whole any longer. Funny that you’ve criticized the logic of others but have asinine thoughts like these.

9. This is seriously so 1D Se and Te. Things that are true about the world are not just a function (in the non-Socionics sense too) of people’s minds. It’s more the other way around. Your mind perceives reality, but logic itself alone does not alter reality.

10. Maybe we are all Fi bases, we just all value different things and some of us are just slightly tougher than others...

11. No. Most people are all born with the same information processing structures and algorithms. One doesn't get rid of them but most fall into disuse as we habituate ourselves to a particular processing configuration, and set of filters and preferences. There's a finite amount of brain power so we have to pare down processing to a niche market that works for us so to speak and we don't always get the right balance - like being too right-handed......

a.k.a. I/O

12. Originally Posted by Andreas
When LxI said "Logic isn't exist", then it is heresy.
Silly Andreas, nothing really exists.

13. Originally Posted by remiges
Maybe we are all Fi bases, we just all value different things and some of us are just slightly tougher than others...
Lol yeah, I thought about this too, like which function do we use to determine which functions we value? It should be Fi right because Fi is about values? You could be right!

Originally Posted by sbbds
If a person thinks Ti doesn’t exist, then it’s just they themselves that no longer believes that Socionics is valid (the existence of Ti being a crucial component of it). It doesn’t change what their type would objectively be in the system. “Valuing an IE” in Socionics terms is not synonymous with believing in its existence. It is not individual opinions that evoke the existence of Socionics (IEs, types, etc) or not. Otherwise obviously people who are unaware of Socionics or who have denounced it would not have types, but that isn’t the case. The only way that this would be possible would be if almost all other people had denounced or had disproven Socionics’ existence too, and it largely ceased to be a system able to be used by people as a whole any longer. Funny that you’ve criticized the logic of others but have asinine thoughts like these.
You can reject part of a theory -- such as the existence of Ti -- without rejecting the whole thing.

Funny that you typed me as a logical type, then changed that typing several times, yet criticize my logic as asinine.

14. That’s what you think, but socionics doesn’t work without Ti. Even if that were the case that someone decided to reject part of it, the rest of my comment would still hold true. Yeah, it is normal to change thinking with more information and interaction. That you can’t follow why that should happen makes you an asinine, dumb bitch. That’s not redundant for you. You need to hear it twice.

15. Originally Posted by remiges
Maybe we are all Fi bases, we just all value different things and some of us are just slightly tougher than others...
In a sense, we are. Each IE and type is a fractal of da socion

16. A person doesn't really change their values so quickly and easily like that, they are values and are essentially very deep and serious and interwoven in the tapestry of their own life. You would never decide you don't value a core function after one arguement. It might help you understand it better maybe, if the other person is tactful and just doesn't personally insult you. If you can teach them something without triggering any deep, subconscious emotions about the topic which is easier said than done you know because, humans have feelings and all even logical types (or should I say especially logical types?)

17. For a long time when I was younger, I strongly rejected my Fe (my creative function) for many reasons. Mostly because I hated how I was so insecure and self-conscious, and my response was to try to make myself care less about other people's opinions. Not in a mean way as in I would disregard other people's emotions, but as in: I tried to make it not affect how I made decisions about things.
So I guess I suppressed it in favor of Ti. I think my idealized self was also a Ti-user, and I'm a very idealistic person, so I tried to emulate is as much as possible. In fact, my LII friend told me she felt like I was so emotionless. However! It doesn't mean I stopped using Fe! You can't change something so fundamental about yourself-- you can only go so far as to superficially change some part of it .. but it's not ever truly gone.
Now that I'm older, I realize how distorted my perception was, and that Fe is very valuable.

I don't think you can "annihilate" a function; however, you can certainly repress it on the conscious level.

18. I wonder if the "annihilation" could happen behavioraly but not mentaly, I mean emulating what you've come to believe is good so annihilating natural output judged as bad; I was just reading some post I made on my first account here and I can't recognize myself in the sweet and shy words I used to describe stuff. In none of my many notebooks I have written like that. I had built a persona to fit up to some standards of being understanding, kind, caring, unobtrusive, but also fake asf, and I remember using it irl to deal with people just to head home exhausted and seething with hatred and anger but unable to drop the act. It had to become unbearable for me to dish it and now I'm dealing the remnants of that; I know I was a lot more liked back then but it wasn't worth it, I hated those people who don't like me anymore anyway, lol.
I had never stopped actually using my ego functions in private, in my head, I used them to emulate other functions and it did no good to anyone, so yeah, one can definitely lie and act in a way that is unnatural, and believe they are that mask, get blinded by it.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•