Me again :)

[Jonathan]

It seems that my type has become an issue again, possibly, due to Expat's arguments that I'm IEI. I'll put a thread here to try to consolidate such discussions rather than having them turn up in other threads, as that has been discussed as a problem when it's happened with other people.

Here's what I understrand to be the views of several people on the forum about my probable type:
Rick: ILI (based on VI and analysis of my comments as using Te)
A number of others: ILI (usually from people who note an "identity" relation, and not just Phaedrus )
The poll results in the previous thread about my type: LII (some later on changed and said I'm ILI)
Smilex: IEI (or Ni subtype of some sort) (based on his belief that he's LSE and that he senses Ni but not supervisory relations)
Expat: IEI (seems to be based mostly on his view that my "T" arguments on whatever point aren't convincing to him?)
Tcaud: LIE-IEE dual type (because I remind him of his professor and Tony Blair)
MBTI: Came out ENFP (just barely F, just barely E)
Quadra-based, Hugo-style tests: LII
Rcmew's "long" test awhile back: IEE with high Ne, but with Fe>Fi
Socionics "type assistant" and similar tools that emphasize the letter dichotomies: ILI

I'm not going to do a poll again this time because obviously what the majority of people think (or even what various "authorities" think) really isn't a good way to determine type. I'm more interested in focusing the discussion (if people are willing) on some of the interesting views that have been put forth.

First of all, Expat's theory intrigues me. (You can read his views in a number of recent "General Discussion" posts.) If he's right, we'd have to answer (regarding myself):
Why Ni > Ne? (One might think Ni by default, given that the two main types in contention are ILI and IEI, but if one thinks Ti>Te, then Ni vs. Ne becomes more of an issue.)

Why Fe > Fi?
Why Ti > Te?
Why F > T?

Secondly, Tcaud's theory is pretty far from everyone else's, so if someone could explain it or comment, I'd be interested in that too.

[Expat]

Expat: IEI (seems to be based mostly on his view that my "T" arguments on whatever point aren't convincing to him?)

It's not a question of "convincing". For instance, I did not find UDP's reasoning on XoX's type being ENFp convincing either, but I never said, nor do I think, that he isn't a logical type and LII in particular. On the other hand, I find a lot of Kristiina's and Slacker Mom's and Diana's and anndelise's (sorry for leaving many people out)arguments "convincing", and I never said or suggested that they were not ethical types.

So, drop this line of argumentation. It's verifiably wrong to say that I equal "convincing arguments = logical types".

[Expat]

And to put my views in context --

The only typing view I have very strongly defended recently, and I will continue to do so, is that XoX isn't INTp. That's it.

Now, if asked, I am inclined to see INFp as more likely than INTp for you and Phaedrus, however, it's not something that I can defend (even to my satisfaction) as strongly as the view that XoX isn't INTp.

And where would I see Ti>Te and Fe>Te etc in you? It becomes tricky. Obviously, any functional human being can use all functions, as I have consistently stated. That's why I prefer to speak of functional preferences. Of course an INTp can use Ti and Fe. But, all things being equal, they will be inclined to use Fi over Fe and Te over Ti.

And, observing your posts over a length of time, it is my judgement that you tend to use Ti and Te more like an INFp than INTp, which is not the same as not being "bright" . Now, it's more difficult for me to find specific examples in your case than it is for the Fe>Fi preference in XoX's, which is one reason why I don't have as strong an opinion.

[Jonathan]

@Expat:

Okay, I'll drop that line of reasoning. I do think it's how you come off (i.e., labelling people's arguments as bad and then questioning if they're really T), and as I've said elsewhere it's also probably a result of misunderstanding relating to not being able to explain in person in real-time. I don't know how many others interpret your comments that way, and I hope you don't mind my mentioning that you could avoid such misunderstandings by trying to put a little more Fi into how you say things; you can still make all the same points just as forcefully without directly questioning the other person's competence. (I can provide details if you want, but I don't think it's necessary. Actually, you've gotten better in this area. )

ANYHOW, dropping that line of reasoning, I would still like to hear the case for me being IEI, if anyone cares to go in that direction.

[Expat]

trying to put a little more Fi into how you say things;

What you see me as lacking is Fe, not Fi.

[Jonathan]

trying to put a little more Fi into how you say things;

What you see me as lacking is Fe, not Fi.

Okay, this wasn't what I wanted to discuss, but it is at least partly related, since it implies that I see Fe more than Fi (actually, an IEI should see both, right?).

(And by the say, I'm not arguing that you don't value Fi.)

Anyhow, here's what I meant: Let's say someone says "That's a straw man argument!" or "That's irrelevant!" It seems an ISFj or INFj would be thinking of the other person's feelings and rather say "That doesn't seem to relate to what I was saying. Maybe one of us is misunderstanding?" Or instead of saying something like "That's a bad argument. You're obviously not..." (you didn't use these exact words; this is just an example), I picture a more Fi-inspired version as "I disagree with that, because..." Similarly (and again, I know you didn't say this exactly), instead of saying "That's wrong, and you're stupid," an Fi-inspired version would probably be to just mention why the statement is wrong and leave out the rest of it.

Rick, I think, is a good model of someone who shows respect for everyone in the way he says things, and who tends to keep things from getting too heated if he disagrees. In contrast, some Fe types actually turn up the heat, using ever more creative and expressive language to do it.

Now, you could argue that many Fe types will also tend to use the more diplomatic word choices than T types. Indeed. But if Fe is more related to expression, creating a mood, and relating to the group mood, and if Fi is more related to consideration for others, showing respect, creating bonds between people, and toning down excessive emotions (or things that stimulate them), then what I'm talking about here seems to be more Fi.

Quite apart from the fact that I'm the one who's mentioning it, why would it be Fe?

[FDG]

trying to put a little more Fi into how you say things;

What you see me as lacking is Fe, not Fi.

Okay, this wasn't what I wanted to discuss, but it is at least partly related, since it implies that I see Fe more than Fi (actually, an IEI should see both, right?).

(And by the say, I'm not arguing that you don't value Fi.)

Anyhow, here's what I meant: Let's say someone says "That's a straw man argument!" or "That's irrelevant!" It seems an ISFj or INFj would be thinking of the other person's feelings and rather say "That doesn't seem to relate to what I was saying. Maybe one of us is misunderstanding?" Or instead of saying something like "That's a bad argument. You're obviously not..." (you didn't use these exact words; this is just an example), I picture a more Fi-inspired version as "I disagree with that, because..." Similarly (and again, I know you didn't say this exactly), instead of saying "That's wrong, and you're stupid," an Fi-inspired version would probably be to just mention why the statement is wrong and leave out the rest of it.

Rick, I think, is a good model of someone who shows respect for everyone in the way he says things, and who tends to keep things from getting too heated if he disagrees. In contrast, some Fe types actually turn up the heat, using ever more creative and expressive language to do it.

Now, you could argue that many Fe types will also tend to use the more diplomatic word choices than T types. Indeed. But if Fe is more related to expression, creating a mood, and relating to the group mood, and if Fi is more related to consideration for others, showing respect, creating bonds between people, and toning down excessive emotions (or things that stimulate them), then what I'm talking about here seems to be more Fi.

Quite apart from the fact that I'm the one who's mentioning it, why would it be Fe?

I agree with everything written here.

[Kristiina]

Jonathan, you give the impression of someone who is calm and intuitive, warm and friendly. Some IEIs give that impression, but ILIs seem somewhat different. Their kind of intuitive can rather be labeled as know-it-all, they are more cold than warm in their way of interacting with others and their friendliness is usually just seen from the choice of topics they discuss with you. ILIs are more serious.

If I'm not confusing you with Phaedrus, I think you wrote a very good thread about Ni a long time ago. Something that I wholeheartedly agreed with. Time has passed and types have changed, but I remember that our descriptions of Ni were quite similar and I identified with what you called Ni. As it turned out I seem to really be a Ni-type, and I think you're still also a Ni-type... But maybe we agreed so much because we are in the same quadra as well?

[FDG]

Jonathan, you give the impression of someone who is calm and intuitive, warm and friendly. Some IEIs give that impression, but ILIs seem somewhat different. Their kind of intuitive can rather be labeled as know-it-all, they are more cold than warm in their way of interacting with others and their friendliness is usually just seen from the choice of topics they discuss with you. ILIs are more serious.

If I'm not confusing you with Phaedrus, I think you wrote a very good thread about Ni a long time ago. Something that I wholeheartedly agreed with. Time has passed and types have changed, but I remember that our descriptions of Ni were quite similar and I identified with what you called Ni. As it turned out I seem to really be a Ni-type, and I think you're still also a Ni-type... But maybe we agreed so much because we are in the same quadra as well?

ISFj and INTp activity partners, allright

[Phaedrus]

The only typing view I have very strongly defended recently, and I will continue to do so, is that XoX isn't INTp. That's it.

Now, if asked, I am inclined to see INFp as more likely than INTp for you and Phaedrus, however, it's not something that I can defend (even to my satisfaction) as strongly as the view that XoX isn't INTp.

What Expat is, in fact, saying here is that XoX is delusional. According to Expat, XoX doesn't understand the meaning of the four scales (E/I, S/N, T/F, and J/P), and he doesn't understand what they refer to. Neither is XoX, according to Expat, capable of reading type descriptions correctly. Both of those assumptions might be true of course, since XoX has admitted himself that he might have some reading to do before he can come to a final conclusion about his type, though I do believe that XoX is not that delusional. At least I have no reason to believe that he is delusional.

Whatever the truth is about XoX, all that becomes irrelevant when it comes to Jonathan and me. Because both Jonathan and I understand these things perfectly well. And yet, Expat has the nerve to suggest that both Jonathan and I are also delusional, that we don't understand the four scales and mistake ourselves for logical types, and that we are in fact more likely ethical types according to his observations and interpretations. That is, quite frankly, offensive (and he might see the fact that I am saying this as yet another indication of the correctness of his opinion about my type).

No one, who understands the four scales correctly -- how they are defined and what attitudes, behaviours, and other outer manifestations they refer to -- should be wrong about which type he or she is, if that person clearly and distinctly can determine on which sides of the scales he or she belongs, especially not if the person has also read a lot of type descriptions to see if the four letters of the scales point out a matching description that he or she can fully identify with, and that he or she cannot identify with some other type descriptions too, at least to a reasonable extent.

And if you have determined your type by the four scales correctly, it is impossible that you are another type according to a functional analysis or your intertype relations. The four scales, your four letters, must -- necessarily -- be compatible with your intertype relations, your quadra, your function preferences, etc. If they contradict each other -- and please notice that according to Expat they do contradict each other in Jonathan's and my case, not to mention XoX's case -- that contradiction must be explained. It is totally and unconditionally unacceptable that you dismiss one type of evidence here in favour of another -- unless you can explain how such an obvious contradiction can exist as the result of an extremely thorough socionic investigation.

One possible explanation is that the theory of Socinonics in itself is logically inconsistent. That possibility has been pointed out many times by me and some times by Jonathan, and maybe by some others too, I don't remember exactly. But that alternative should only be chosen if every other alternative has been ruled out as impossible or extremely unlikely.

Every other possible explanation is based on the premise that Socionics is logially coherent, at least in the parts that are relevant to this discussion. I prefer to believe that until proven wrong in that assumption. But if that is true there are only two alternatives left: either Expat is wrong about our types, or Jonathan and I are delusional. Seen from my perspective the most likely alternative is very easy to spot. If Expat thinks that his typing of me is more likely to be true than that I am not delusional, then I will consider him to be an idiot until he starts to listen to reason and changes his mind to at least not having an opinion on what my type is. I will not take any of his arguments seriously if he insists on believing that I am more likely an INFp than an INTp, because then everything he says could be false.

[Expat]

Anyhow, here's what I meant: Let's say someone says "That's a straw man argument!" or "That's irrelevant!" It seems an ISFj or INFj would be thinking of the other person's feelings and rather say "That doesn't seem to relate to what I was saying. Maybe one of us is misunderstanding?" Or instead of saying something like "That's a bad argument. You're obviously not..." (you didn't use these exact words; this is just an example), I picture a more Fi-inspired version as "I disagree with that, because..." Similarly (and again, I know you didn't say this exactly), instead of saying "That's wrong, and you're stupid," an Fi-inspired version would probably be to just mention why the statement is wrong and leave out the rest of it.

You made very good points, and I will answer them.

My Fi is visible in the sense that I am not as blunt with everyone. I am blunt, or even rude, with those I have decided they deserve it, either generally or in that particular context, and/or if I have decided that they can take it.

There are some people here, however, to whom I could never be as -- undiplomatic (not that I think I ever would want to), and if I thought they thought I was being rude to them, that would be enough to turn me into a trembling pudding.

And usually I feel like I can be "more blunt" with those who, in my judgement (not anyone else's) have said something that crosses a line.

So, my Fi is visible in that I choose, according to my criteria and my alone, who -- "deserves" to be addressed to in a blunt matter. On an individual basis.

[Expat]

Anyhow, here's what I meant: Let's say someone says "That's a straw man argument!" or "That's irrelevant!" It seems an ISFj or INFj would be thinking of the other person's feelings and rather say "That doesn't seem to relate to what I was saying. Maybe one of us is misunderstanding?" Or instead of saying something like "That's a bad argument. You're obviously not..."

Look at an ISFj talking to those s/he thinks deserve to be treated with -- contempt, dismissal, whatever. Take a look at those videos of Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher.

[Expat]

I will not take any of his arguments seriously if he insists on believing that I am more likely an INFp than an INTp, because then everything he says could be false.

Getting into Fi or Fe area myself -- I hope that this applies to everyone here who thinks you and XoX are not INTps, right, not only me? And if it does apply only, or mainly, to me, perhaps you can care to explain why? Because I'm the one "brainwashing" others? Is that not even a bigger insult to their intelligence?

[Slacker]

I think what he's seeing (though he won't admit it I imagine) is that you use Te arguments and we relate to those better than his arguments. That isn't brainwashing, but he has to fit everything into his theory no matter how much he has to force it.

[Kristiina]

Jonathan, you give the impression of someone who is calm and intuitive, warm and friendly. Some IEIs give that impression, but ILIs seem somewhat different. Their kind of intuitive can rather be labeled as know-it-all, they are more cold than warm in their way of interacting with others and their friendliness is usually just seen from the choice of topics they discuss with you. ILIs are more serious.

If I'm not confusing you with Phaedrus, I think you wrote a very good thread about Ni a long time ago. Something that I wholeheartedly agreed with. Time has passed and types have changed, but I remember that our descriptions of Ni were quite similar and I identified with what you called Ni. As it turned out I seem to really be a Ni-type, and I think you're still also a Ni-type... But maybe we agreed so much because we are in the same quadra as well?

ISFj and INTp activity partners, allright

wait-a-minute... You don't like ISFj, why do you keep insisting that I am one?

I won't get into any type-discussion about my type. When I get back from London, you can ask Expat and Rick what type I am.

[Phaedrus]

Getting into Fi or Fe area myself -- I hope that this applies to everyone here who thinks you and XoX are not INTps, right, not only me? And if it does apply only, or mainly, to me, perhaps you can care to explain why? Because I'm the one "brainwashing" others?

Yes, it applies to everyone who thinks that I am most likely not an INTp.

Is that not even a bigger insult to their intelligence?

In a sense maybe. But if you are more intelligent than they are, you have less of an excuse for acting like an idiot. You should know better, whereas their mistakes might be mainly due to lacking knowledge or an inability to connect the dots.

[Slacker]

It must be a really good feeling, Phaedrus, always being the smartest person everywhere you go.

[FDG]

It must be a really good feeling, Phaedrus, always being the smartest person everywhere you go.

That's because he never leaves his basement.

[Jonathan]

Anyhow, here's what I meant: Let's say someone says "That's a straw man argument!" or "That's irrelevant!" It seems an ISFj or INFj would be thinking of the other person's feelings and rather say "That doesn't seem to relate to what I was saying. Maybe one of us is misunderstanding?" Or instead of saying something like "That's a bad argument. You're obviously not..." (you didn't use these exact words; this is just an example), I picture a more Fi-inspired version as "I disagree with that, because..." Similarly (and again, I know you didn't say this exactly), instead of saying "That's wrong, and you're stupid," an Fi-inspired version would probably be to just mention why the statement is wrong and leave out the rest of it.

You made very good points, and I will answer them.

My Fi is visible in the sense that I am not as blunt with everyone. I am blunt, or even rude, with those I have decided they deserve it, either generally or in that particular context, and/or if I have decided that they can take it.

There are some people here, however, to whom I could never be as -- undiplomatic (not that I think I ever would want to), and if I thought they thought I was being rude to them, that would be enough to turn me into a trembling pudding.

And usually I feel like I can be "more blunt" with those who, in my judgement (not anyone else's) have said something that crosses a line.

So, my Fi is visible in that I choose, according to my criteria and my alone, who -- "deserves" to be addressed to in a blunt matter. On an individual basis.

Okay, good. So we agree that (whatever type I am) the issues I brought up were Fi issues, and the only disagreement is over your judgment of what crosses the line and what deserves a rude response. This is understandable; you're not claiming to be an IFj or EFp. My experience with Fi-subtype-ISFjs is that they avoid being directly rude to anybody in public, but that has to do with experience with individual people, and so I'll take your word for it that other ISFjs act differently.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

It must be a really good feeling, Phaedrus, always being the smartest person everywhere you go.

That's because he never leaves his basement.

Thanks, FDG. I needed that.

[Ms. Kensington]

It must be a really good feeling, Phaedrus, always being the smartest person everywhere you go.

That's because he never leaves his basement.

[Expat]

Okay, good. So we agree that (whatever type I am) the issues I brought up were Fi issues, and the only disagreement is over your judgment of what crosses the line and what deserves a rude response. This is understandable; you're not claiming to be an IFj or EFp. My experience with Fi-subtype-ISFjs is that they avoid being directly rude to anybody in public, but that has to do with experience with individual people, and so I'll take your word for it that other ISFjs act differently.

The issues are Fi in the specific way you phrased it, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

Let me put it this way. As Diana said, I think being "diplomatic" is more of a Fe issue. Fi is about whether certain individuals annoy me or not and whether they should be -- "dealt with". Other individuals may seemingly behave in the same way but my reaction would be different.

[Exodus]

Phaedrus: ISTj, Jonathan: INFp

That makes sense.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus: ISTj, Jonathan: INFp

That makes sense.

Are you insane, thethotelambush? You have been posting a lot of rubbish recently, so one may start to wonder.

[Exodus]

Phaedrus: ISTj, Jonathan: INFp

That makes sense.

Are you insane, thethotelambush? You have been posting a lot of rubbish recently, so one may start to wonder.

Yes.

[Megan]

Jonathan could possible just be a logical type who simply does not value what he sees as someone else being rude, emotional and overly aggressive to make a point, that does not mean that he is an ego type or that he even values . Not having as a value is not really a reason to be obnoxious and overpowering is it?
Perhaps he sees that a person's points are not made stronger or more valid if they are very pushy with them and that that sort of style might work to convince some people but work to repel and disengage others. Surely there are logical types who argue and who generally appear to not be overly sharp and inharmonious in presenting themselves and their opinions.

[Megan]

On a separate but somewhat related point, I wonder if a new member who thinks they are logical type and who wants to be accepted as such was to storm up in here insulting the usual victims, throw in a some aggression and arrogance here and there and seeming to have no explicit values on traits that have been aligned to if it would be more easy for some people to think of them as being logical/NT types?
Probably not but who knows.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Megan]

Keeping the peace seems pretty high on Jonathan's agenda from what I've read of him, and maybe I'm way off on this, but I associate that with creative Fe. [/i]

I associate wanting to "keep the peace" with something other than just plain , it could be related to EQ which some logical types have and as you have observed, some types lack. I am not even sure that he is so interested in keeping the peace, he seems more concern with what he sees as the abrasive way people present their points and I think he is not "illogical" in thinking that that style is not really necessary for making a point or proving a type. I agree...perhaps some logical types are more prone to not "pulling any punches" in their arguments but I see no real reason to assume that if someone does the opposite that that means a type that is logical is not likely for them... at least it cannot be the sole/main consideration in figuring out their type IMO.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[discojoe]

Me again

[Logos]

Phaedrus: ISTj, Jonathan: INFp

That makes sense.

Are you insane, thethotelambush? You have been posting a lot of rubbish recently, so one may start to wonder.

Well to be fair, we are all far from sane by this point in these "Phaedrus Debates."

[Expat]

An exception is when they're arguing with someone who is close to them, a friend, they're more likely to be careful not to hurt these people's feelings. Strangers don't get the same courtesy when it's something they feel worth arguing about.

That's it I think.

[Jonathan]

Thanks everyone for your comments. Interesting questions...Are Gamma NTs always arrogant-seeming? I don't think they all are, but I can see an association sometimes. Can T types have good "EQ"? I think yes, and Socionics ought to help with that. Is wanting to keep a peaceful, accepting environment a sign of crea-Fe, or is it a sign of valuing Fi to create the conditions for serious discussion? Hard to say; I could see a case both ways. Is Fi only about deciding whom to do business with and to treat well? I think it's a lot more than that, but making sound judgments in that area is surely part of it.

So, boiling everything down, it seems to me that this point is the most interesting one to talk about:

And, observing your posts over a length of time, it is my judgement that you tend to use Ti and Te more like an INFp than INTp

I find this interesting because it's not directly about my type, but about whether I use Ti and Te "like an INFp."

What does it mean to use Ti and Te "like an INFp"? Surely there are the stereotypes, but I think we can agree that wouldn't be helpful here. What is it about the way I use Ti and Te that's "like an INFp"? I'm not looking for proof here, just a clear definition of what you mean.

As you've mentioned, it's not simply about competence. I think our misunderstandings of each other's points have sometimes led to a belief on your part that I was making a logical fallacy of one kind or another (straw man arguments and so forth), but as you've said that's not your argument for why I use Ti and Te "like an INFp."

So, I suspect you mean something more subtle here.....so I'll be interested to see what that might be.

[FDG]

Phaedrus: ISTj, Jonathan: INFp

That makes sense.

Are you insane, thethotelambush? You have been posting a lot of rubbish recently, so one may start to wonder.

Yes.

Insanity is cool!

I support Megan's position, anyway.

[implied]

Jonathan could possible just be a logical type who simply does not value what he sees as someone else being rude, emotional and overly aggressive to make a point, that does not mean that he is an ego type or that he even values . Not having as a value is not really a reason to be obnoxious and overpowering is it?
Perhaps he sees that a person's points are not made stronger or more valid if they are very pushy with them and that that sort of style might work to convince some people but work to repel and disengage others. Surely there are logical types who argue and who generally appear to not be overly sharp and inharmonious in presenting themselves and their opinions.

i agree with your points in your last posts, megan.


i don't know if jonathan is my identical or if i get the "identical vibe," but i can relate with wanting to "keep the peace" (which IMO can be more IP-temperament related than related.) i will say that a lot of times when ESEs "burst" with emotions like they do and come off as unnecessarily aggressive (this is my own terminology, and not "aggressive" in the typical manner where you push an argument on a subject for the fun of it.) at any rate, it can freak me out and i interpret that as "wanting to start an argument" because i would prefer not to start an argument. on the other hand, EIE anger seems more directed for a specific purpose (like, EIE gets pissed at her kid and says, "don't do this again! don't you know it's wrong to touch someone else's things?") i've accused -dominants of "yelling" quite a few times when i'm pretty sure they had no idea they sounded that way and likely only sound this way to me.

[Jonathan]

And if you have determined your type by the four scales correctly, it is impossible that you are another type according to a functional analysis or your intertype relations. The four scales, your four letters, must -- necessarily -- be compatible with your intertype relations, your quadra, your function preferences, etc. If they contradict each other -- and please notice that according to Expat they do contradict each other in Jonathan's and my case, not to mention XoX's case -- that contradiction must be explained. It is totally and unconditionally unacceptable that you dismiss one type of evidence here in favour of another -- unless you can explain how such an obvious contradiction can exist as the result of an extremely thorough socionic investigation.

The assumption in most of these discussions is that the "basic" understanding of the scales isn't perfect and needs to be modified or supplemented in some way.

In this case, Expat's argument seems to be that an Ni-subtype IEI wouldn't identify with statements related to strong F (gushiness, etc.), as the focus is on Ni.

I've happened to know quite a few Ni-subtypes IEIs. They generally express a lot of curiosity about things. The vast majority know of themselves as being INFP (in MBTI terminology; they don't know Socionics), and very few use logic in a rigorous way; however, at least one I've known is a talented programmer who thinks in a disciplined way and can solve difficult problems easily (and still comes off to people as very NF).

I still happen to think my "case" is a bit more complicated, as I think some type "sub-themes" or "type travel" is involved, but I'll listen to what Expat has to say if he can explain how I use T like an IEI.

[Subteigh]

Jonathan uses more emoticons than the average INTp and he comes across more like Expat or Smilingeyes than Niffweed or Phadreus for example - if he is a INTp, he's a subtype. He comes across as a respectable historian or a professional scholar etc. to me - as though he seeks to master a subject through careful study. He also ask questions in his posts, then starts answering them (I'm not sure this is neccessarily asker > declarer, because he could be asking questions he wants answered, and yet is attempting an answer in order to make it more clear exactly what he's asking - I don't know ). He's not particular condescending is he? - if he's putting his thoughts on someone else's post, he doesn't act in a hostile way, as though he's wary of falling into a trap, or of missing an important part of the argument etc.

[FDG]

Jonathan uses more emoticons than the average INTp and he comes across more like Expat or Smilingeyes than Niffweed or Phadreus for example - if he is a INTp, he's a subtype. He comes across as a respectable historian or a professional scholar etc. to me - as though he seeks to master a subject through careful study. He also ask questions in his posts, then starts answering them (I'm not sure this is neccessarily asker > declarer, because he could be asking questions he wants answered, and yet is attempting an answer in order to make it more clear exactly what he's asking - I don't know ). He's not particular condescending is he? - if he's putting his thoughts on someone else's post, he doesn't act in a hostile way, as though he's wary of falling into a trap, or of missing an important part of the argument etc.

Exactly. Even socionics.com mentions that there's a distinction between the two "kinds" of INTps.