Me again :)

[Phaedrus]

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.

But here you reasoning is almost the complete opposite of some others, who would see what you describe here as an argument for Jonathan being an subtype instead of a subtype. And my aggressiveness, my obstinacy etc, they see as an argument for me being an subtype (if they would even consider the possibility that I might be an INTp of course). Rocky and niffweed would both be closer to the subtype of INTp, regardless of what types they are, and by comparison Jonathan would be closer to an INFp and therefore more likely an subtype of INTp if he really is one.

What is wrong with that reasoning, according to your understanding of this, Subterranean?

[Enters Laughing]

But here you reasoning is almost the complete opposite of some others, who would see what you describe here as an argument for Jonathan being an subtype instead of a subtype. And my aggressiveness, my obstinacy etc, they see as an argument for me being an subtype (if they would even consider the possibility that I might be an INTp of course). Rocky and niffweed would both be closer to the subtype of INTp, regardless of what types they are, and by comparison Jonathan would be closer to an INFp and therefore more likely an subtype of INTp if he really is one.

What is wrong with that reasoning, according to your understanding of this, Subterranean?

PHILOSOPHER
Intuitive subtype appears by the calm, balanced, even sluggish person. Motions are smooth and are leisurely. It is internally shy, but he tries to hide this under the mask of irony. It is tactful, polite, punctilious. He tries in the conversation to avoid straightness and criticism. It is affable and amiable, but rarely it smiles. It is frequently something it is depressed, dissatisfied. It is internally very touchy, contradictory even we wound, although this tries not to demonstrate. From this it is frequently in the poor arrangement of spirit. Second reason - health status. It discusses its problems with the strangers not frequently, it is held with the people on the distance, it is sufficiently reserved. It loves to converse, to tell anything. It possesses a good descriptive thinking, much reads or reflects. Sometimes - it is high, thin and round-shouldered, sometimes - it is slender, but it is always important-looking. Gait and motions are smooth, only being swung.

EXPERT
Logical subtype produces the impression of confident in itself, sober-minded and reasonable person. It sometimes seems haughty, mocking. It is usually amiable, frequently it smiles, but smile seems monotonous, that thickened. It possesses a feeling of humor and a critical turn of mind. It is skeptical, ironic and distrustful. He tries to be polite and therefore it does not always voice aloud its thoughts and observations. Entire constantly is subjected to the analysis. It entrusts more to numbers and facts, than to precocious conclusions. A good innovator, knows how to isolate the main thing and to leave from the matters useless from his point of view. More frequently there is plumpish and thickset; however, gait usually rapid, and motion goal-directed and decisive. It can gesticulate, it occurs irregular, impulsive, but it is usually held solidly, with the calm merit.

That's a good point - I think it's difficult to tell online. Those subtype decriptions are not very helpful e.g. what's the difference between a 'sober-minded and reasonable person' and a 'calm, balanced, even sluggish person'? And if the logical subtype 'tries to be polite and therefore it does not always voice aloud its thoughts and observations', does that mean that the logical suntype is polite, and that the intuitive subtype isn't? I think Jonathan fits many parts of both suntypes, but I don't know from that which fits best - I can't even determine my own subtype for similar reasons.

If Phaedrus is more obstinate than Jonathan, which he clearly is, does that mean he sticks more to his path or that he believes his information is objective and therefore correct? People seem to think Phaedrus is more likely to be ISTj, and Jonathan is more likely to be ENFp rather than vice versa - what does that mean? (What does anything mean? :wink: ).

[Rick]

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.

I agree with this, and I'd have a really hard time seeing Jonathan as IEI. In my opinion, his keeping the peace" behavior is -oriented -- trying to keep things calm and respectful. I don't see him making people laugh anywhere or distracting people from bitter arguments with zany, emotional behavior. IEIs and SEIs are "peacemakers" because they divert negative emotions and transform them (example: Bionicgoat). Instead, Jonathan says, "OK, can we turn down the heat here a little bit? + emoticon." That's basically equivalent to an IEE saying, "OK, can we get back on topic, please?" I don't see much (any) focus in him on finding expressive ways to say things rather than just trying to get his thoughts across. He seems calm and reasonable and goes to a lot of work to compare different descriptions, find contradictions and misconceptions, etc. Anyway, those are some arguments for ILI.

[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.

But here you reasoning is almost the complete opposite of some others, who would see what you describe here as an argument for Jonathan being an subtype instead of a subtype. And my aggressiveness, my obstinacy etc, they see as an argument for me being an subtype (if they would even consider the possibility that I might be an INTp of course). Rocky and niffweed would both be closer to the subtype of INTp, regardless of what types they are, and by comparison Jonathan would be closer to an INFp and therefore more likely an subtype of INTp if he really is one.

What is wrong with that reasoning, according to your understanding of this, Subterranean?

Shut-the-fuck-up.

[Ms. Kensington]

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.

I agree with this seems to be a complete description of my opinion.

Those subtype decriptions are not very helpful e.g. what's the difference between a 'sober-minded and reasonable person' and a 'calm, balanced, even sluggish person'?

lol

(What does anything mean? :wink: ).

Gahhhhhh

[implied]

I agree with this, and I'd have a really hard time seeing Jonathan as IEI. In my opinion, his keeping the peace" behavior is -oriented -- trying to keep things calm and respectful. I don't see him making people laugh anywhere or distracting people from bitter arguments with zany, emotional behavior. IEIs and SEIs are "peacemakers" because they divert negative emotions and transform them (example: Bionicgoat). Instead, Jonathan says, "OK, can we turn down the heat here a little bit? + emoticon." That's basically equivalent to an IEE saying, "OK, can we get back on topic, please?" I don't see much (any) focus in him on finding expressive ways to say things rather than just trying to get his thoughts across. He seems calm and reasonable and goes to a lot of work to compare different descriptions, find contradictions and misconceptions, etc. Anyway, those are some arguments for ILI.

second this. entirely. very good points!

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

I don't wanna pull a phaedrus but just thought I'd throw in that I feel about what I do more like Diana described it... I just find humor in weird places. at the same time I can see what Rick's saying... I do notice myself ramping up the joke function when things are tense to make angry/sad laugh or at the very least crack a smile... I think things are more productive in that atmosphere. It gives people a chance to step back from the headbashing and take a breath, then go back at it with clearer minds

errr... I don't know what I'm saying... nevermind

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jonathan]

I guess one of the reasons that I associate that behavior with creative Fe, rather than being of Fi is because he says things like that when imo there's no heat to be turned down. Proactively, and actively working to keep things calm. And it sometimes makes me want to scream.

Thanks for the comments, and sorry if my "turn down the heat" comments annoy you. I don't think I do it that often, but when I do, it's usually because people seem to me to be attacking the person rather than addressing the issues. I don't think people should have to tiptoe or say things in an indirect, euphemistic way. In fact, I like direct, bold comments about issues.

I think Rick is right. I like a calm, respectful atmosphere so as to focus on getting to the bottom of whatever's being discussed. But it's clear that different people have very different perceptions of what the actual atmosphere is, and what's appropriate/ideal. Type as well as upbringing and other factors probably have an influence on that. (Some people are from loud families where everyone shouts, for example.)

@Phaedrus:
Why do some people see me as Ni-subtype and others as Te-subtype? Possibly it has something to do with them responding to different posts (as well as just different people's interpretations of what they're reading). I imagine I use a different balance of the functions in different posts. That's one reason it's not always so easy to type based on posts. A type is supposed to somehow refer to one's "overall" life-story-motivations-etc. But I still think linguistic analysis is valuable, when taken in context.

Another related complication in typing is people's assumptions about one's motivations. For example, take obstinance; it's probably not fully type-related, but it may be an expression of type. Yet people will have their own assumptions about the motivation for it. If one is obstinate because one wants to play the role of a policeman, making sure people follow what one sees as important rules, it's somewhat reasonable for people to assume LSI. But if one seems obstinate in an attempt to hold the essential problems or contradictions to be solved in clear view, so as to solve them, that supports ILI. It all depends on what people assume about why someone is acting a certain way.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

I think Rick is right. I like a calm, respectful atmosphere so as to focus on getting to the bottom of whatever's being discussed.

Rick is right about that. And you and have the same attitude here, which is also very typically INTp. Since it is a serious attitude, an INTp can also become irritated if people don't take the issue seriously and try to make fun of it by too much joking.

Why do some people see me as Ni-subtype and others as Te-subtype?

The main reason why some people see you as a Te-subtype is probably the one pointed out by Subterranean -- that you come across "more like Expat or Smilingeyes", "as as a respectable historian or a professional scholar" who "seeks to to master a subject through careful study." They think that since you are better at explaining your views and arguments in a way people can understand, you use more . What they might be forgetting, though -- or not be aware of -- is that just like there is a difference between accepting and creating , there is also a difference between accepting and creating .

First I am going to quote Smilingeyes again, because what he says about as a creative function is important:

Cre-Te is 'creation-creating' and 'obstinate', it's nihilistic, knows everything for certain and is not willing to discuss any of it.

Cre-Te and Acc-Fe share the air of the ideological fanatic, both projecting their personal systems around them, Cre-Te because it feels the system has been proven time and again everywhere around it ...

Cre-Te and Cre-Ti are united in their ability to make others see things their way, but where Cre-Te does this because he believes he's right, Cre-Ti does this because he's protecting his interests.

Cre-Te and Acc-Ti are united in their ability to coolly not budge in the face of opposing opinions and guard what they see important but where Acc-Ti is willing to test it's ability and face obstacles to prove it's correct which it tends to succeed in because it sets the rules for the test, Cre-Te just knows this a priori and feels challenges to it are something like a bad joke.

Then compare that with accepting :

Cre-Te is 'creation-creating' and 'obstinate', it's nihilistic, knows everything for certain and is not willing to discuss any of it. Acc-Te is 'emotion-creating' and 'compliant' open to all new ideas but keeps them only if they prove useful in concrete ways. Cre-Te takes care of its own caring little for Acc-Te, Acc-Te is forced to try to find a way to work with it and often succeeds in working around the Cre-Te viewpoint.

A type comparison example in the Smilexian framework:

ENTj: "Analysis of strategy cycle: Strategy->Emotion-creating
Having found an appropriate goal, it is lacking a way to get there (for a goal is not a goal when its reached). It is lost and needing to try new things. It can not easily discard ideas, suggestions or expertise because it does not know what is the thing that will help it to its coal, hence it's a student of everything, an open ear for anyone who has something to say."

INTp: "Analysis of strategy cycle: Tactics->Creation-creating
Having practiced and perfected a certain style of action it feels it's shown it's skills and no longer needs to listen to others. It's will confidently show others the correct way and will not listen to the advice of others. It is not by any means complacent about its skills and expertise, it furiously seeks to perfect its systems and methods but it is only any longer looking for very specific information and rarely finds a missing piece to increase its knowledge. It seeks to turn its knowledge into an institution."

If Phaedrus is more obstinate than Jonathan, which he clearly is, does that mean he sticks more to his path or that he believes his information is objective and therefore correct?

What Smilingeyes says about Cre-Te above is one possible answer to that question. A logical subtype of INTp, who is focusing very much on his creative function, would be somewhat difficult to distinguish from a logical subtype of ISTp. By comparison, a highly intuitive subtype of INTp would be somewhat difficult to distinguish from an intuitive subtype of INFp.

Is Jonathan more similar to an ISTp than to an INFp? To my knowledge no one has suggested that, but some people can see him as an INFp, and he has also said himself that he identifies even more with my Ni-INXp profile than with Filatova's INTp or INFp descriptions, which my INXp profile was a synthesis of. I doubt that he would identify more with a Te-IXTp profile, which would be a synthesis of INTp and ISTp type descriptions, but maybe niffweed would. I am perhaps somewhere in between, since I seem to oscillate quite a lot between the INFp and the ISTp pole of an INTp. When I am calm and relaxed (as Jonathan seem to be almost all the time) I am more of an intuitive subtype, when I get angry and irritated I tend to lash out with Cre-Te attacks as an obstinate Critic. (At this very moment I am more in the INTp's Observer mode, observing my own behaviour in a sort of relaxed, detached state with my .)

Another, perhaps more speculative, observation is that the types ISTp and INFp seem to be at almost opposing ends of the practicality/impracticality scale. The ISTp "works well with his hands" (Gulenko), and "everything around him is made convenient, useful, and attractive by means of practical activity. [...] Not only does he not avoid domestic tasks but he loves them. Will wonderfully and thoroughly repair the apartment, firmly and solidly build a house, work on the vegetable-garden… (Filatova). INFps on the other hand, are often described as romantic dreamers who "like to make others aware of their lack of practicality" (Gulenko). So, maybe an INTp's relative practicality -- or lack of -- can be used as an indicator of his or her subtype.

[Jonathan]

Interesting ideas. I always find what Smilex has to say very interesting. However, I don't take it at face value; it's an interesting and intelligent fleshing-out of a system, based on taking certain assumptions to their logical conclusion. But it is not always authoritative in regard to "classical Socionics." At a certain point, you almost have to regard each of these things as different systems, sort of the way Labcoat does when he says he's one thing in classical Socionics, something else in Smilexian Socionics, etc.

If these quotes from Smilex are right, I would identify much more with acc-Te than cre-Te; and I would further consider, say, Expat, as cre-Te, so then Expat would be ILI and I would be LIE.

[Phaedrus]

Interesting ideas. I always find what Smilex has to say very interesting. However, I don't take it at face value; it's an interesting and intelligent fleshing-out of a system, based on taking certain assumptions to their logical conclusion. But it is not always authoritative in regard to "classical Socionics." At a certain point, you almost have to regard each of these things as different systems, sort of the way Labcoat does when he says he's one thing in classical Socionics, something else in Smilexian Socionics, etc.

I don't understand why you see it that way, because I can see no contradiction what-so-ever between Smilingeyes's interpretation of the types and "classical Socionics" interpretation of them. They may treat them differently theoretically, but they seem to agree on everything that has to do with the behaviours and attitudes of the types.

If these quotes from Smilex are right, I would identify much more with acc-Te than cre-Te; and I would further consider, say, Expat, as cre-Te, so then Expat would be ILI and I would be LIE.

All of Smilingeyes's quotes can be found in Dichotomic descriptions of the types v2.0 -- reborn: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=10854

And what you say here about Expat is clearly wrong. Don't you agree that my behaviour is typical of someone with Cre-Te? And if you and I are the same type (which is still the most likely hypothesis) then you must have it too. Why don't you see it?

The quotes from Smilingeyes must of course be seen in relation to the types. For example, when he says that "Acc-Te is 'emotion-creating' and 'compliant' open to all new ideas but keeps them only if they prove useful in concrete ways" the key words are "open to all new ideas but keeps them only if they prove useful in concrete ways." Accepting Te is linked to having an EJ temperament, whereas Cre-Te is linked to having an IP temperament. The focus is very different. I think we have a good illustration of this in Expat's and my recent "battles", where he is eager to disregard every type of evidence he evaluates as not useful, whereas my focus is on being right (= finding the objective truth). My attitude has "the air of the ideological fanatic" who wants to projecti my personal system around me.

Here is a longer quote from Smilingeyes that explains the difference (my bolds):

1.
A person with 'accepting thinking' is interested in matters that are "known for certain. This person is well-defined, and socially-closed. S/he is also acting as comes naturally, no major trying of anything. So this is a person who is definedly separate of the environment and knows this. This often comes out as a politeness of sorts, but of the sort that can easily break down into anger. It's intentions are to make allies while keeping to itself. It seeks to find new things to put through the lens of its knowledge and understanding and thereby to consolidate them as parts of itself. This is a person with a certain quality of wholeness as s/he's 'concrete strategic intuition'. This is a person who feels that there are a certain amount of hardships that s/he's about to face but if s/he's true to hirself and hir goals s/he'll succeed. The separation that this person feels makes hir likely to try to gain contacts and friends but not warm enough to maintain a hold of them.

And now an intermission of creative-creating...

2.
A person with 'creative thinking' is in many ways similar to the above, but where our first example was natural, this person is really striving to define the matters that are known for certain. S/he's not acting in reaction to personal need but from the viewpoint of personal skill. Creative thinking surfaces where the person has reached utmost certainty of hir skills so that s/he can believe in hir knowledge. This is a very important matter to the person as the personal investment is great. So while 'accepting thinking' can often just dismiss opposing views or try to learn from them 'creative thinking' has to conquer by force. It's striving for a sort of monolithic independent, unassailable position.

[Jonathan]

Okay. If all he's trying to say is that cre-T tries through effort to create the absolute, perfect understanding, and acc-T naturally views certain truths implicitly as known facts and uses that as a starting point, then I accept that.

However, it's the extra words, the stuff about how it may manifest in an individual's behavior that I think isn't necessarily true.

For example, cre-T might express itself as obstinate behavior or a sort of unteachable position (because the person feels he has found the perfect truth); or it may express itself as a certain openness because the person is seeking an ever more perfect understanding. It could go either way.

Similarly, with the acc-T quote, it seems he's talking more of the acc-T type's relation to dual-F issues. And again, it's probably true for some people (what he writes here somehow seems to describe LII), but not every acc-T. And, in fact, people who aren't acc-T could read that and feel it describes them too. I can relate quite well to both of the quotes above.

That's the problem with descriptions, and with a lot of Socionics overall. It's all describing possible manifestations of the functions, but it's almost never clear what assumptions the writer is making. It's not just Smilex's stuff; Socionics is like that. It should be structured differently. Every description should come with a clear explanation of why each point is being made and where it's coming from. It's all about imprecise definitions and sloppy descriptions, and then we all debate about this stuff.

[anndelise]

It should be structured differently. Every description should come with a clear explanation of why each point is being made and where it's coming from. It's all about imprecise definitions and sloppy descriptions, and then we all debate about this stuff.

agreed!!!

[Phaedrus]

However, it's the extra words, the stuff about how it may manifest in an individual's behavior that I think isn't necessarily true.

They are true if seen in relation to the types as whole units. If you have a correct general understanding of each type and its typical behaviours and attitudes, everything makes sense.

For example, cre-T might express itself as obstinate behavior or a sort of unteachable position (because the person feels he has found the perfect truth); or it may express itself as a certain openness because the person is seeking an ever more perfect understanding. It could go either way.

Me too. Where is the contradiction? Where is the problem?

That's the problem with descriptions, and with a lot of Socionics overall. It's all describing possible manifestations of the functions, but it's almost never clear what assumptions the writer is making.

I'm not sure what Smilingeyes's assumptions are exactly, but I have stated some of my assumptions in the past, and I can state them again.

We should start with observed behaviours, not with functions. We observe a certain kind of behaviour and we should ask ourselves questions like these: What kind of behaviour is this really? Have I now a correct understanding of what it is, or is it possible that I confuse this behaviour with another different kind of behaviour that resembles it? Which type(s) of people typically manifest that kind of behaviour? Is it type related or not type related?

We should not immediately jump to conclusions about which functions are manifested in some type of behaviour, because the risk of being wrong is great here. We see examples of that all the time. Instead we should try to link the behaviour(s) to the types. Any type can use any function, but every type is a static pattern of behaviours and attitudes. It is also dynamic, as explained in Socionics, but it is not so dynamic that it is meaningful to dismiss the types completely and only focus on function uses.

Only when we have agreed on how the types are in behavious and attitudes etc., we should (if we want to or find it necessary) start to discuss which function(s) this person is manifesting in this particular case. But in doing that we all should agree on which are the possible type candidates for that kind of behaviour. And therefore we must know the types before we know the functions.

It's not just Smilex's stuff; Socionics is like that. It should be structured differently. Every description should come with a clear explanation of why each point is being made and where it's coming from. It's all about imprecise definitions and sloppy descriptions, and then we all debate about this stuff.

Maybe I have underestimated the difficulties people have with reading and understanding type descriptions. You really have to go through a lot of such sloppy descriptions and compare them in order to see the general pattern. But the pattern is out there. And it is clear, and it is beautiful. But it is also complex, since you have to view each type from many, many different perspectives at the same time. If we focus only on the details every time we read a type description or a definition, we are lost, because any detail can fit any person occasionally. We simply must have on overall framework -- the types -- that helps us sort out the irrelevent pieces of information from the relevant ones. But such an overall general understanding of the types can only be the result of a lot of reading and comparing, analyzing, testing, and real life acquaintances with the real types. You have to see it before you can truly understand it, at least if you are an accepting type.

[snegledmaca]

If it means anything I don't think you are my identical. Reading your writing is tiring for me. Often I'll read what you write and as if it entered one ear and exited the other. It's not that I do this purposely, it's just that often I just don't understand what you are saying, it's like some kind of moon language. I usually skip your posts because of this so I can't really comment of your type like some of the other people here can. Just though this might be a point against IEI.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

Why do people insist on inventing the wheel from scratch? I makes no sense to start all over again, dismiss everything we already know about someone's type, in this case Jonathan's, and suggest that he could be for example an INFj. He thinks he is a logical type, he identifies with that, and there are a lot of good arguments for such a claim. We also know that there are a lot of good arguments for the claim that he is an IP type with leading . To suggest that he really is an INFj means that we have to argue convincingly against both those two assumptions, so why don't you start immediately then? Come up with some good arguments why Jonathan's behaviour is better explained by the assumption that he is an INFj, and by doing that you simply must try to show why he is not a logical type, and also why he does not have as a leading function.

[snegledmaca]

Why do people insist on inventing the wheel from scratch? I makes no sense to start all over again, dismiss everything we already know about someone's type, in this case Jonathan's, and suggest that he could be for example an INFj. He thinks he is a logical type, he identifies with that, and there are a lot of good arguments for such a claim. We also know that there are a lot of good arguments for the claim that he is an IP type with leading . To suggest that he really is an INFj means that we have to argue convincingly against both those two assumptions, so why don't you start immediately then? Come up with some good arguments why Jonathan's behaviour is better explained by the assumption that he is an INFj, and by doing that you simply must try to show why he is not a logical type, and also why he does not have as a leading function.

What's so wrong with starting over?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

What's so wrong with starting over?

There is nothing wrong with it. But if you suggest a totally new type, you should take responsibility and start to argue for it, not just suggest something randomly out in the air. I can see no reason to doubt the two assumptions I mentioned in my last post. If you think we have a good reason to doubt them, you should try to explain that reason. This is not a guessing game. People should try to argue for their claims and suggestions as well as they can. We can't do anything with the suggestion that Jonathan could be an INFj if we don't know the reasoning behind it. Seen from my perspective it doesn't make much sense at all, but if I have missed some important piece of evidence I certainly would like to know about it, and I am sure Jonathan would too.

EDIT: @ Diana. I posted this before I saw your last post.

[snegledmaca]

What's so wrong with starting over?

There is nothing wrong with it. But if you suggest a totally new type, you should take responsibility and start to argue for it, not just suggest something randomly out in the air. I can see no reason to doubt the two assumptions I mentioned in my last post. If you think we have a good reason to doubt them, you should try to explain that reason. This is not a guessing game. People should try to argue for their claims and suggestions as well as they can. We can't do anything with the suggestion that Jonathan could be an INFj if we don't know the reasoning behind it. Seen from my perspective it doesn't make much sense at all, but if I have missed some important piece of evidence I certainly would like to know about it, and I am sure Jonathan would too.

What makes you think I won't argument my claims? To be honest I find this post redundant as it should have been written after and if people started to discuss a possibility without arguing it.

[Logos]

What's so wrong with starting over?

There is nothing wrong with it. But if you suggest a totally new type, you should take responsibility and start to argue for it, not just suggest something randomly out in the air. I can see no reason to doubt the two assumptions I mentioned in my last post. If you think we have a good reason to doubt them, you should try to explain that reason. This is not a guessing game. People should try to argue for their claims and suggestions as well as they can. We can't do anything with the suggestion that Jonathan could be an INFj if we don't know the reasoning behind it. Seen from my perspective it doesn't make much sense at all, but if I have missed some important piece of evidence I certainly would like to know about it, and I am sure Jonathan would too.

EDIT: @ Diana. I posted this before I saw your last post.

Phaedrus is right in this case. If Jonathan is working from the starting point assumption that he may be an INTp, then just saying a type will not work. An argumentative case should be made either through the logical use of the functions or some evidence. So if you think that Jonathan is of Type X, then we all need to know why you may think so.

[snegledmaca]

Phaedrus is right in this case. If Jonathan is working from the starting point assumption that he may be an INTp, then just saying a type will not work. An argumentative case should be made either through the logical use of the functions or some evidence. So if you think that Jonathan is of Type X, then we all need to know why you may think so.

What on earth makes you so sure people won't present arguments? As redundant as phaedrus' post, write it *after* people do the things you accuse them of doing.

[Logos]

What on earth makes you so sure people won't present arguments?

The fact people usually do not.

As redundant as phaedrus' post, write it *after* people do the things you accuse them of doing.

I did.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

Or you could do that, I suppose.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jonathan]

I know some people who are very task-oriented in their thoughts and interests. They want primarily to know what is going to be done about this, and how this and that need to get done, and how is this other thing is going to be handled.

That kind of talk usually puts me on edge; I'd rather talk about anything conceptual that has absolutely nothing to do with what needs to be done. I always thought that was because I was and those people were , but it could be that they're or that they're rational type, as opposed to irrational.

I would say that your first impression about this issue was right. When there is a task to be done, I behave exactly in the way you describe. However, since after all I have an NT core, when discussing something I like to add the abstract layer as well.

It sounds to me that what Jonathan is describing is a dislike for Se.

I think some of these are old posts, but it is interesting to look back at them again. The specific people I was referring to in the post above are ones I have difficulty typing, so it's hard to know what's causing my reaction. I want to figure it out though. They're not acc-Se, but they may have Se somewhere.

In my experience, Gamma SFs don't usually put me on edge in the same way, because somehow the F softens it. My relation to Se is that I know stuff has to get done, and I like it when people help me with it, but I don't like to have to think about it all the time.

[Jonathan]

If it means anything I don't think you are my identical. Reading your writing is tiring for me. Often I'll read what you write and as if it entered one ear and exited the other. It's not that I do this purposely, it's just that often I just don't understand what you are saying, it's like some kind of moon language. I usually skip your posts because of this so I can't really comment of your type like some of the other people here can. Just though this might be a point against IEI.

Yeah, this is a major source of frustration with me regarding IEIs. Usually I perceive that they have a similar demeanor to me and seem to have some similar interests, but when I talk to them, certain ones usually run away (not all, but some). I've also noticed that the way I try to make conversation by referring to the content of people's jobs, or what they think about xyz, really bugs IEIs. Maybe they feel that I'm defining them by their job, or that I'm trying to lead them into a conversation about something that's totally outside their interest.

However, if I break through the ice and am really careful to check that I'm not boring them, and if I make sure I disguise any advice by instead saying something like "a similar thing happened to me, and then...," then I can have a really good friendship with them.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jonathan]

I wonder if the people you're describing might be ISTjs?

I think they might be ISTjs or STjs of some kind. I guess if someone tries to offer assistance in planning or in explaining why something is important to do, I don't find that helpful, or if someone has rigid plans and tries to force me into those plans. However, I do like to be coaxed or dragged to get things done.

[implied]

fwiw, your "writing" has a generally Rick-ish vibe somehow.

[Jonathan]

Sounds like Fi and Ne to me.

Could be. A lot of things point to Ne, but it's not always clear that what seems to be Ne is really Ne and not Ni. It seems to me that a lot of Ni people use both kinds of N. The Ni vs. Ne issue is also related to the fact that Socionics definitions of Ni and Ne aren't always the greatest, as I've pointed out in previous posts.

The main problem with acc-Fi is that most Socionics descriptions of what that looks like don't make sense for me. Supposedly, acc-Fi types are supposed to be relationship watchers and to care about things like who's with whom and so forth. Also, most acc-Fi types I know have a certain definiteness to them regarding certain principles or loyalties; it's hard to explain, but it's not something I identify with for myself. Fi makes more sense as HA than as an accepting function, I think. However, if one broadens the definition...sees it more the way Anndelise describes it, then that might make sense. But then one's tweaking the system a bit.

...Another thing I don't usually share with others is my process for getting things done. I would rather say "I'll get this to you at such and such a time" than have someone delve into my process.

What might that mean? Does this point to any particular types, or not so much?

It just means I like to be in charge of my own time.

[quote]

my Ni-Te is too much (seemingly) for that person

Interesting...what about your Te do you think may put someone else off? I'm thinking now about one of the main reasons why I sometimes doubt that I'm ILI, although it looks more and more likely that I am:

I'd be interested to hear what that main reason is.

That's an old post, so I'm not sure of the context. At the moment I'm leaning toward the hypothesis of ILI with issues regarding Te/Fe differentiation; so in other words, there are times when I'm IEI-like. So, sometimes not all aspects of Te are strong, particularly in regard to actually acting on my Te conclusions. So, it's kind of like shifting between modes, and sometimes my Te comes out very strong and clear, and then there are other times when I'm more "dreamy" and less disciplined. And also there are times when I emphasize Ti and even start to come off more like ILE occasionally. That's probably what I was getting at.

The explanation of understanding LIIs looks like how I'd describe Ti role.

You've mentioned "Ti role" a few times. What aspect of the quotes you cited makes you think that Ti is part of my super-ego block?

I just found this part interesting so included it, and thought the way he contrasts himself with this other unidentified type might help.

That post came from some discussions awhile back regarding mappings between Socionics and other Jung-based typologies. I've since come to the conclusion that a number of people who seem INTJ in MBTI are either LSI, LIE, or LSE, and aren't INT in Socionics at all.

[Jonathan]

We should start with observed behaviours, not with functions. We observe a certain kind of behaviour and we should ask ourselves questions like these: What kind of behaviour is this really? Have I now a correct understanding of what it is, or is it possible that I confuse this behaviour with another different kind of behaviour that resembles it? Which type(s) of people typically manifest that kind of behaviour? Is it type related or not type related?

We should not immediately jump to conclusions about which functions are manifested in some type of behaviour, because the risk of being wrong is great here. We see examples of that all the time. Instead we should try to link the behaviour(s) to the types. Any type can use any function, but every type is a static pattern of behaviours and attitudes. It is also dynamic, as explained in Socionics, but it is not so dynamic that it is meaningful to dismiss the types completely and only focus on function uses.

Only when we have agreed on how the types are in behavious and attitudes etc., we should (if we want to or find it necessary) start to discuss which function(s) this person is manifesting in this particular case. But in doing that we all should agree on which are the possible type candidates for that kind of behaviour. And therefore we must know the types before we know the functions.

It's not just Smilex's stuff; Socionics is like that. It should be structured differently. Every description should come with a clear explanation of why each point is being made and where it's coming from. It's all about imprecise definitions and sloppy descriptions, and then we all debate about this stuff.

Maybe I have underestimated the difficulties people have with reading and understanding type descriptions. You really have to go through a lot of such sloppy descriptions and compare them in order to see the general pattern. But the pattern is out there. And it is clear, and it is beautiful. But it is also complex, since you have to view each type from many, many different perspectives at the same time. If we focus only on the details every time we read a type description or a definition, we are lost, because any detail can fit any person occasionally. We simply must have on overall framework -- the types -- that helps us sort out the irrelevent pieces of information from the relevant ones. But such an overall general understanding of the types can only be the result of a lot of reading and comparing, analyzing, testing, and real life acquaintances with the real types. You have to see it before you can truly understand it, at least if you are an accepting type.

I think you're right about the fact that analyzing according to the functions can confuse people. The main problem is that everytime someone uses the functions a certain way, it may seem to that person as if he/she is a different type (I thought in a bottom-up way; I must be a Ti type. Now I'm expressing something; maybe I'm an Fe type. Now I'm using the scientific method, so I'm Te. Now I'm enjoying my food; I must be Si...and so on). However, there's a problem with leaving the functions out, which is that you end up with a type, but no theory. So, if you want to extend the theory and use it for analysis of various things, you're kind of limited if there isn't any analytic core to the whole thing. So what if someone fully identifies with four letters?

As to understanding the descriptions...I didn't mean to imply that I can't make sense of them at all, or that I'm totally clueless. I was simply uttering a sentiment that I don't like the sloppiness of them; I would like to rebuild Socionics from the ground up, and make it cleaner. That may be some of the Ti in me.

[Megan]

Jonathan do you think you and Phaedrus (or Xox) are the same type? I think you addressed this somewhere else but i can't find where now.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan do you think you and Phaedrus (or Xox) are the same type? I think you addressed this somewhere else but i can't find where now.

Wow...that sounds like dangerous territory. I haven't followed the whole XoX type thing; it seemed too long and contentious.

I can say that I share with Phaedrus the belief that certain approaches, such as hypothesis-testing, and so forth, are appropriate to the study of typology. I think we can have a good discussion with the same basic values and interests. He seems similar to people that I have a certain "identity type" response with in that he reminds me of friends that I like to discuss things with (usually they have some very set position and I can play the role of "Socrates," and that makes the conversation kind of fun). An obvious difference is that he's always declaring his particular position, and I'm always questioning stuff and suggesting that the whole system should be destroyed and rebuilt. It may not be type-related.

But the issue you raise has become too loaded on this forum. I don't want to get into a "I'm like so-and-so, so therefore I'm X type or they're Y type"...although I do believe that an identity relations response is valuable in determining type, just as any other intertype relation response.

@Diana...
As you may have guessed, I'm very impressionable regarding type...as soon as you mention INFj, I feel INFj. But tomorrow morning I'll probably feel like something else.

BTW...really, I don't think the idea of putting people into a type makes sense. Rather, the goal should be to determine a person's functional map. Model A must be customized for each individual. The idea is to understand how one is different types, in various ways, not to determine that one is a particular type, which seems to me a somewhat pointless quest. In particular, I think that each function is made up of more than one thing, and that they cannot all be attributed to one thing, but rather there is a more complex relation between them. Furthermore, the intertype relations model needs to be revised; what matters isn't what type the two people are, but what type they accept each other as. Hence, a person can have supervisor relations with one LIE and mirror relations with another LIE. It depends on what channel each person uses to connect with the other.

[Logos]

@Diana...
As you may have guessed, I'm very impressionable regarding type...as soon as you mention INFj, I feel INFj. But tomorrow morning I'll probably feel like something else.

Which types would likely have this issue do you think?