Types of my co-workers

[XoX]

What most bugs me in this discussion is that I feel it is somehow detached from reality and lives its "own life". It doesn't accurately describe how our views differ or are similar in a practical work situation. My claim is that we would not differ in principle but more in details. From this discussion you get the idea that we come from a different planet which contradicts how I see the situation but is apparently how you see the situation. For these kind of reasons I dislike extended talk about subjects without seeing how things actually are. Conflict in words often doesn't imply conflict in actions.

Also the fact that I don't have much experience about leading but I'm basing my opinion on how I have observed things to be when I am a team member in sports and business world and such and by observing teams I'm not part of. I would need more experience about actually leading people in order to bring my opinion to the next level. This now gets too "academic" as I cannot back my words with achievements in a way I'd like. If I had coached a team to championship things would be different and I would feel more confident about taking a strong position. You could easily crush my argument by the fact that
I don't have anything concrete to show how I have managed to apply my princples in successful teams I lead. That sucks.

Damn I have to go...I can't proof read this...baby is crying like hell, lol.

[Expat]

I am seeing some distortions myself --

So let's use an example to clarify.

Example 1:
I have a team of ten Expats who totally lack "team spirit" i.e. are only interested in themselves and don't give a shit about team goals or team success and are not at all committed to the team and despise each other. They are still performing awesomely and kick ass. -> There is no problem. I might be puzzled about how this is possible and find the whole situation weird but hey, no real problem there. I have never experienced this kind of situation so it would a new and interesting experience.

So people who have the same views as I have expressed (and, it seems, others here) necessarily "are only interested in themselves", "don't give a shit about team goals" and "despise each other"?

Is that what you're saying?

Example 2:
I have a team of ten people and the team has an Expat who lacks team spirit and this starts to affect the team performance. Expat is doing his own work good but his selfish "star player attitude" and general and visible lack of interest to the team manages to lower the overall team performance

So someone with the values I described is necessarily someone who's "selfish" and with a "star player attitude"?

Is that what you're saying?

And if it isn't, why did you say "an Expat"?

. Now this time I have to evaluate whether replacing Expat would increase or decrease the overall team performance. I might try to keep Expat in the team and do some effort to keep the general spirit up but I might also consider replacing Expat with someone who makes the team as a whole perform better. No matter if that person is not as effective on individual level. This is the same kind of situation where a star player of a soccer team is traded to someone less skilled but more a team player in order to increase the overall team performance So it is about performance. You are somehow twisting the whole motivation to be only about "feelings" and not about performance.

I am questioning your assumptions, more than your motivations.

So the thing is that in my experience lack of team spirit is likely to affect the team performance and you are saying it has no effect. I wouldn't personally become much de-motivated about lack of team spirit if the team still performed greatly. Of course it might have effect on my personal performance if people would constantly keep telling me that they don't give a shit about me and my performance, anybody else in the team or their performance

I have said, several times, that I care about people's performances. Who's distorting things now? I question your assumption that "team spirit" = performance.

or the team goals and they just generally despise everyone.

What kind of "goals" are you talking about? Results, deadlines? Then they are, simply, goals, that have nothing to do with "team spirit".

I'm not sure how I react if someone says they don't care but I can see from their actions that they do care. In that kind of situation I'm likely to trust that their actions tell the truth as all true values are always manifested in action. Talk is always just talk. If someone says they seriously hate me and then take a bullet for me I would focus on their action not their words.

I can hate you as an individual, in a work situation I can still work with you. Is that so difficult to understand?

So after this "analysis" I would say that I judge someone's team spirit or lack of it based on their actions or performance. How they do things in practice. When I'm selecting members to my team who I don't know I tend to give more weight to if I feel they are committed to the team or not and if they radiate "team spirit" or not (as I don't know how they act in practice)

I guess I'd rather learn hypocrisy and acting and how to "radiate team spirit" in job interview with you then.

There is a serious twisting of my message happening here. Either I'm communicating my view very badly or some people refuse to understand for some unknown reason. Anyways I find the criticism towards my view be faulty and "strawman" in most cases.

No, what is clear is your total lack of understanding of how some people can be different.

I do understand your views - totally. I don't like them, which is something else. You, on the other hand, can't even conceive what I'm talking about.

[Expat]

2. Just in case, I went through and compared some type descriptions again last night, and tried to read them with fresh eyes. The only parts where I am similar to an INFp are those that describe influenced behaviours and attitudes. Besides from those aspects I am clearly different from how INFps are described in every socionic type description I have read. And I am also clearly an Objectivist, a Negativist, and a Process-oriented person -- not to mention the other Reinin dichotomies where I also seem to be an INTp.

Just for the sake of argument.

According to my understanding of Reinin dichotomies, someone could very well be a Ni-INFp and identify with most Reinin dichotomies as a Ni-INTp.

As for the INFp descriptions -- again, it all depends exactly what one is looking at and what one is seeing there. Too often (not you necessarily) I notice people saying "I can't be of type XXXx because I don't bla-bla as that description says XXXxs do, and in turns out that bla-bla is simply a way - perhaps even a common way - for some characteristics of that type to be externally visible, but it's not essential to the type.

As for being Objectivist, in sense of Te-Fi instead of Ti-Fe -- that's not so obvious.

I have said this many times before, and it is still a fact: If I am not an INTp, the theoretical framwork of Socionics inevitably falls apart.

Why? You could be simply mistaken at some point.

We have to sacrifice at least something given the assumption that I am some other type than INTp. The very least that has to go is the type descriptions, but most likely that will not suffice to get rid of the inconsistencies.

Some interpretations of type descriptions would have to go, yes.

Some of the Reinin dichotomies will also have to go, which would suggest that they are all based on something arbitrarily. Well, some people think that they are anyway, so that is no big loss .

No, I just think that they are more "fluid" than that. Especially a Ni IP (whether INFp or INTp) is at a point where most dichotomies blur.

But to just accept that I am not an INTp without consequences for the theory of Socionics is simply impossible. The hypothesis that I am an INTp is so corroborated by now that it should be used as a reference for other possible INTps. It is more confirmed than almost every other person's on this forum. If we can doubt that I am INTp, we could just as well start to doubt that you are an ENTj -- and that doesn't make much sense, does it?

I think it is a very big mistake to take anyone's type in this forum as reference point - including my type - for anything more than brainstorming or exercise. For the sake of argument, the only ENTj descriptions that I am aware of (at least that I remember now) that describe me with, say, over 90% accuracy in its details (and of course others might interpret them differently) are Stratiyevskaya's and Meged's logical subtype description. So if I were to rely only on descriptions, I could see reasons to doubt that typing, too.

FWIW, I certainly don't think that my type is "more confirmed than almost every other person's on this forum". If there is one single person here whose type could be said to be almost beyond doubt, that person is Slacker Mom in my opinion. Not you, and not me either.

[Phaedrus]

This phenomenon is fascinating -- and frustrating. I think that XoX's two last posts, especially the first one, are cristal clear. I don't think I can explain what he means better myself. And yet the misunderstandings don't disappear. What is the explanation for it -- that is what I would like to know? We could learn something here.

I think that I understand rather well how you reason, Expat. There is nothing mystical in what you say as I see it. The only thing that is mysterious is why we can't pass through what we mean in a way that is acceptable to you. In essence our views are not that far apart. But you focus very much on some of the aspects that I find irrelevant to the main issue. XoX is not saying that people with your views and values necessarily is a "star player" only interested in themselves. That is not at all how I interpret what he says, anyway. And he used your name as just an example (I have done similar things many times on this forum. Maybe people don't take it the way we intend it.)

I can hate you as an individual, in a work situation I can still work with you. Is that so difficult to understand?

It is very easy to understand, but it is totally irrelevant here. He is not talking about that.

[XoX]

So people who have the same views as I have expressed (and, it seems, others here) necessarily "are only interested in themselves", "don't give a shit about team goals" and "despise each other"?

Is that what you're saying?

No...I used a very extreme example because you claim that team spirit has NO effect in which case your point should hold even in that kind of extreme case. Also it is funny how you keep referring to "we" and "people who agree with me" etc as if you are referring to your "group". "we" is not an argument. It almost makes me think you are using Fe to make a point. I on the other hand try to avoid using that kind of talk even if there are people who have seen things my way. I explained my view even to my wife and even though she definately has more individualistic views she has no problems understanding my view or concept of team spirit and agrees to it in principle even though she thinks it is too extreme for her and she considers team spirit less important for herself. However with you the gap in communication is definately of different magnitude.

So someone with the values I described is necessarily someone who's "selfish" and with a "star player attitude"?

Is that what you're saying?

And if it isn't, why did you say "an Expat"?

Heh, I said "an Expat" because you have consistently tried to make yourself a symbol of a competent person who totally lacks team spirit. So the term "Expat" here symbolizes that kind of person. Now in practice my guts tell me that you are not the kind of person I refer to as someone who necessarily lacks team spirit in the way I mean it. Just that you try hard to build an argument that you are. It confuses me. You are probably someone I would have no real problems working with even though i can see some heat getting generated there. Again how I understand what you say and what my guts tell me about your personality are not totally compatible. I have a natural respect for you which was immediately clear when I joined this forum and has not decreased since. However how I interpret your opinions e.g. in this thread seems conflicting on the surface which is something I can't yet explain or understand. This is why I think there is somekind of "cloud of misunderstanding" which affects how things are perceived and some or most of the perceived conflict is caused by that "cloud". Or my gut feeling fails me this time.

Oh and the example was just another extreme example which should be ok as a theoretical example as we have shifted to talking in terms of "no team spirit", "full of team spirit" etc. extremes. In practice it is probably not as straightforward and black and white.

I am questioning your assumptions, more than your motivations.

You are free to question those. They are based on my subjective observations and until I have successfully applied them in practice they "hang in the air" somewhat. I would be surprised if I had to do a U-turn though but adjusting my views...probably.

I have said, several times, that I care about people's performances. Who's distorting things now? I question your assumption that "team spirit" = performance.

The formula is more like a*competence + b*"team spirit" = performance. How much weight is given to a and b is still unclear to me and probably depends on the context. In some contexts competence rules the formula but in some contexts "team spirit" has substancial weight.

or the team goals and they just generally despise everyone.

What kind of "goals" are you talking about? Results, deadlines? Then they are, simply, goals, that have nothing to do with "team spirit".

The best example comes from team sports again. If you are a striker then your personal target is to score goals. Team target is to win e.g. world championship. You have to score goals in order for your team to win the championship. However even if you score a lot of goals but the team loses you will be remembered as the one who was on the losing side not as the one who scored a lot of goals. Where the striker of the championship team will be remembered as the one who was the key component in the winning team. For example in Finland there are top ice hockey players who have scored a lot of goals but haven't really won anything as a team. They are not respected similarly and are considered somewhat "losers". Then there are players who have won e.g. five NHL championships (stanley cups) but have had a smaller role in their team. They are generally respected more even if their role wasn't to be the star player. They are still considered "winners" and people who have what is takes to win in ice hockey even if they can never be stars in their teams.

I can hate you as an individual, in a work situation I can still work with you. Is that so difficult to understand?

On that level it doesn't really sound impossible. I guess it depends on why you hate me? If you hate me because in a work situation I consistently act and do things which you totally despise and disapprove then can you still work with me successfully? Then if you hate me because I torture small animals every saturday or because my off the work personality generally rubs you the wrong way then that is a different thing.

So after this "analysis" I would say that I judge someone's team spirit or lack of it based on their actions or performance. How they do things in practice. When I'm selecting members to my team who I don't know I tend to give more weight to if I feel they are committed to the team or not and if they radiate "team spirit" or not (as I don't know how they act in practice)

I guess I'd rather learn hypocrisy and acting and how to "radiate team spirit" in job interview with you then.

Lol I'm hoping frauds can be separated from the real thing. But of course only working together can finally prove or disprove that. Then again you seem to radiate some kind of team spirit except when you are making an argument why you do not, lol. Perhaps what you call "professional attitude" can replace team spirit. It might be a good idea to talk about "attitude" instead of "team spirit". Even if you don't have "team spirit" you can have an "attitude" which in practice manifests in the same way. Or something.

There is a serious twisting of my message happening here. Either I'm communicating my view very badly or some people refuse to understand for some unknown reason. Anyways I find the criticism towards my view be faulty and "strawman" in most cases.

No, what is clear is your total lack of understanding of how some people can be different.

This will make anndelise very happy She blames me for that all the time so I guess there is truth to that. I need to work on that. However.....my opinion in this is not really based on myself. It is based e.g. on how Finnish national team or how the sports teams I have been in have performed. Perhaps I have looked at their performance through a twisted window or something but I'm basing this mostly on my observations on the real world not on some internal sense of how people always think and feel like me. If I see that a high spirited team wins a championship and the captain comes out and says "team spirit and unity is what made us do this in the end" and other players and coach agrees then I remember that and makes judgements on that. If I see a losing team who says "we lacked team spirit and unity". It again affects me and my opinion. Then how is that related to whether I can or cannot understand other people's differences? It seems like a completely different thing.

I do understand your views - totally. I don't like them, which is something else. You, on the other hand, can't even conceive what I'm talking about.

I have to think more about the difference and similarity of "team spirit" and "professional attitude" and figure out how they relate to what I say. I tend to think there is a difference as you can bring into a hockey team really professional players who have professional attitude but still the team can lack team spirit and be a bad team. Or perhaps that just means that those players don't really have a professional attitude. Well there is something in here to think about for me.

[Expat]

XoX's examples did not address at all the issue of what people like me are really like at work or in team situations -- the only way he found to describe his examples was to refer to "non team-spirit people" as "selfish" or "caring only about themselves" etc.

Which to me leads me to the impression that he can only see these two extremes - either you buy into his definition of "team spirit" or you are "selfish" "star player" etc.

And if that's not what he meant, then his examples are just, well, crap and, yes, straw man arguments.

Now, what I guess is that you are saying is that it amounts to the same thing, hence your mentioning "only words".

But what is disturbing me about XoX's points - and that some people, I think - is what he said about assuming that your team performance is necessarily bad if you don't buy into concepts - clearly stated by XoX - that you have to feel that your team performance is more important than yours.

And the - to me nonsensical, also mentioned by you - that you can objectively measure how someone is feeling, short of telepathy.

[Phaedrus]

According to my understanding of Reinin dichotomies, someone could very well be a Ni-INFp and identify with most Reinin dichotomies as a Ni-INTp.

Okay, which of the Reinin dichotomies can he not identify with as Ni-INTp if he is an Ni-INFp? Which are essential to being an Ni-INFp, and which are essential to being an Ni-INTp?

As for the INFp descriptions -- again, it all depends exactly what one is looking at and what one is seeing there. Too often (not you necessarily) I notice people saying "I can't be of type XXXx because I don't bla-bla as that description says XXXxs do, and in turns out that bla-bla is simply a way - perhaps even a common way - for some characteristics of that type to be externally visible, but it's not essential to the type.

I totally agree. I look at everything in the type descriptions, and I compare all of those descriptions, coming from different sources and even from different models, from many different angles. I always look at the whole description, but as many details as possible must fit the picture. There is no problem for me in reading type descriptions, I can assure you that.

As for being Objectivist, in sense of Te-Fi instead of Ti-Fe -- that's not so obvious.

Why not? And have you taken a look at the recent discussion I had with Logos: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=9968&start=15

It might be difficult for an outside observer to see a clear difference between an INTj and an INTp, but when an LII and an ILI can finally see the key dividing line between themselves, it all becomes so much clearer. Then you know who is the INTj and who is the INTp. If I am an INFp I probably don't understand the difference between an Objectivist and a Subjectivist.

I have said this many times before, and it is still a fact: If I am not an INTp, the theoretical framwork of Socionics inevitably falls apart.

Why? You could be simply mistaken at some point.

Yes, but that is not what's at stake here. It all hangs together beautifully. Every piece of evidence suggests INTp, not just one piece here and one piece there. I can't change anything in that construction without the whole framwork falling apart. It doesn't make any sense at all. If I change the premise that I am an INTp, it would be possible to reinterpret some things in the light of some new type I might be, but not all of it. That is totally impossible. The only possible consequence is that some theoretical parts of the socionic theory have to be modified. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

I think it is a very big mistake to take anyone's type in this forum as reference point - including my type - for anything more than brainstorming or exercise. For the sake of argument, the only ENTj descriptions that I am aware of (at least that I remember now) that describe me with, say, over 90% accuracy in its details (and of course others might interpret them differently) are Stratiyevskaya's and Meged's logical subtype description. So if I were to rely only on descriptions, I could see reasons to doubt that typing, too.

Okay, but that only shows that my type is better corroborated than yours. There is no possible way that I can be mistaken when I say that according to the type descriptions I am necessarily an INTp.

FWIW, I certainly don't think that my type is "more confirmed than almost every other person's on this forum". If there is one single person here whose type could be said to be almost beyond doubt, that person is Slacker Mom in my opinion. Not you, and not me either.

I don't disagree with your opinion on Slacker Mom's type, and not with your opinion on your type either. But I certainly disagree with your claim here. My type is more confirmed than yours, in that case. I know that I am an INTp according to the criteria set up by Socionics. There is no room for a mistake here. It is impossible for me to doubt that I am an INTp if I am not willing to sacrifice some parts of the theory. I don't mind that, of course. But the theory has to go, it is as simple as that.

[Expat]

I have to think more about the difference and similarity of "team spirit" and "professional attitude" and figure out how they relate to what I say. I tend to think there is a difference as you can bring into a hockey team really professional players who have professional attitude but still the team can lack team spirit and be a bad team. Or perhaps that just means that those players don't really have a professional attitude. Well there is something in here to think about for me.

Now we are making some progress, I think.

[Expat]

Also it is funny how you keep referring to "we" and "people who agree with me" etc as if you are referring to your "group". "we" is not an argument. It almost makes me think you are using Fe to make a point.

It's funny, this has been observed before. Yet I'm not thinking of a group at all, and it's not Fe. I will have to say that this is more revealing about your own assumptions than mine, if you think I am referring to a group in the way I think you mean.

What I said was this:

So people who have the same views as I have expressed (and, it seems, others here) necessarily "are only interested in themselves", "don't give a shit about team goals" and "despise each other"?

If I had said "so you are saying I am only interested in myself" etc, it could be interpreted as if to mean that I saw that as a personal attack, and therefore lead you to argue things like "oh I wasn't attacking you" which to me isn't that point. But when discussing Socionics, we are talking of types, so necessarily of people who share some characteristics. In that way, yes, I am talking of a "group", if you will.

Heh, I said "an Expat" because you have consistently tried to make yourself a symbol of a competent person who totally lacks team spirit.

I have not tried to make myself a symbol of anything. That's your erroneous interpretation.

And what I lack - and totally oppose - is this idea of yours that you have to "submit" (your words) to the team emotionally.

The best example comes from team sports again. If you are a striker then your personal target is to score goals. Team target is to win e.g. world championship. You have to score goals in order for your team to win the championship. However even if you score a lot of goals but the team loses you will be remembered as the one who was on the losing side not as the one who scored a lot of goals. Where the striker of the championship team will be remembered as the one who was the key component in the winning team. For example in Finland there are top ice hockey players who have scored a lot of goals but haven't really won anything as a team. They are not respected similarly and are considered somewhat "losers". Then there are players who have won e.g. five NHL championships (stanley cups) but have had a smaller role in their team. They are generally respected more even if their role wasn't to be the star player. They are still considered "winners" and people who have what is takes to win in ice hockey even if they can never be stars in their teams.

That's a revealing example.

To me, in the situation of a hockey team, a player who worries more about scoring goals himself to the detriment of the total number of goals of the team is being unprofessional, that's all. He's actively damaging the team. For him to pass the ball when he has to is not a question of not feeling proud.

In that example, a professional hockey player could think "I did everything right, and I played in a way to allow the team to win - yet we lost. But I know that I did what I could, and I am contented".

[Expat]

Okay, which of the Reinin dichotomies can he not identify with as Ni-INTp if he is an Ni-INFp? Which are essential to being an Ni-INFp, and which are essential to being an Ni-INTp?

I think the only one that would be clear for a distinction is Merry as opposed to Serious - and even that would be difficult to spot in a strong Ni subtype.

[anndelise]

The best example comes from team sports again. If you are a striker then your personal target is to score goals. Team target is to win e.g. world championship. You have to score goals in order for your team to win the championship. However even if you score a lot of goals but the team loses you will be remembered as the one who was on the losing side not as the one who scored a lot of goals. Where the striker of the championship team will be remembered as the one who was the key component in the winning team. For example in Finland there are top ice hockey players who have scored a lot of goals but haven't really won anything as a team. They are not respected similarly and are considered somewhat "losers". Then there are players who have won e.g. five NHL championships (stanley cups) but have had a smaller role in their team. They are generally respected more even if their role wasn't to be the star player. They are still considered "winners" and people who have what is takes to win in ice hockey even if they can never be stars in their teams.

I tend to have difficulties when hearing these kinds of sports talks. Mostly because I'll be thinking, yeah, the team lost, but that one guy worked his butt off to score goals, or to prevent goals, (whatever his job was, he did it well!) Why judge one guy as a loser just because the group lost? On the flip side, why judge all the individuals of a group as winners just because their group won despite their individual incompetences?

Also, if one person hogs the ball/puck/whatever, and attempts to play the game by himself without allowing the other individuals to do what they are good at, the team may win, but I consider him a loser. How this fits in, I dunno.

No, what is clear is your total lack of understanding of how some people can be different.

This will make anndelise very happy She blames me for that all the time so I guess there is truth to that. I need to work on that.

"happy"...no

However.....my opinion in this is not really based on myself. It is based e.g. on how Finnish national team or how the sports teams I have been in have performed. Perhaps I have looked at their performance through a twisted window or something but I'm basing this mostly on my observations on the real world not on some internal sense of how people always think and feel like me. If I see that a high spirited team wins a championship and the captain comes out and says "team spirit and unity is what made us do this in the end" and other players and coach agrees then I remember that and makes judgements on that. If I see a losing team who says "we lacked team spirit and unity". It again affects me and my opinion. Then how is that related to whether I can or cannot understand other people's differences? It seems like a completely different thing.

In connection with my first response at the top top of this post, I've always gotten irritated when team captain's talk about team spirit winning/losing the game. Many times it comes off as insincere "modesty/humbleness", like when the captain and his clique were the one's doing everyone's work instead of allowing other members to do their own jobs in the game. Other times it comes off as a refusal to accept responsibility for one's own actions that lead to the loss of the game ('blame it on everyone so that I don't look bad' kind of thing.) I've also seen it used when the captain/coach doesn't want to publicly condemn one specific player, putting up a "team" front to the press and then bitching at or firing that one player. And I've seen it used by players who want to associate themselves with players they admire, even though they are on very different levels/abilities....kind of like riding on someone else's coat tails.
In summary, "team spirit caused us to win/lose" has always seemed so fake to me.

[Expat]

In summary, "team spirit caused us to win/lose" has always seemed so fake to me.

Yeah. I see it on the same level as "if there is a will, there is a way" or "our company's goal is not primarily profit, but to provide a service to society" or "we don't think of you as employees, but as par of a big team " -- etc etc.

[XoX]

In summary, "team spirit caused us to win/lose" has always seemed so fake to me.

Yeah. I see it on the same level as "if there is a will, there is a way" or "our company's goal is not primarily profit, but to provide a service to society" or "we don't think of you as employees, but as par of a big team " -- etc etc.

This touches some fundamental difference in another context. We have been talking about this within the family occasionally. If I would start a company the goal would be to a) to provide some service to the society I feel it lacks and b) make profit in the process. That is actually how you come up with business ideas. You figure out what the society lacks and carve your business to fill that whole. Often times you want to change the society because as a company you have the power (think of Pedro and Mental Internet, he could start a company to make that a reality instead of just waiting for it to "happen"). And make money in the process. So to me company is certainly not JUST about making money. It is about providing service, affecting the path to future, and getting money. Of course company needs to grow to get power and muscle but the ideas behind the company matter as much as the "bottom line" i.e. the profit. I wouldn't start a company just to make profit e.g. in a line of business which doesn't at all interest me and which I don't see as affecting the future in any meaningful way.

Edit: and this is not "crap" this is how I see the role of companies in my life and in society

[FDG]

I wouldn't start a company just to make profit e.g. in a line of business which doesn't at all interest me and which I don't see as affecting the future in any meaningful way.

I don't see this as something effectively pratical. IMHO, first of all a company MUST produce profit in order to sustain itself, and then the company can promote products that are meaningful to the betterment of society; otherwise, it's a double loss.

[Exodus]

XoX, for the most part you have just been repeating yourself. Constantly restating your position in nearly identical words is obviously not effective, if you really think there is a misunderstanding you will need to be rethink your delivery.

See, this is the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

[XoX]

XoX, for the most part you have just been repeating yourself. Constantly restating your position in nearly identical words is obviously not effective, if you really think there is a misunderstanding you will need to be rethink your delivery.

See, this is the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

To Isha:
I have been trying to rephrase myself by correcting myself every time I have been misunderstood. Apparently I'm not doing a great job in that The problem is...I'm a bit clueless as to how I should correct myself in order to avoid misunderstandings but still get my message through without altering it. Hmm...any ideas? Another thing is that in my opinion this comment of yours applies to many other people too or do you think I particularly or even exclusively am "guilty" of this?

To hotelambush:
Nice..evidence..evidence pointing to what? ENFp?

[XoX]

I wouldn't start a company just to make profit e.g. in a line of business which doesn't at all interest me and which I don't see as affecting the future in any meaningful way.

I don't see this as something effectively pratical. IMHO, first of all a company MUST produce profit in order to sustain itself, and then the company can promote products that are meaningful to the betterment of society; otherwise, it's a double loss.

You are stating the obvious. What I meant was that both of those conditions must be true for me. Obviously I wouldn't start a company if I didn't believe it can make good profits. The point was more that profit itself is not enough nor can it be the only driving force. I believe Expat was talking about starting a company just for profit without any kind of other agenda. I take this to mean that it doesn't matter to him if his company sells little stones or produces cure for cancer as long as it produces profits. And he would choose little stones over cure for cancer if the profits were higher. I would be willing to give up some of the profits in order to sell cure for cancer but if there was no chance to make profit from that I would sell little stones instead.

This example is quite theoretical though as cure for cancer would be extremely profitable and I believe that most things that are meaningful business (to me) would be profitable.

[Exodus]

XoX, for the most part you have just been repeating yourself. Constantly restating your position in nearly identical words is obviously not effective, if you really think there is a misunderstanding you will need to be rethink your delivery.

See, this is the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

To Isha:
I have been trying to rephrase myself by correcting myself every time I have been misunderstood. Apparently I'm not doing a great job in that The problem is...I'm a bit clueless as to how I should correct myself in order to avoid misunderstandings but still get my message through without altering it. Hmm...any ideas? Another thing is that in my opinion this comment of yours applies to many other people too or do you think I particularly or even exclusively am "guilty" of this?

To hotelambush:
Nice..evidence..evidence pointing to what? ENFp?

In my interpretation, yes. E > I, Te > Ti, N > S, Ne > Ni.

I'm not totally sure, though.

[XoX]

In summary, "team spirit caused us to win/lose" has always seemed so fake to me.

Yeah. I see it on the same level as "if there is a will, there is a way" or "our company's goal is not primarily profit, but to provide a service to society" or "we don't think of you as employees, but as par of a big team " -- etc etc.

I checked these again and I think I don't think these three slogans are equal in their "goodness" or "crapness".

Let me see them each...

"If there is a will, there is a way"
-> I totally agree with this. I could even put it as my signature.

"Our company's goal is not primarily profit, but to provide a service to society"
-> This is obviously crap. Company's goal is PRIMARILY profit but not necessarily ONLY profit. So in the current form this sounds like a lie and crap but by altering it somewhat e.g. "Our company's goal is to make profit AND to provide service to society" then I could sign it. This is what I meant with my previous posts about the matter.

"We don't think of you as employees, but as part of a big team"
-> This is somewhat suspicious but if I have employees I care about them as people as much as I care about them as "resources". So I think people both as "employees" and as "part of a big team". If they stop being "good resources" i.e. can't do their job then obviously for-profit company cannot employ them. But I seriously think people are MORE than resources (without forgetting that they are also resources).

These kind of questions are actually studied in "Business Ethics" or "Corporate Ethics" courses and there are differing opinions and a lot of debate about what should the role of a company be. Anyone who thinks "everyone sees people as only resources" is probably just projecting their own view in the matter. Same with anyone who thinks "no one sees people as resources". Some people care about their employees beyond "cold resourcing" some people don't. The higher the competition in the area of business is the less these ethical questions matter though and one result of globalization is increased competition and degradation of corporate ethics.

[FDG]

I wouldn't start a company just to make profit e.g. in a line of business which doesn't at all interest me and which I don't see as affecting the future in any meaningful way.

I don't see this as something effectively pratical. IMHO, first of all a company MUST produce profit in order to sustain itself, and then the company can promote products that are meaningful to the betterment of society; otherwise, it's a double loss.

You are stating the obvious. What I meant was that both of those conditions must be true for me. Obviously I wouldn't start a company if I didn't believe it can make good profits. The point was more that profit itself is not enough nor can it be the only driving force. I believe Expat was talking about starting a company just for profit without any kind of other agenda. I take this to mean that it doesn't matter to him if his company sells little stones or produces cure for cancer as long as it produces profits. And he would choose little stones over cure for cancer if the profits were higher. I would be willing to give up some of the profits in order to sell cure for cancer but if there was no chance to make profit from that I would sell little stones instead.

This example is quite theoretical though as cure for cancer would be extremely profitable and I believe that most things that are meaningful business (to me) would be profitable.

Ok, we are on the same wavelenght here then.

[anndelise]

To Isha:
I have been trying to rephrase myself by correcting myself every time I have been misunderstood. Apparently I'm not doing a great job in that The problem is...I'm a bit clueless as to how I should correct myself in order to avoid misunderstandings but still get my message through without altering it. Hmm...any ideas? Another thing is that in my opinion this comment of yours applies to many other people too or do you think I particularly or even exclusively am "guilty" of this?

Certainly not exclusively you, but it stands out in your case because you're getting so caught up on being misunderstood but yet you seem to think that pure repetition will get your message across. Insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect to get different results.

Don't think about avoiding misunderstandings, think about different ways to present your opinion.

Actually, I can kind of understand the "pure repetition" part...er, from a repeater's pov.
I've done and seen the repetition stuff in two very common situations:
1) when the person has taken the issue down to what they feel are the absolute basics of the issue...(like when they can't break it down any further)
2) when the issue deals with abstract concepts that the repeater is having difficulties giving concrete examples of...(sometimes it's a matter of trying to give concrete examples, but while doing so those examples seem to provide "proof" of an opposing concept, which sometimes goes unnoticed by the repeater, and sometimes causes confusion within the repeater which seems to lead to yet further repeating).

(an example is of a time when I asked a not very intelligent but very nice esfj guy what he would do in a certain situation. His response was "I'd respect her". I kept asking him, but what what you do, what actions would you take? He couldn't do more than continually repeat "I'd respect her." He couldn't give examples of what actions would show his respect. Sure enough, when the situation presented itself to him, all he could tell the girl was "I respect you", but his actions were self-involved demanding ones. She didn't feel respected despite his words saying he respected her. And he felt hurt because she didn't think he was being respectful of her.)

(a more applicable example to current issues is my repetition that the one thing I notice most in XoX is a group/rule orientation over an individual orientation. That is the most basic thing that covers quite a bit. However, in pm I have given him examples of things that were said/done that support my perceptions of it.)

I think, though I could very well be wrong, that XoX's repetitions in this matter are him trying to take a basic concept (to him) and rephrase it as best he can to help people understand what he means. He has even attempted to offer examples of what he is referring to. There is a possibility that the team spirit/coworker issues involve the sense of Nationalism his country encourages in its people. There is a possibility that there could be other things involved as well. But I just wanted to mention that unfortunately, sometimes, all a repeater can do is repeat.

[Expat]

I believe Expat was talking about starting a company just for profit without any kind of other agenda. I take this to mean that it doesn't matter to him if his company sells little stones or produces cure for cancer as long as it produces profits. And he would choose little stones over cure for cancer if the profits were higher. I would be willing to give up some of the profits in order to sell cure for cancer but if there was no chance to make profit from that I would sell little stones instead.

Talk about "putting words in another person's mouth"

I don't believe in what companies tell me. I have a good grasp of how the business world works. And you immediately say that's what I would do? Because I don't believe that BP or Ford or Microsoft started their business thinking of "what society wants", you insinuate I would care more about profits IF I had the chance to cure cancer?

[Expat]

Don't think about avoiding misunderstandings, think about different ways to present your opinion.

The problem with that is having to think about how other people might see things differently --

[XoX]

I believe Expat was talking about starting a company just for profit without any kind of other agenda. I take this to mean that it doesn't matter to him if his company sells little stones or produces cure for cancer as long as it produces profits. And he would choose little stones over cure for cancer if the profits were higher. I would be willing to give up some of the profits in order to sell cure for cancer but if there was no chance to make profit from that I would sell little stones instead.

Talk about "putting words in another person's mouth"

I don't believe in what companies tell me. I have a good grasp of how the business world works. And you immediately say that's what I would do? Because I don't believe that BP or Ford or Microsoft started their business thinking of "what society wants", you insinuate I would care more about profits IF I had the chance to cure cancer?

Ok. Guilty That was an exaggerated (making it black and white for clarity) version of my interpretation of your opinion. Point was not to "attack" your opinion but an attempt to show what is the difference between considering only profit and considering profit AND ideal. And I'm all for considering profit AND ideal. You said something like "only profit matters to companies" so I attached your name there as a reference. But I probably shouldn't have as your POV is unlikely that black and white (and that is equivalent of putting words in your mouth). I was probably aware of that but for some subjective reason I still referred to you as if your opinion was that black and white. I'm not sure how much our opinions differ IRL (if at all) but from what we write here there apparently is at least some difference.

[XoX]

Don't think about avoiding misunderstandings, think about different ways to present your opinion.

The problem with that is having to think about how other people might see things differently --

True, but as he was unsuccessful at the former I thought I would offer an alternative.

There are a couple of things here which I think anndelise was referring to when she said that sometimes repeating yourself is almost unavoidable.

If you look at the situation from my POV for a change...here are the premises

a) I have strong sense that my internal understanding of the situation is correct. I try to formulate that understanding and export it to other people to read.
b) Other people read it and either 1) agree with it, 2) disagree with it, 3) misunderstand it (and then either agree or disagree with it). Misunderstanding can be caused either because my wording is bad or because they were unable to grasp the concept (ok, if we take the stance that customer is always right then my wording is the culprit).

So if people disagree with my opinion then I need to rethink and either stick to my original opinion or evolve it in the light of new information. If people seem to misunderstand me then I don't change my opinion but I should rethink how I present it.

In this particular situation some people seem to more or less agree with me. Some people seem to disagree with me and some people seem to misunderstand me.

For those who agree with me I say: "cool"

For those who misunderstand me I try to change my wording.

For those who understand me and still disagree with me I pretty much repeat my position. I'm not sure what else to do.
Of course if their argument convinces me I change my mind. But this hasn't been the case except when the difference of "team spirit" and "professional attitude" was discussed. I'm still a bit open about whether my concept of team spirit really means somekind of professional attitude or is it a completely different concept. And I'm talking about the concept "in my head" not necessarily the concept I managed to blurt out.

This situation is symmetric for all people involved of course. But well, there is a place for repeating and there is a place for reformulating your opinion.

One problem here might be my way of presenting my opinion as too extreme and black and white in relation to how I internally see it. Also to somewhat sloppy use of concepts (which is why I can seem to alter my opinion in the course of discussion even when I really don't). I might not pay enough attention to how exactly formulate my concepts. My internal impression is generally quite vague and 'intuitive' and when I externalize it there is a good chance that it doesn't come out in a way which is immediately clear to other people especially if the other people have very much tied their understanding to concrete well-defined labels such as exacts of wording. Now this reminds me of my problems with my ex-Boss. This kind of things were common. I thought that person is ENTp but could have been ENTj too. It was some time ago, I don't remember well Then again some other people e.g. an INTj co-worked was much better at understanding me even though he too initially had the habbit to misunderstand eventually he learned to look beyond the labels.

I have a bad hunch that this will be misinterpreted too

[Expat]

I'm not sure how much our opinions differ IRL (if at all) but from what we write here there apparently is at least some difference.

No, that is not the point. I do not believe for a moment that most big companies, today, started out so idealistically as you think. And if I would start a business and choosing between (say) selling hot-dogs or cellphones, yes I would choose what I think will be more profitable. When you use such examples as "cure for cancer", though, you are getting into a totally different region.

And the fact that I don't believe that Ford or Microsoft or etc had such altruistic motives, that is not a reflection of my possible views especially in things like cancer, AIDS, etc etc.

Now you say "those who attribute such and such views to companies share those views themselves" as if it was an obvious truth. No, it is not.

[Slacker]

Yeah I'm really cynical about the motives of companies too but it isn't that I share the views- on the contrary it bothers me and I am at this point completely jaded. It's like an example of how our world is imperfect.

[XoX]

I'm not sure how much our opinions differ IRL (if at all) but from what we write here there apparently is at least some difference.

No, that is not the point. I do not believe for a moment that most big companies, today, started out so idealistically as you think. And if I would start a business and choosing between (say) selling hot-dogs or cellphones, yes I would choose what I think will be more profitable. When you use such examples as "cure for cancer", though, you are getting into a totally different region.

And the fact that I don't believe that Ford or Microsoft or etc had such altruistic motives, that is not a reflection of my possible views especially in things like cancer, AIDS, etc etc.

Now you say "those who attribute such and such views to companies share those views themselves" as if it was an obvious truth. No, it is not.

Ok But we then do have some difference in opinion apparently. It is my extreme examples which irritate you. Our difference is not black and white but it is there. About how those companies started...I don't know. That is how I would start a company. I also know some startups who have ideals. It is certainly possible to start a company with only profit in mind and perhaps the companies you mentioned are like that.

[Expat]

Ok But we then do have some difference in opinion apparently. It is my extreme examples which irritate you.

The examples are not just extreme, they are misleading, and yet useful in seeing the assumptions you base them on.

[Expat]

I might not pay enough attention to how exactly formulate my concepts. My internal impression is generally quite vague and 'intuitive' and when I externalize it there is a good chance that it doesn't come out in a way which is immediately clear to other people especially if the other people have very much tied their understanding to concrete well-defined labels such as exacts of wording.

Which only means --

"If you can't understand my own badly-formulated ideas, which I couldn't be bothered to think through, nor to write down in a clear way, it's your fault for not being 'intuitive' enough and worrying too much about something as trivial as 'precise wording' and being pedantic".

[Phaedrus]

I might not pay enough attention to how exactly formulate my concepts. My internal impression is generally quite vague and 'intuitive' and when I externalize it there is a good chance that it doesn't come out in a way which is immediately clear to other people especially if the other people have very much tied their understanding to concrete well-defined labels such as exacts of wording.

Which only means --

"If you can't understand my own badly-formulated ideas, which I couldn't be bothered to think through, nor to write down in a clear way, it's your fault for not being 'intuitive' enough and worrying too much about something as trivial as 'precise wording' and being pedantic".

What it means is that dominants really have a problem with being understood, even if we try to be as clear and exact as we possibly can. I have always had writers such as Bertrand Russell and others as some sort of ideal. I still worship simplicity, clarity and exactness in thought and its expression, and one of the biggest surprises when I learned more about Socionics and eventually realized that I am an dominant type myself was that people don't understand what I say as well as I thought they did. Now it seems as though I might have to accept the fact that I could be more similar to "obscure" thinkers like Ludwig Wittgenstein, who complained all his life about not being understood.

[XoX]

I might not pay enough attention to how exactly formulate my concepts. My internal impression is generally quite vague and 'intuitive' and when I externalize it there is a good chance that it doesn't come out in a way which is immediately clear to other people especially if the other people have very much tied their understanding to concrete well-defined labels such as exacts of wording.

Which only means --

"If you can't understand my own badly-formulated ideas, which I couldn't be bothered to think through, nor to write down in a clear way, it's your fault for not being 'intuitive' enough and worrying too much about something as trivial as 'precise wording' and being pedantic".

It doesn't mean "only" that. It also means that you could give me more time developing my concept instead of attacking it immediately with full force and then when I develop it further keep attacking the initial wording I used instead of the more developed ones.

I think this is difference between INTj and ENTj. INTjs tend to give way more time to develop the argument and only when they see it fully matured start attacking it viciously

[Phaedrus]

I might not pay enough attention to how exactly formulate my concepts. My internal impression is generally quite vague and 'intuitive' and when I externalize it there is a good chance that it doesn't come out in a way which is immediately clear to other people especially if the other people have very much tied their understanding to concrete well-defined labels such as exacts of wording.

Which only means --

"If you can't understand my own badly-formulated ideas, which I couldn't be bothered to think through, nor to write down in a clear way, it's your fault for not being 'intuitive' enough and worrying too much about something as trivial as 'precise wording' and being pedantic".

It doesn't mean "only" that. It also means that you could give me more time developing my concept instead of attacking it immediately with full force and then when I develop it further keep attacking the initial wording I used instead of the more developed ones.

That is definitely typical behaviour of ENTjs (and maybe of some other types as well). What you describe is exactly what it is like for me to discuss with my ENTj friend in real life. Focus on words versus focus on "images" -- rational type versus irrational type.

[UDP]

! I thought this was XoX's type thread....

*moved*

[Expat]

Focus on words versus focus on "images" -- rational type versus irrational type.

Perhaps but to attribute all misunderstandings and disagreements to that sounds too easy to me.

[Phaedrus]

Focus on words versus focus on "images" -- rational type versus irrational type.

Perhaps but to attribute all misunderstandings and disagreements to that sounds too easy to me.

I'm not saying that all our misunderstandings and disagreements can be explained by that factor, only that it has an influence and makes it somewhat harder for both of us to clear things up.

[FDG]

Focus on words versus focus on "images" -- rational type versus irrational type.

Perhaps but to attribute all misunderstandings and disagreements to that sounds too easy to me.

I'm not saying that all our misunderstandings and disagreements can be explained by that factor, only that it has an influence and makes it somewhat harder for both of us to clear things up.

Or, more likely, you can't express yourself decently.

[anndelise]

I personally think that attributing poor communication to is a cop-out.

i personally think that if poor communication is going to be attributed to functions, then it can be attributed to any of the Xi functions as the case is often that a person can see more relationships between objects than they can easily communicate.
but then there is the issue of abstract concepts/relationships (N and T) being fairly difficult to communicate because they are not such that we can point to it and someone else see it. but then same applies to the implicit functions of N and F. But then S's have their issues in communicating as well because while they may be able to hear/see something (say tonal differences between two musical notes)..that doesn't mean that others will be able to recognize it, thus making communication involving awareness of that sensory info difficult. Which also leads to the involved functions (S and F) being difficult to communicate due to the personalized nature of the information....

the differences, i believe, is in the efforts in at least attempting to communicate as clearly as one possibly can.
of course, communicating is a two way street. the receiver has to make attempts to understand the sender, just as the sender as to make attempts to give clear signals for the receiver to receive.

but at what point does it become clear that the sender is choosing to be lazy, choosing to remain unclear, vs being incapable?
same question regarding the receiver.

and then there's the issues of "what we think we are communicating is not necessarily what is being communicated"

etc etc

[Expat]

I personally think that if poor communication is going to be attributed to functions, then it can be attributed to any of the Xi functions as the case is often that a person can see more relationships between objects than they can easily communicate.

Very good -- I had noticed this problem (from my PoV) with + types, but I can see how it could work for them if someone uses + .

[Khamelion]

I work with lots of people, I'm a cashier in a grocery store so I don't really need to work "with" any other cashiers

But I can say who I like working with more manager wise I suppose. Probably this one man who is MOST LIKELY...ExTp. I'm leaning more towards ENTp though. It just makes things more interesting when he's there, when he assigns me jobs and stuff, and he pays a lot of attention to me. Yah...its because he hits on girls constantly all the time lol. But there are differences in the way he does, and the way that annoys me. He has to be professional, which limits him and keeps things comfortable for me. He skirts the borders sometimes though Which normally just makes me laugh or something. I guess he just gives me the kind of attention I like.

Oh, and I like the baggers who talk to the customers a lot, but not awkwardly. Like friendly conversation. I only do that if the customer seems interesting enough.