Me again :)

[Phaedrus]

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?

The four scales is a central part of Socionics. They cannot be dismissed. If you don't identify with all of the four letters that are supposed to correlate with your type, then either you haven't understood what those letters stand for, or you have an incorrect view of yourself -- or you are not the type you thought you were.

If you are an INFj as suggested by Diana, you have to identify with F and J, and in that case you only have two choices. Either you convince yourself that you really are an ethical type according to the socionic criteria and that your behaviours and attitudes are correctly fitting those criteria, and that you are a rational type with most of the typical behaviours associated with being a rational type (including physiological traits and V.I.), or you can't be an INFj. There is no other alternative, unless you want to destroy the whole theory. Both you and I seem to share some fascination with the thought of doing that, but in that case you should start with destroying the theory, and only after that perhaps consider the possibility that you might be an INFj.

I would like to rebuild Socionics from the ground up, and make it cleaner. That may be some of the Ti in me.

Are you going to fall into the same trap as so many others? Don't do that, please. (This is becoming more and more irritating. Why can't people read and learn about the functions correctly?) What you describe here, Jonathan, has nothing to do with . You want to redo the puzzle when you can see faults in it, which is a Gamma concept, not Alpha. You want to turn practice into a new theory, which is typical of the IP temperament according to Smilingeyes's Dichotomic desciptions of the types v2.0 -- read that please. An INTj, who has an IJ temperament, would be more interested in turning theories into practice.

[snegledmaca]

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.

Hmm, I think what you've done here is indicative of you not being a Fe ego type. Megan asked you for your disposition to which you responded by basically trying to brush it aside and focusing on how things are. I doubt a Fe ego type would try to brush aside their subjective opinions of things, quite the contrary, they go in depth on their subjective opinion, taking up every chance to discus their stance on a given matter. And also if you really were an IEI I'd expect your subjective opinion to guide your reasoning process which IMO is not the case for you.

[aestrivex]

Hmm, I think what you've done here is indicative of you not being a Fe ego type. Megan asked you for your disposition to which you responded by basically trying to brush it aside and focusing on how things are. I doubt a Fe ego type would try to brush aside their subjective opinions of things, quite the contrary, they go in depth on their subjective opinion, taking up every chance to discus their stance on a given matter. And also if you really were an IEI I'd expect your subjective opinion to guide your reasoning process which IMO is not the case for you.

how would the subjective reasoning process manifest itself?

would you say that, in a similar circumstance, you would allow yourself to be guided by subjective opinions without tweaking them at all to bolster your arguments in an attempt to convince people?

[Jonathan]

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?

The four scales is a central part of Socionics. They cannot be dismissed. If you don't identify with all of the four letters that are supposed to correlate with your type, then either you haven't understood what those letters stand for, or you have an incorrect view of yourself -- or you are not the type you thought you were.

It looks as if I'm annoying you, sorry. I don't propose dismissing the 4 scales; I just don't want to dismiss the goal of coming up with a coherent and useful set of functions.

If you are an INFj as suggested by Diana, you have to identify with F and J, and in that case you only have two choices. Either you convince yourself that you really are an ethical type according to the socionic criteria and that your behaviours and attitudes are correctly fitting those criteria, and that you are a rational type with most of the typical behaviours associated with being a rational type (including physiological traits and V.I.), or you can't be an INFj. There is no other alternative, unless you want to destroy the whole theory. Both you and I seem to share some fascination with the thought of doing that, but in that case you should start with destroying the theory, and only after that perhaps consider the possibility that you might be an INFj.

I was only taking seriously the idea of being in an INFj "mode" or that there's an INFj "strand" within the various strands of themes that exist in my mind. I don't really think the INFj profile overall makes sense for me, at least any more than any other profile.

Are you going to fall into the same trap as so many others? Don't do that, please. (This is becoming more and more irritating. Why can't people read and learn about the functions correctly?) What you describe here, Jonathan, has nothing to do with . You want to redo the puzzle when you can see faults in it, which is a Gamma concept, not Alpha. You want to turn practice into a new theory, which is typical of the IP temperament according to Smilingeyes's Dichotomic desciptions of the types v2.0 -- read that please. An INTj, who has an IJ temperament, would be more interested in turning theories into practice.

I'm familiar with his "turn practice into theory" wording; I like it. What he's describing isn't Ip temperament, but rather irrationals overall. It's simply a translation of "perceiving function -> judging function."

I agree that ILIs like to criticize a system. Building one from in a bottom-up way does seem to be Ti, but that doesn't mean it's ego-block Ti; it might be Ti as ILIs use Ti.

[Not A Communist Shill]

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

I agree with this - Jonathan + Rick do seem similar to each other, more than anyone else I can think of. I don't think he's INFp anyway, they appear differently to me.

[snegledmaca]

Hmm, I think what you've done here is indicative of you not being a Fe ego type. Megan asked you for your disposition to which you responded by basically trying to brush it aside and focusing on how things are. I doubt a Fe ego type would try to brush aside their subjective opinions of things, quite the contrary, they go in depth on their subjective opinion, taking up every chance to discus their stance on a given matter. And also if you really were an IEI I'd expect your subjective opinion to guide your reasoning process which IMO is not the case for you.

how would the subjective reasoning process manifest itself?

would you say that, in a similar circumstance, you would allow yourself to be guided by subjective opinions without tweaking them at all to bolster your arguments in an attempt to convince people?

I have to say I don't understand what you are trying to ask me. What I meant with subjective opinion guiding reason was exactly that, a subjective opinion guiding reasoning.

An example, a person is going to a discussion on a subject where a group of people have gathered to reach a decision on a matter with an open mind, that is, they will form an opinion on the matter at the meeting after they've been presented with the evidence. A person who let's their subjective opinion guide their reasoning would enter the meeting with their mind already made or would reach one conclusions and then would try to sway other people in reaching their conclusion using perfectly normal reasoning. It would also be very hard to change their opinion as it is independent of reasoning (Which is also the reason they can use their reasoning separate from their subjectivity).

IME IEI-s have their subjectivity separate from reason so you cannot change their mind by reason alone, something I don't think is true for Jonathan. For an IEI when surrounded from all sides, pressured by facts, evidence, arguments, or an indisputable appeal to reason, it wouldn't matter much if they had their mind set. At least that is the case for me, I don't let small things like realistic expectations or concrete arguments stop me. Sure, I'll take them into consideration, I'd be a fool not to, but they won't make me stop wanting to do whatever they are telling me not to do. I'll just look at other ways of trying to do it. In essence I'll say "A unconditional appeal to reason? All you are trying to do is tell me not to do it! Well guess what, I'm still gonna do it, and you and other disbelievers watch me!" albeit with a lot less "in your face" attitude as I'd most likely silently assume that attitude without creating any fuss.

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

I agree with this - Jonathan + Rick do seem similar to each other

Same here.

[Phaedrus]

It looks as if I'm annoying you, sorry.

No, not really. The only thing that I find slightly annoying is that you seem to be so afraid to take a firm stand. You and I have been on this forum for more than a year now, and you still don't what type you are. Why is that? My view on the types is not as rigid as it was in the beginning. I can now see that it is possible to see a person as, for example, something in between an INTp and an INFp. It is possible to see the borders between the types as somewhat blurred. But why don't you know by now which type you are most like? Or perhaps you do. Maybe you know that you are an INTp, but for some obscure reason you are afraid to state it as a confirmed fact. Or is the reason that you are still not sure what type you are that you are not an INTp? I don't understand why you are still in doubt.

I don't propose dismissing the 4 scales; I just don't want to dismiss the goal of coming up with a coherent and useful set of functions.

Neither do I. Everything hangs together. There is no contradiction. Everything fits.

I was only taking seriously the idea of being in an INFj "mode" or that there's an INFj "strand" within the various strands of themes that exist in my mind. I don't really think the INFj profile overall makes sense for me, at least any more than any other profile.

But why are you so cautious? You are not an INFj, and you know it. Why don't say so, then? You know for sure that you are not an INFj and that you don't fit the INFj profiles.

I agree that ILIs like to criticize a system. Building one from in a bottom-up way does seem to be Ti, but that doesn't mean it's ego-block Ti; it might be Ti as ILIs use Ti.

What are you saying here really? There is a clear difference between how LIIs and ILIs build theories. Their theories have different origins. ILIs don't use when they build theories, at least not as a primary function in the theory building process.

[aestrivex]

There is no contradiction. Everything fits.

look around you. people are playing tennis. has the battle been won or lost?

[Rick]

There is no contradiction. Everything fits.

look around you. people are playing tennis. has the battle been won or lost?

These lines sound like they came right out of "The Matrix!"

[aestrivex]

the tennis comment was meant to be completely out of nowhere, but yeah, i guess they could be seen in that light.

[Phaedrus]

Why the hell did I insist on taking the red pill? Are there any blue pills left, by any chance?

[Jonathan]

The only thing that I find slightly annoying is that you seem to be so afraid to take a firm stand.....But why are you so cautious?

It's not fear or caution, but how I think. If my reluctance to accept one specific version of things is that foreign to you, perhaps there is something different about us typewise. In part, I see no real benefit in declaring or defending a type. I would always rather hear data from others about what they see, and use this information for whatever purpose I have in mind. At this point, I'm becoming less interested in type per se (although I do recognize that "types" do make it easier to talk about how the functions work when combined with each other); instead, I'm becoming more interested in how people use various combinations of functions, and how these have significance in a person's life story. Looking at it that way, intratype differences, as well as gray-areas between types, become of interest as well.

What are you saying here really? There is a clear difference between how LIIs and ILIs build theories. Their theories have different origins. ILIs don't use when they build theories, at least not as a primary function in the theory building process.

Can't an ILI use Ti or think like an LII or ILE whenever he/she wants? Clearly an ILI has a different perspective from LII. But why should any type be restricted to any given approach when building theories? How do you see the difference between LII's and ILI's approach to building theories? Why is it fixed, and why is an ILI who decides to use a "bottom up approach" not being LII-like in some sense (or same with an LII would decides to use a "top down approach")?

[Phaedrus]

Can't an ILI use Ti or think like an LII or ILE whenever he/she wants?

An ILI can use , but it would take such an enormous effort for an ILI to really try to think like an LII, that I think it is practially out of the question. I worked rather intensively with an LII for several hours this Saturday, helping him writing an EU application for money to his mathematical project. (He is a mathematician, one of few experts in the world on q-calculus.) I have known him for several years, but it was really interesting to observe how clearly different our thought processes are when we interact. Every time I wanted to get an answer to a question that I asked in order to pinpoint a general view on a subject from a top-down perspective, he insisted on starting at the other end (bottom-up). He can't start from my end of the perspective, and I can't start from his end -- at least it takes a lot of energy for both of us to adapt to the other person's natural way of thinking. My meeting with him was yet another illustrating experience of Quasi-Identity.

Clearly an ILI has a different perspective from LII. But why should any type be restricted to any given approach when building theories?

You are not restricted, it is what you naturally do, what you prefer.

How do you see the difference between LII's and ILI's approach to building theories? Why is it fixed, and why is an ILI who decides to use a "bottom up approach" not being LII-like in some sense (or same with an LII would decides to use a "top down approach")?

Have you seen any clear example of an ILI using the "bottom up approach"? Tcaudillg's theory is a clear example of an INTj's bottom-up approach to theory building. In contrast, if you want to see an ILI's top-down approach to theory building you could read Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirsig himself (and his alter ego Phaedrus) is an INTp

and his theory -- The Metaphysics of Quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig%...ics_of_quality -- is the result of putting together a lot of personal observations of general patterns ( as a field function) and explaining them in a theoretical framework whose specific aim is to arrive at generalizations. Many seemingly different fields of human knowledge are viewed from a very general meta-perspective and explained in a "theory" (but I am not sure an INTj would agree to call such a theory a real theory or a model). Pirsig's approach is even more clearly accentuated in his second book Lila, where in chapter 4 of that book he is also contrasting Phaedrus's approach to Franz Boas's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas , an anthropologist, whose scientific approach Pirsig describes in a way that makes it sound very similar to an ETjs, for example Expat's. (I haven't checked whether Pirsig's description of Boas is fair or not.)

It was quite interesting to read that again, because I hadn't realized before that there is a clear difference between Expat's positivistic approach to science and my own. Now I can see three rather different approaches to science: the positivistic objectivistic approach of the ENTjs (I just pick the ENTj as a typical representative here, but other types can share this approach of course), the subjective, theoretical modelling approach of the INTjs, and the pattern generalizing approach of the INTps. It is not yet clear to me how for example an ENTp's approach to science should be described, and if there are even more possible approaches to consider.

[Expat]

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. From what I've observed the Fe-polrs INTp and ISTp are more likely to not say anything if they don't want to argue. They may be more careful as to not say something controversial, and may keep many of their personal views to themselves, but trying to actively keep the peace, although it could happen just doesn't seem to be how they'd go about things. And when they do argue something they care about, they don't pull any punches.

Yes, I agree with that.

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 disagree. I think "EQ" is essentially Fe-related. However, "peace" is one form of Fe mood. In the case of overly abrasive Fe types, what they want in that particular moment and situation is precisely to break the peace, for the sake of emotional mobilization.

What characterizes the use of Fe is that a Fe mood is the goal. If Jonathan consistently prefers to "keep the peace" over getting into the discussions and solving the issues/understanding the subjects, then he's Fe>Te.

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.

First, of course even Te types can have good "EQ". I would never have typed Tony Blair as ENTj if I didn't think that. Obviously any sucessful professional politician has to have good EQ; if he didn't, he wouldn't even have been selected as MP candidate in his constituency.

However, EQ, in his case (and of other Te types) is a skill, not a need. When he feels he doesn't need to keep the "emotional mood", he goes into Te mood.

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.

By definition, to use Ti as hidden agenda and Te as PoLR.

And that I see as a reluctance to use external information to review understandings once you've reached them.

Now, it's not in a crude "I already know it, don't bother me with your useless information" way. That would be too easy. You could argue that you're trying to review your understanding now. Yes, and that's why I said "reluctance", not "inability" or "total unwillingness". In some areas - no ideas what they might be, maybe music or whatever - I would guess that you'd show that trait more clearly.

I find myself repeating the same concepts and explanations to you over and over. A good example was the " = planning" story. Once you had understood that as "intuition of time" meant some sort of "planning", it took forever for you to drop that - if you really did. And it wasn't about getting into deeper and deeper detail, it was about explaining what it was really about, you seemingly understanding, and some time later you raising precisely the same issue again.

And that is just one example among many, and I decline to list them all here.

Another way of seeing the same situation is that, early on, you had never really understood or accepted the explanations, but decided to give the impression that you did, for the sake of "peace". Which is again Fe>Te preference.

EDIT: before you say it, Jonathan, is not about "agreeing". The point was that the discussion wasn't moving forward, even in disagreement.

[Expat]

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.

That's close to what I mean, if you say "wouldn't necessarily identify".

I think that, functionally, an individual may be an INFp and yet be reclusive, bookish, not overly emotionally expressive, and have a self-perception of being very logical. This person can also be very aware of longer-term emotional states of others, as in "that person is hostile to me" or "that person seems to need my company" etc. This person will be aware of that, but feel little inclination to actually change that. IP not EJ. Such a person would be an INFp, and a glimpse of such a person is in Meged's description of the Ni-IEI subtype.

However, such a person would not readily identify with most descriptions of IEIs, because those tend to focus on individuals who are more readily inclined to express emotional themselves and to influence others - an IEI who more easily goes into EIE mode.

I suggest that you and some others here may be such cases. I would bet money on that being your case rather than ILI, however, I would not bet all of my money on that.

[Expat]

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.

What you are calling in this particular example I call low-volume , which of course is also very consistent with types. He's not actively using to make people laugh as eg Bionicgoat does, but he's still trying to keep it in a -- plane he agrees with.

[Expat]

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.

That would indeed be indication of being a logical type. But my view is that you "get to the bottom" in a Ti HA and Te PoLR way. However, that is my judgement based on how I see you. I may be wrong. If you decide to definitely "settle" on INTp as your type, I will not go out of my way to say you are not one.

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.

I think it's more the use of different criteria to see those subtypes.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

He's more focused on reaching a conclusion than developing an atmosphere or relationship.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

No...some people would take more pleasure in the act of the discussion itself (Fe) or how the discussion helps them get to know the person better (Fi).

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that that's what everyone focuses on.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

No, but it's one thing that would point to it. Nothing automatically makes anyone any type.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

I don't think it's a very strong reason to think think someone is logical>ethical. Especially if you consider that many ethical types will see themselves as taking exactly that stance in a discussion. In fact, I don't think that very many people would say otherwise. Can you really imagine someone saying, "In a discussion I usually just like to understand the people better, rather than worry about getting to the bottom of the issue?" I don't know but it doesn't sound very likely to me.

Sometimes the only way to get to the bottom of the issue is to understand the other person's pov of the issue..or his/her effects/affects regarding the issue.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

I don't think it's a very strong reason to think think someone is logical>ethical. Especially if you consider that many ethical types will see themselves as taking exactly that stance in a discussion. In fact, I don't think that very many people would say otherwise. Can you really imagine someone saying, "In a discussion I usually just like to understand the people better, rather than worry about getting to the bottom of the issue?" I don't know but it doesn't sound very likely to me.

True, a more realistic scenario would be the person not bothering to participate at all.

It's not a strong reason, I agree.

[Jarno]

sorry i didn't read al the posts.

i'm just curious, what did you get on this test: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

(altough it's MBTI, a couple of friends of mine, came out correctly according socionics. it's accurate)

[Gilly]

That test gives me ENFP

[Phaedrus]

sorry i didn't read al the posts.

i'm just curious, what did you get on this test: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

(altough it's MBTI, a couple of friends of mine, came out correctly according socionics. it's accurate)

Every MBTI test tends to indicate your correct socionic type. Most of them are no worse than a socionic test for that purpose. But that doesn't mean that you can trust them to give you your correct type, and that applies to socionoc tests too. Your MBTI test result gives you a strong indication of your socionic type, but no test is conclusive evidence in itself.

In this particular test there are a lot of questions that are rather bad and irrelevant, but there are enough of reasonable questions to make the test rather accurate anyway. I have always got my correct socionic type in this test.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

That test probably can be trusted, most of the time, to eliminate some very unlikely types for someone getting into Socionics the first time, ie someone testing as ISFP there is not very likely to be an ENTj or ESTj.

For the specific purposes of typing Jonathan here, it probably gives no new information.

[Gilly]

I agree with Expat: that test is in no way going to make the distinctions that we need to make in discerning Jonathan's type, or even give us any new information.

[aestrivex]

the humanmetrics test can give me any of IXTX. usually it has approximately 95% thinking, 85% introversion, and very minimal differences on the other two dichotomies.

whatever the hell any of that means.

[tcaudilllg]

the humanmetrics test can give me any of IXTX. usually it has approximately 95% thinking, 85% introversion, and very minimal differences on the other two dichotomies.

whatever the hell any of that means.

INTp-ISTj if you took the IM-IE test.

[Creepy-bg]

I got I (67%) S (25%) F (12%) J (22%)

sweet! I'm Joy and Expats dual now HELLO GAMMA!

[aestrivex]

the humanmetrics test can give me any of IXTX. usually it has approximately 95% thinking, 85% introversion, and very minimal differences on the other two dichotomies.

whatever the hell any of that means.

INTp-ISTj if you took the IM-IE test.

exactly what is the IM-IE test?

[Jonathan]

By definition, to use Ti as hidden agenda and Te as PoLR.

And that I see as a reluctance to use external information to review understandings once you've reached them.

Now, it's not in a crude "I already know it, don't bother me with your useless information" way. That would be too easy. You could argue that you're trying to review your understanding now. Yes, and that's why I said "reluctance", not "inability" or "total unwillingness". In some areas - no ideas what they might be, maybe music or whatever - I would guess that you'd show that trait more clearly.

Well, gee, I was expecting and hoping for something a little more interesting. But at least now I better understand where you're coming from. From personal experience, I would not describe IEIs in this way (although you'd probably doubt whether the people I consider IEIs really are). Somehow, a tendency to be stuck on a position seems more like LSI or some other types. IEIs in my experience seem to be more open to different viewpoints, even to the point of shifting theirs completely. (Perhaps that's why Reinin classifies them as "compliant," although I don't know enough to know if Reinin is accurate or if his dichotomy actually supports my point.) In any case, we seem to have a difference on what IEI is like.

On the other hand, it's possible that IEIs seem more open to some types than others. Perhaps LIE arguments don't communicate well to them, and so they seem closed-minded to you.

I still don't see in this what you consider Ti HA to be.

I find myself repeating the same concepts and explanations to you over and over. A good example was the " = planning" story. Once you had understood that as "intuition of time" meant some sort of "planning", it took forever for you to drop that - if you really did. And it wasn't about getting into deeper and deeper detail, it was about explaining what it was really about, you seemingly understanding, and some time later you raising precisely the same issue again.

And that is just one example among many, and I decline to list them all here.

Another way of seeing the same situation is that, early on, you had never really understood or accepted the explanations, but decided to give the impression that you did, for the sake of "peace". Which is again Fe>Te preference.

Well that's all very ironic, but a good lesson on how we all come off in unexpected ways. It's very odd that you read my posts as if I were stuck on a position, or as if I thought Ni (or any association of Ni with time) means "planning." I only point out now and then that it's clear that other people describe Ni in a way that sounds like planning (most recently, some of Tcaud's posts).

Perhaps it appears to you that the conversation can't "move forward" because we're on a different wavelength somehow, which may or not be type-related. I certainly have conversations with others that move forward.

Probably the main reason we don't "connect" is that you would like me to absorb your explanations and say "ah, okay, I understand. That's how it is!" (or take the time and energy to try to convince you that you're totally wrong). And so if I seem to understand what you said but later don't put it in practice, it seems to you that I didn't comprehend what you were saying, and that my apparent understanding was due to the need to appear congenial, or something.

On the other hand I'm more inclined to view what you or anyone else says as "That's what so-and-so thinks about X" and not necessarily assume that each person's position necessarily links with the absolute truth. That's not because I don't care about finding some sort of clear truth about the matter, or in considering what people are saying as ideas that might be useful, but the full picture seems much more complicated than people acknowledge. Many of these issues can only be fully resolved with well-designed experiments or clearer language. So I withold judgment.

Perhaps that seems like a Ti>Te approach. Or maybe it has more to do with being an irrational type.