The Great Phaedrus debate

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[aestrivex]

you do realize that none of this has nothing whatsoever to do with objectivism and subjectivism at all?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[aestrivex]

yes, you, of course. the comment so clearly was directed towards your arguments that it's difficult to understand why you even asked. it's not like there's anybody else to whom it might be intended; no other recipient would make any sense whatsoever.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[aestrivex]

...

[Phaedrus]

aka "believe what I say, not what I do"

If your interpretation of what I do contradicts what I say -- yes, then you should be very skeptical of the correctness of your own interpretation. It is of course much more likely that your interpretation is incorrect than that I am lying or so deluded that I can't anaylyze my own behaviour, attitudes, test results, thinking processes, intertype relations, etc. at least as well as you can analyze them.

[anndelise]

aka "believe what I say, not what I do"

If your interpretation of what I do contradicts what I say -- yes, then you should be very skeptical of the correctness of your own interpretation. It is of course much more likely that your interpretation is incorrect than that I am lying or so deluded that I can't anaylyze my own behaviour, attitudes, test results, thinking processes, intertype relations, etc. at least as well as you can analyze them.

funny to read a supposed accepting perceiving subtype telling another accepting perceiving subtype to ignore her perceptions and accept his judgements

usually they just swap perceptions, accepting that other people have their perceptions which may or may not be seeing something different from what they see.

[Joy]

I think perhaps phaedrus and anndelise are identicals, or at least similar types. Similar values in the very least.

[anndelise]

I think phaedrus and anndelise are identicals, or at least similar types. Similar values in the very least.

i seriously doubt phaedrus is enfp
and i'm sure he would agree

[Joy]

as would I

*exits this thread*

[anndelise]

as would I

*exits this thread*

then your statement has no meaning unless you intend to question my type
which is it joy?

[Expat]

Some general points --

In a nutshell: it's a framework for describing some observed interrelationships of people, motivations, and general tendencies. The only way it can work is to not be overlly scientific, because obviously people aren't, even when they think they are.

Yes.

Now if only you'd realize that condemning all 'relativism', particularly in inexact science, is an equally grave error...

Each one of your pieces of 'objective evidence' has it's basis in some form of unreliable method of observation: intuition, estimation, self-report, etc.

Yes.

But the strongest evidence is still what the person himself has to say about his behaviour, his attitudes, what he identifies with, and his results on as many different types of tests as possible. And the biggest mistake people on this forum make is to dismiss test results and self-reports as irrelevant, unimportant, or unreliable. They think that they are in a better position to type a person based on his posts on the Internet, than the person is himself. So they decide to ignore the most reliable evidence there is.

Let me address these points.

1) Tests: test results are not independent evidence. They are only valuable within the self-contained framework of the assumptions of each test. And without being validated, by testing people whose types are 100% certain, the reliability of any test will remain a matter of opinion, because, yes, this is inexact science, for the reasons Logos and Diana pointed out.

Also, test results will also be a reflection of a person's self-perception which, especially after taking many tests, will start to be, yes, "biased" towards certain types.

2) Self-reports: everyone uses self-reports here all the time, that's what I do, too. But self-reports can't be self-conscious. If a person has already more or less decided on a type, and is (consciously or unconsciously) trying to confirm that typing, self-reports lose a lot of their objective value. They are not "irrelevant", but they can be unreliable. The most useful self-reports are those by people who neither know nor care about which type they may be.

That's exactly what has happened in XoX's case. His test results, his self-reports, his view of himself, his own sense of strong similarity and mutual understanding with another correctly typed INTp, and probably even V.I. -- every one of these pieces of evidence point in the same direction: that XoX is an INTp. And yet people have the nerve to ignore all of that in preference for some subjective interpretation of some subjective impressions of what function(s) they think that they can perceive as manifested in some posts of the person they are typing. Such behaviour is disgustingly unscientific.

First, a person's self-perception is not "scientific" evidence, as already pointed out above. That applies to XoX, to yourself, to me, and to anyone. None of that stuff is rigorously scientific.

And yes, I trust more my own judgement of the functions someone is using than their own self-perception - especially if that someone has admitted to not being sure of really meaning something or not, and having to be reminded of things they themselves said just before. Is that "scientific" evidence? No.

[anndelise]

from another thread

I find it difficult to choose between Ij and Ep though.

That is impossible.

"impossible", "not an option", "can't be"......
phrases very similar to these are constantly in phadreus' responses to people
as is accusations of lying when someone tells their own pov (how a pov can be a lie I have no idea)

i'm wondering if anyone else has noticed that phaedrus seems to have difficulty conceiving that there may be other ways of looking at something. Like, maybe intellectually he recognizes that there are differing views or differing perceptions, but in practice he can't seem to take them into account.

is anyone else wondering if he's showing a possible Ne polr?

[Slacker]

YES he is ISTj.

[Ms. Kensington]

i'm wondering if anyone else has noticed that phaedrus seems to have difficulty conceiving that there may be other ways of looking at something. Like, maybe intellectually he recognizes that there are differing views or differing perceptions, but in practice he can't seem to take them into account.

Whatever rigidness he may have seems to be a conscious effort. I feel this could be true of a perceiver with a rational HA/creative function.

[CuriousSoul]

Edited for second thoughts.

[Expat]

What various reasons?

An ESFj wouldn't particularly want to be active in a forum where he feels (correctly or incorrectly) that many of his interactions are emotionally hostile in the immediate term, so he would have to be a masochistic ESFj imo.

[Phaedrus]

What various reasons?

An ESFj wouldn't particularly want to be active in a forum where he feels (correctly or incorrectly) that many of his interactions are emotionally hostile in the immediate term, so he would have to be a masochistic ESFj imo.

Probably. I am also very interested in hearing CuriousSoul's reasons, because if I really am an ESFj I must definitely be insane. But not even an insane person would be that wrong about about his own type, in my opinion. How could that be possible? So, let's hear the arguments.

[Jarno]

I haven't followed this whole topic, but I would say Phaedrus is an INTP because:

- we think very alike, i can relate to many things he writes
- his writing style is pretty developed
- he knows lots of theory of socionics
- he has typed himself using different methods
- the way he's concerned about "the truth"

enough to assume that it's possible, even likely, that he's an INTP.

[Subteigh]

I seriously doubt he's a ESFj. ISTj or even ENFj would be a million times more plausible IMO, if INTp isn't on the cards.