Here's a poll for you. Discussion not necessary.
I follow the Phaedrus type debates with interest
I mostly do not follow the Phaedrus type debates with interest
I have come to a clear conclusion about his type
I might have an opinion, but I'm not very committed to it
I don't have an opinion on his type
I have read through all the arguments carefully
I have read some of the arguments
I have not read the arguments
I expect to follow the debate in the future
I do not expect to follow the debate in the future
Coming to a conclusion on Phaedrus' type is very important to moving on in our understanding of socionics
Coming to a conclusion on Phaedrus' type is not very important to moving on in our understanding of socionics
Poll on forum sentiments
Here's a poll for you. Discussion not necessary.
I follow the Phaedrus debate in order to have telling him to stop harassing the forum this way.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I absolutely do not give two shits about Phaedrus's type. The only interrest I take in them is to read when FDG puts him in his place, that's usually good stuffotherwise it's like reading a bunch of "blablablablablablablabla" nonsense
I have to plead guiltyI am largely responsible for the most recent "wave" of Phaedrus's related discussions. That was a consequence of wanting to make very clear what were my objections to his arguments for typing XoX as INTp. That point having been made, I will leave that particular issue alone. Phaedrus and XoX are, of course, entitled to call themselves INTps if they want to; just like others are entitled to say that they don't think that's likely.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
i don't follow it but i follow the group dynamic. I call it the counter-clockwise 'tard watch. it's ridiculous to insult someone over the internet about their own consciousness. It's also the strangest manifestation of long distance communication. We are well past the phase of critiqueing phraedrus-- now it's everyone trying to insult him into a type. ahaha
it goes backwards it goes frontwards it goes round and round and round
it gets silly it gets hectic and we cry and bash and frown
It's the counterclockwise tard watch
Does it tell the time?
no.
what the fuck
sorry
asd
Let's face it Phaedrus: if it wasn't for my keen interest in you, you wouldn't be the star of the forum. I expect you to thank me for this!I absolutely do not give two shits about Phaedrus's type. The only interrest I take in them is to read when FDG puts him in his place, that's usually good stuff
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Definitely.Coming to a conclusion on Phaedrus' type is very important to moving on in our understanding of socionics
You do realize that if people go about this way, discussions are going to keep raging on like they have thus far?Phaedrus and XoX are, of course, entitled to call themselves INTps if they want to; just like others are entitled to say that they don't think that's likely.
If he would just think he were whatever type and not use himself as some kind of authority, I wouldn't care. I would be surprised if a lot of people here hadn't mistyped themselves, but that isn't generally a big deal.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Well, what's the alternative?
That is a big deal, if you are taking Socionics seriously. If you don't take it seriously, then of course you can believe whatever you want. But if a lot of members on a forum like this are mistyped, that is a kind of pollution that makes it much more difficult to get reliable conclusions in the discussions those people are taking part in.
Well the fact that you have mistyped yourself is a kind of pollution because you use yourself as a benchmark for other people's types. If people don't do that, it isn't as big a deal.That is a big deal, if you are taking Socionics seriously. If you don't take it seriously, then of course you can believe whatever you want. But if a lot of members on a forum like this are mistyped, that is a kind of pollution that makes it much more difficult to get reliable conclusions in the discussions those people are taking part in.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Yes, if you are mistyped you contribute in clouding the arguments and that is a kind of pollution. But I am not mistyped, and you are most likely not mistyped either.Well the fact that you have mistyped yourself is a kind of pollution because you use yourself as a benchmark for other people's types. If people don't do that, it isn't as big a deal.That is a big deal, if you are taking Socionics seriously. If you don't take it seriously, then of course you can believe whatever you want. But if a lot of members on a forum like this are mistyped, that is a kind of pollution that makes it much more difficult to get reliable conclusions in the discussions those people are taking part in.
Let's count up the costs and gains of this debate:
GAINS:
- a slightly clearer understanding ofand
- many forum members have learned to spell "phaedrus" correctly
- higher calorie burning during debates may have led to minor weight loss among participants
COSTS:
- 5000 man-hours spent over six continents
- loss of several thousand IEE hairs
- lower seratonin levels for many active forum members
- lower chess performance for phaedrus due to preoccupation with debate
Highly effective, folks. Highly effective...
And there you have it. I decided to, uhm, energetically interfere in the issue of typing XoX as INTp precisely because I saw that as a major source of pollution. But you of course disagree with that. And since there is no way to settle this issue, especially since we have different, yes, opinions on the most valid criteria, what some people see as pollution others will see as perfume and vice-versa.
Fair enough, but at least the cards are all on the table now. Statements have been made, positions have been taken, ambiguity has been expurged.Let's count up the costs and gains of this debate:
GAINS:
- a slightly clearer understanding of
- many forum members have learned to spell "phaedrus" correctly
- higher calorie burning during debates may have led to minor weight loss among participants
COSTS:
- 5000 man-hours spent over six continents
- loss of several thousand IEE hairs
- lower seratonin levels for many active forum members
- lower chess performance for phaedrus due to preoccupation with debate
Highly effective, folks. Highly effective...
Expungations have been impurged... (J/K, couldn't help it)
A point well made.Let's count up the costs and gains of this debate:
GAINS:
- a slightly clearer understanding of
- many forum members have learned to spell "phaedrus" correctly
- higher calorie burning during debates may have led to minor weight loss among participants
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
I agree that many people are not sure of their types and might be mistyped as a result. Anyway, everyone has different views about what your type could be, and some people are more certain than others of their type 'cos they probably have stronger preferences. Therefore, I agree with Slacker Mom that it is generally not a big deal. We just treat it as a process of learning rather than been too concerned about subscribing to a specific type.Yes, if you are mistyped you contribute in clouding the arguments and that is a kind of pollution. But I am not mistyped, and you are most likely not mistyped either.Well the fact that you have mistyped yourself is a kind of pollution because you use yourself as a benchmark for other people's types. If people don't do that, it isn't as big a deal.That is a big deal, if you are taking Socionics seriously. If you don't take it seriously, then of course you can believe whatever you want. But if a lot of members on a forum like this are mistyped, that is a kind of pollution that makes it much more difficult to get reliable conclusions in the discussions those people are taking part in.
Die idiot anal pussy start talking like an human being and not a fucking robotThat is a big deal, if you are taking Socionics seriously. If you don't take it seriously, then of course you can believe whatever you want. But if a lot of members on a forum like this are mistyped, that is a kind of pollution that makes it much more difficult to get reliable conclusions in the discussions those people are taking part in.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
And what if I am a robot? Should I act like a human even then?
You are not so your question is pointless.And what if I am a robot? Should I act like a human even then?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Probably if we can abstract the issues from their specific setting and discuss them on their own merits (with only occasional reference to the specific people as examples), we would have better luck. For example:
* Can a person be acc-Ti and *appear* to have Ip temperament?
* Can a person fall between two comparative-partner types, and if so, what would that look like?
* If someone "personalizes" some issues in his/her comments, does that make that person an F type?
* If someone uses a certain function a lot, does that make it "strong," or could a person emphasize (for example), his/her PoLR a lot, and what would that look like?
* Might crea-Te appear like acc-Ti, and how can one really tell the difference?
* Do Tcaud's models (and other non-classic-Socionics solutions) provide a greater understanding of certain controversially-typed individuals, or are these a step backwards from finding a person's "true" 16-base type?
* Why is it that a number of people identify with INTp but believe that they value something that appears to themselves and others like Ti?
...and so on...
These are some of the sorts of issues that have been discussed with Phaedrus and XoX as "proxies." The advantage of bringing up real people is that it helps one to see the depth of the question (instead of just dismissing it with a pat answer). However, if the goal is seen as determining (or contesting) a forum member's type, then it all becomes counterproductive, personalized, heated, and confusing. If we stay focused on using people's type only as examples for resolving some of the trickier (and hidden) theoretical issues, then I think it will be more worthwhile.
Are you taking it seriously then?! I am so tired of reading all this crap about you thinking you are INTp when all the freaking evidence you're giving is not AT ALL related to to socionics.That is a big deal, if you are taking Socionics seriously. If you don't take it seriously, then of course you can believe whatever you want. But if a lot of members on a forum like this are mistyped, that is a kind of pollution that makes it much more difficult to get reliable conclusions in the discussions those people are taking part in.
"INTp is a type that has came about before Socionics is even introduced"?!
(I did not forget what you said in that thread about INTp being a type existing before socionics)
Here we are talking about socionics and you're talking about what is before socionics?! WHAT THE FUCK?! SERIOUSLY?! do you have any freaking idea what you're talking about?! So what the fuck are you talking about anyway?????? Myer briggs or jungs typing?! I have no idea how to communicate wiht you because all your talk about is your "objective" views. And I have NO IDEA how you actually view them as objective.
LOOK HERE! I don't have an opinion on your type. But you have never given a proper good explanation IMO about why you think you are INTp. NO! Thinking that you get along with ESFp is NOT good enough. You have to EXPLAIN WHY!
I am just SICK of this whole "phaedrus" shit. And please freaking explain why you think you are Se seeking rather than Fe seeking. Because I seriously CANT picture your Fe PoLR.
INTp
sx/sp
"Appear" is a vague word. I think that, in person, probably not.
That's a crosstype discussion. If true, for instance, an INXp would not differentiate between Ti and Te and Fi and Fe, and therefore relate equally to an ESTp and to an ESFp, because they would look the same to that person.
No, but if that's their -- natural refuge, then it's an indication. If you remember, that's why so many people did not see Kristiina as a logical type.
The real question is whether the person feels more comfortable, or naturally inclines to, using the "PoLR". If so, then it's not the PoLR. The PoLR is something you avoid using if you have the choice.
It might in terms of stubborness or arrogance. The difference is in the arguments used. Te will always use facts, Ti will use logical consistency.
You decide.
Probably because they mistyped themselves since a lot of descriptions suck. INFp descriptions in particular seem to focus on ethical INFps.
You're right in principle, but in practice that won't work.
I don't think i've ever seen these two things together: expat's name and
i would like to say i ignore most of the discussions and don't really give a damn about phaedrus' type.
Do you have any reason to believe that I am not an INTp? Doesn't it suffice for you that I tell you that I fit the criteria for being an INTp from whatever angle or from whatever perspective I look at myself? Everything in Socionics -- the criteria for the four scales, the type descriptions, the dichotomic type descriptions compiled by Smilingeyes, my IP temperament, my intertype relations with real life people whose type I am certain of, V.I., model A ... -- is shouting to me that I am an INTp. Nothing in Socionics suggests that I am some other type. What conclusion should I draw from that?
Based on my intertype relations with ESFps and ESFjs, and of course the fact that I am an INTp, and an INTp is Se seeking, right?
You would easily recognize it if you would watch me in real life situations during a longer period. My Fe PoLR is clearly obvious to many people, not only to me.
If people did not have any reason to believe otherwise, members of this board would not be having this conversation with you now would they?Do you have any reason to believe that I am not an INTp?
Not if what you say contradicts with what you do.
That perhaps you should reevaluate your understanding of Socionics.
Circular reasoning.Based on my intertype relations with ESFps and ESFjs, and of course the fact that I am an INTp, and an INTp is Se seeking, right?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Let's count up the costs and gains of this debate:
GAINS:
- a slightly clearer understanding of
- many forum members have learned to spell "phaedrus" correctly
- higher calorie burning during debates may have led to minor weight loss among participants
COSTS:
- 5000 man-hours spent over six continents
- loss of several thousand IEE hairs
- lower seratonin levels for many active forum members
- lower chess performance for phaedrus due to preoccupation with debate
Highly effective, folks. Highly effective...
Coming to a conclusion on Phaedrus' type is irrelevant, as the solving of the connundrum would only create a vacuum in which a similar problem might arise; the entire issue is very telling on the nature of intellectual discourse, as it reveals the very drudging, academic nature that turns into matters so convoluted that neither side participating in the debate are able to see the other's points clearly. Such problems are only solved emotively and intuitively, which is why all the discussions on this board that fall into the category of irresolvably complex and obscure, should be completely ignored. Just my
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
(For a "serious" type theory forum , this place really has a lot of drama going on.
We should all print this out and hang it up on the wall above our monitorsComing to a conclusion on Phaedrus' type is irrelevant, as the solving of the connundrum would only create a vacuum in which a similar problem might arise; the entire issue is very telling on the nature of intellectual discourse, as it reveals the very drudging, academic nature that turns into matters so convoluted that neither side participating in the debate are able to see the other's points clearly. Such problems are only solved emotively and intuitively, which is why all the discussions on this board that fall into the category of irresolvably complex and obscure, should be completely ignored. Just my
that would be a rather difficult, as my monitor is not backed immediately by a wall, but rather a vast wasteland of worthless clutter.
I wish I had thought of putting it this way.Not if what you say contradicts with what you do.
Phaedrus, if what you just said would "suffice", nobody would ever question anyone's types here, and this place would become a lot less interesting and informative. And our "subjective" impressions of you are no more "subjective" than your own view of yourself. And that applies to everyone.
I like the irony!But I don't care about the discussion, haven't followed it and won't be doing it in the future. Because even if Phadreus finds he's type, he's problems won't go away. He needs some help for that. Socionics type is useless most of the time. It matters to me only then, when I will need to learn something. In such case I know with what information to fill myself.
material on the subject is better than
Semiotical process
I have come to the conclusion (and so has Smilingeyes) that the main reason people believe that I am not an INTp is that they can't see the difference between acceptingIf people did not have any reason to believe otherwise, members of this board would not be having this conversation with you now would they?
In order to clear up this common misunderstanding, sooner or later people must face the fact that they might have something to learn here, that they might not have understood these functions in relation to the types correctly. My suggestion to you is that we all start to read and discuss Smilingeys's compilation of Dichotomic descriptions of the types v2.0, which can be found at: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=9022
If you prefer you can read what I think is a version that might be somewhat closer to Smilingeyes's original article before The Big Deletion. At least it doesn't have as many "interruptions". I have posted the material I have saved here: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=200154#200154
Many things should become clearer if one reads that material and compares the differences between how, for example, accepting
Correct. But I don't think it does in my case, and hopefully you will understand that if you read Smilingeyes's material.Not if what you say contradicts with what you do.
Or that perhaps you should reevaluate your understanding of me and what type I am.That perhaps you should reevaluate your understanding of Socionics.
Actually I had an impulse to answer one more thin. I think that some of the daily users talking in here, have problems with sensitivity and it is somehow connected to their socionics interests.
Semiotical process
.
Why do you bring up my type again? You should try to understand Smilingeyes's points in order to see the differences between accepting
Compare yourself with the other Creative-Te people around here.Why do you bring up my type again? You should try to understand Smilingeyes's points in order to see the differences between accepting
I don't mean look at whether they say they feel they are your identical, or not. Just at the way they write and communicate their thoughts. None of them is as:
- positive as you. They tend to concentrate on eliminating contradictions more so than stating truths (or supposed truths), which is what you do.
- declarative as you. Not to be meant as associated with the "declarer" dichotomy, but rather as how definitive their statements sound in comparison to yours. The difference is enormous.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote