some people have been hinting to me that

[Logos]

The problem is that there has been no real logical discussion as to Ms.K's type. It is just a people claiming that Ms.K is X type without any sort of logical reason as to why. Apparently she is X type simply because it has been proclaimed so by the powers that be.

[detail]

Too bad there's no answer key... no way to KNOW a person's type for sure. Eh well, it's obviously more important to you than it is to me, and I'd really rather not be the one who you take your frustrations out on... so I'll take my leave.

Editing messages screws the meaning of messages that follow.

Anyways, it's not more important to me, i just have more reasons to know her type. As for frustrations, i don't know what you're talking about. I'm all about peace.

[Joy]

lol okay, peace

[Ms. Kensington]

The problem is that there has been no real logical discussion as to Ms.K's type. It is just a people claiming that Ms.K is X type without any sort of logical reason as to why. Apparently she is X type simply because it has been proclaimed so by the powers that be.

hey, i resent that

unless, you mean that I have given reasons and other have not.. that could mean there could not have been a discussion. Although I do talk to myself.

[Phaedrus]

Introversion and extroversion does not exist as a measurable and quantifiable property; they are relatively subjective, and quite arbritrary, categories used to describe behavior.

You are completely wrong about that. It is a clearly observable, measurable and quantifiable property. It is in no way a subjective or arbitrary category to describe behaviour. It is a biological phenomenon that defines your whole interaction with the outside world. And it is not dependent on the socionic theory. It is quite possible to determine whether you are an introvert or an extravert without knowing anything about Socionics.

Is there a quantifiable point in which we can say that one person shifts from extrovert to introvert? Then how would I go about quantifying and measuring this property? Social interactive time sheets?

You measure the relative level of some chemical substance in your brain. That can be done, and it has been done in some experiments, but I have forgot the details. But there are plenty of articles about the E/I phenomenon on the Internet, and I suggest that you read everything Jung has said about it.

[Logos]

The problem is that there has been no real logical discussion as to Ms.K's type. It is just a people claiming that Ms.K is X type without any sort of logical reason as to why. Apparently she is X type simply because it has been proclaimed so by the powers that be.

hey, i resent that

unless, you mean that I have given reasons and other have not.. that could mean there could not have been a discussion. Although I do talk to myself.

Yes.

You measure the relative level of some chemical substance in your brain. That can be done, and it has been done in some experiments, but I have forgot the details. But there are plenty of articles about the E/I phenomenon on the Internet, and I suggest that you read everything Jung has said about it.

But would we see neat correlations and divides of this chemical usage between the extroverts and introverts of the sixteen archetypes? Extroversion and introversion are defined differently in Socionics than they are in most other contexts.

[Exodus]

I agree (I've told him many times that he very reminds me of the INTj I was with), but I don't think he comes off the same way some of the Ti types here do. Perhaps it's a subtype thing. Or perhaps some of the other Ti types are actually ethical types that overcompensate for their geekiness with trying to appear extremely "intellectual". The world may never know.

Not if you know what strong logic looks like.

Has there ever been an INTj of which whose type you are sure?

if you're looking for definite LIIs from this forum, UDP is a pretty safe bet.

Agreed - though there are other "kinds" of INTjs, as mentioned in the INTj Styles thread. UDP is an extreme example of the style 2 - which comprises only about a third of all INTjs.

if you want my opinion, both oyburger and msK are LIIs, as are UDP, logos, labcoat, dioklecian, science as magic, thursday, phaedrus, mariano rajoy, tcaudilllg.....

examples of people i do NOT believe are LII (although one is more a suspicion than any strong idea) include subterranean and hotelambush.

Which one is the suspicion? I'd like to know just how many people think I am not INTj (in the appropriate thread of course). FWIW Subterranean is INTj.

[Ms. Kensington]

I agree subterranean seems different. He seems the same as Labcoat, more like an ISTj than an INTj. Ti sub makes sense for them.

I also have been giving thought to the posts around that have been talking about a logical HA and how it's different than a logical program or creative function. I am beginning to think that my creative function is what rears its head most and is giving me the strongest indicator of my type. I plan to post my observations in another thread.

[Gilly]

Our line of thinking is too similar for us to be seperate types. The only other person whose sentances I've been able to finish and who can finish mine is my husband (and we've been stuck together like glue for forever) yet Jane can accomplish this from hundreds of miles away via 1's and 0's. I'm sticking to INTj for myself, therefore Jane has no choice but to be INTj. Case closed.

Further evidence for IxTp.

[Ms. Kensington]

I agree subterranean seems different. He seems the same as Labcoat, more like an ISTj than an INTj. Ti sub makes sense for them.

I also have been giving thought to the posts around that have been talking about a logical HA and how it's different than a logical program or creative function. I am beginning to think that my creative function is what rears its head most and is giving me the strongest indicator of my type. I plan to post my observations in another thread.

Btw, I wasn't saying that subterranean and labcoat are ISTjs. I meant it makes sense to say they are Ti sub INTjs.

[oyburger]

Our line of thinking is too similar for us to be seperate types. The only other person whose sentances I've been able to finish and who can finish mine is my husband (and we've been stuck together like glue for forever) yet Jane can accomplish this from hundreds of miles away via 1's and 0's. I'm sticking to INTj for myself, therefore Jane has no choice but to be INTj. Case closed.

Further evidence for IxTp.

You need to change your username :wink:
and as evidenced elsewhere I am willing to relinquish that fact that I have similar attributes to ISTp. However, you do realize that because of the dynamics of who we are individually, I can never under any circumstance admit that you are right (even if by some chance I end up agreeing with you) it's just gone to far for that now.
So that I can have someone to poke with my mean stick of fun please continue to hang around

[Gilly]

Nooo...I refuse to get sucked back in....please don't encourage me

[XoX]

Nooo...I refuse to get sucked back in....please don't encourage me

You already have been sucked in. The problem now is how can you get back outside?

[Gilly]

Nooooooo.......I refuuuuse.......

[XoX]

Ms.K might be INTj btw. I have yet to verify that though. I would think she is at least introvert and most likely logical type but the latter is not as clear. About being rational and being N I can't say too much atm. I stick with the INTj until something changes my mind.

[Ms. Kensington]

Ms.K might be INTj btw. I have yet to verify that though.

how? haha I think you have VI'ed me right?

BTw I have been trying to apply the aforementioned epiphany to your type as well!

[Ms. Kensington]

according to http://socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml

I identify in the perception box for all but two of the rational bullets.
For physiology I identify mostly with irrational.
Emotions are all rational.
Strengths are all irrational
Weaknesses: first bullet for rational, second bullet irrational
Relationships rational 1 bullet/irrational 2 bullets.

Again this is the reason I have doubts about my type when I do, because of the ambiguity of the temperament I identify with.

I do see that emotions are more of the field of a rational right, so it seems fitting that my most clear preference is rational in that field.. if I am INTj..

[Blaze]

so....perhaps intp? no one has yet suggested this. i say this because i agree with what joy said about you valuing Fi.

[Ms. Kensington]

hey blaze, long time no see! at least it feels that way.

Actually someone did suggest INTp but there wasn't a firm opinion about it.

Still, I think that the rational/irrational questions are still more behavior based. I liked the perception questions though, because they are more about how you see things/take in information.

My feeling is that this list is also explained if you say that I am an INTj with a strong Ne subtype. I feel that it can explain everything except the physiology, but we might omit that input because i think it's more controversial to say one's body appearance (not mannerisms) is affected by type.

As for the Fi..I'm a little perlexed by that. Because I think INTjs can be the whiniest bitches about relationships. I have to say that I agree with Gilligan in that "weaker" functions can elicit behavior that reflects attention/interest in those areas not because they are strong in them but because they're paranoid about them. In any case it seems I am a T that doesn't know shit about Fi.

[Blaze]

yes i have been busy in florida getting a suntan with my kids. back now though!!

intj it is then :-)

[Gilly]

I have to say that I agree with Gilligan in that "weaker" functions can elicit behavior that reflects attention/interest in those areas not because they are strong in them but because they're paranoid about them.

Right. They feel as though they need some proficiency, if only to defend themselves when the situation calls for it.

[Ms. Kensington]

k remind me why im not INFj again?

[implied]

k remind me why im not INFj again?

wait, because you admit you are sort of clueless in . gd it you're a logical type. i have asked myself the same question a few times.

I have to say that I agree with Gilligan in that "weaker" functions can elicit behavior that reflects attention/interest in those areas not because they are strong in them but because they're paranoid about them.

i agree with this as well and i admit i try to do this but i'm never confident in it.

[implied]

k remind me why im not INFj again?

wait, because you admit you are sort of clueless in . gd it you're a logical type. i have asked myself the same question a few times.

I have to say that I agree with Gilligan in that "weaker" functions can elicit behavior that reflects attention/interest in those areas not because they are strong in them but because they're paranoid about them.

i agree with this as well and i admit i try to do this but i'm never confident in it.

[Ms. Kensington]

Yeah I am clueless in .. but sometimes I get unsure about too. But I suppose I get more unsure about Fi way more. Thanks, implied.

Also, I am not ENTp. :/

[Ms. Kensington]

Yeah I am clueless in .. but sometimes I get unsure about too. But I suppose I get more unsure about Fi way more. Thanks, implied.

Also, I am not ENTp. :/

[Ms. Kensington]

lol i finally found this thread!

recently there has been some talk about my type again. could you consolidate it here?

[Ms. Kensington]

carla!!