Me again :)

[Jonathan]

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.

This is a very interesting approach. I can see the connection LIE with positivism.
I hope you do come up with some ideas about ILE's approach, because I see a lot of potential in this whole way of looking at it.
...not that any type is bound to a philosophy or particular "ism," of course...but there are patterns.

[Expat]

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.

I've said nothing that I haven't said before here, elsewhere, whenever hidden agenda is discussed.

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 LSE or some other types.

Why specifically LSE?

IEIs in my experience seem to be more open to different viewpoints, even to the point of shifting theirs completely.

Ah yes -- up to the moment where a "final" decision on a viewpoint is made. Not before.

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

Well I've tried to explain it, many times.

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).

For a very long time, you were stuck into not understanding what was meant by that, in my opinion.

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.

I've never said nor implied that it applies to every single conversation with everyone on any subject, including with me.

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.

It's more complicated than that, you try to make it simple to reach a conclusion, which is the sort of thing I mean. I also don't take the time to argue against every point I disagree with. One does get tired sometimes.

It's difficult to explain what I see. It's as if I thought I was ESTj and an ESTp would say that my looks like something I value but use badly in his eyes. I would get deffensive and explain why I did not use in the specific way he meant it etc.

That's the problem when discussing one's weak functions, it's always dangerous territory which leads to people seeing it as attacks, which then leads to things like Phaedrus's bizarre reaction in the "video INTPs" thread.

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.

That's all good, but again it's not what I mean. What I said has nothing at all with thinking that what I say or someone said is the "absolute truth". You are still thinking that what I mean is about "agreeing", and this is yet one of those loops. I have tried to point out why it's not so, and you still go back to the "agreeing" thing.

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

I don't think irrationality has anything to do with it.

[Jonathan]

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.

I've said nothing that I haven't said before here, elsewhere, whenever hidden agenda is discussed.

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 LSE or some other types.

Why specifically LSE?

Typo...I meant LSI, although I'm not 100% sure about that. I've seen a few obstinate LSEs, but that may not be type-related.

IEIs in my experience seem to be more open to different viewpoints, even to the point of shifting theirs completely.

Ah yes -- up to the moment where a "final" decision on a viewpoint is made. Not before.

Well now that starts to sound like something that could be said about any type. How is this different from LIIs or anyone else? If it's final, it's final. In my case, very few things are final in that sense, which seems more to be what bothers you than that I'm stuck on a position.

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

Well I've tried to explain it, many times.

Well, yes, you're right that we did discuss Ti HA in another post, though not in reference to me. There may also be posts I didn't read where you discussed it.

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).

For a very long time, you were stuck into not understanding what was meant by that, in my opinion.

You misunderstood though, and now you're using "stuck" in a different way. My position is that there are clearly different strains of Socionics, and in one of them, people do discuss Ni, especially when paired with Te, in a way that sounds like planning and so forth. It's not my own preferred position, but I see it out there. I could just dismiss it as "obviously wrong," except that it does seem to be legitimately one of the views one finds within Socionics. My attempts to bring out the differences between different viewpoints and try to bring them into clearer light probably seemed like either obstinance, failure to comprehend, or both to you. Anyhow, your own explanations as to why you don't personally believe Ni is about that would be completely irrelevant to my point that other people talk about it that way.

It's more complicated than that, you try to make it simple to reach a conclusion, which is the sort of thing I mean.

Really? In what way?

That's the problem when discussing one's weak functions, it's always dangerous territory which leads to people seeing it as attacks

Yes, I see that it's a difficult line of reasoning in precisely that way. It will always seem like attacks. I hope I haven't seemed overly offended as I try to understand what it is that you see.

That's all good, but again it's not what I mean. What I said has nothing at all with thinking that what I say or someone said is the "absolute truth". You are still thinking that what I mean is about "agreeing", and this is yet one of those loops. I have tried to point out why it's not so, and you still go back to the "agreeing" thing.

I thought what I said was that you were bothered by the fact that I neither agreed nor disagreed, and therefore you questioned whether I understood. Or perhaps it's the fact that I keep hitting on certain things that seem to have been covered before, in slightly different ways (but those differences may not be apparent to others), as I'm investigating some particular thing. I can see why you might be puzzled by that behavior. However, I've never seen it in known IEIs.

[Expat]

Typo...I meant LSI, although I'm not 100% sure about that. I've seen a few obstinate LSEs, but that may not be type-related.

Ah ok.

IEIs in my experience seem to be more open to different viewpoints, even to the point of shifting theirs completely.

Ah yes -- up to the moment where a "final" decision on a viewpoint is made. Not before.

Well now that starts to sound like something that could be said about any type. How is this different from LIIs or anyone else? If it's final, it's final. In my case, very few things are final in that sense, which seems more to be what bothers you than that I'm stuck on a position.

Yes, of course could be said about any type -- almost anything (if not anything) in this field could be said about any type, since everyone uses all functions to some degree.

As I have pointed out in my Te/Ti "bookshelf" preference, it's never about clearly opposite behaviors, it's about preferences.

The difference, as I see it, is that LIIs and LSIs are more confident in their own understanding of a system, just like LSEs and LIEs are confident in their own knowledge. I claim to know more Socionics than you. I think it's true, but it might be false yet I have no problem in making this claim in public, or in particular, because I am confident that at least there is a good case for it, and accusations such as Phaedrus's recent ones have no effect on me at all.

Phaedrus accused me of being "cocky". That's precisely it! Everyone looks cocky in their strong functions to those who do not have the same strong functions, just like I see Se EPs as overly abrasive.

tcaudilllg has developed his own system single-handedly. Who knows whether it relates to reality or not Yet he has no problem in defending it here, even knowing that nobody understands it or agrees with it -- he thinks we are the ones who are stupid. He has no problem with people not understanding or agreeing with it, he has a problem with non-topic hostile comments such as niffweed's.

What I see in both Phaedrus and yourself is a sort of annoyance that I am questioning your knowledge and understanding, and especially Phaedrus sees that as emotional hostility. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Well, yes, you're right that we did discuss Ti HA in another post, though not in reference to me. There may also be posts I didn't read where you discussed it.

It's difficult for me to make a log of specific examples.

You misunderstood though, and now you're using "stuck" in a different way. My position is that there are clearly different strains of Socionics, and in one of them, people do discuss Ni, especially when paired with Te, in a way that sounds like planning and so forth. It's not my own preferred position, but I see it out there. I could just dismiss it as "obviously wrong," except that it does seem to be legitimately one of the views one finds within Socionics. My attempts to bring out the differences between different viewpoints and try to bring them into clearer light probably seemed like either obstinance, failure to comprehend, or both to you. Anyhow, your own explanations as to why you don't personally believe Ni is about that would be completely irrelevant to my point that other people talk about it that way.

Yes, but I think that even those people - if you mean Stratiyevskaya - do not really see it in that precise way, I think you jump to conclusions as to what she (if that's who you mean) is actually saying. But this is a separate discussion.

Moreover, then my question to you is this -- why don't you, yourself, choose which viewpoints you personally agree with is? Of course there are different strains in Socionics, even a look at Rick's and Ganin's sites already shows that. Since it's not hard science, and we lack empirical results that are reliable, we will probably never reach an iron-cast understanding and agreement of which strain is correct.

Why don't you choose the strain you yourself think it's the most correct one? You will never reach a fully consensual answer on that, I can assure you.

It's more complicated than that, you try to make it simple to reach a conclusion, which is the sort of thing I mean.

Really? In what way?

By things like "ah it's about agreeing with your views, I got it".

Yes, I see that it's a difficult line of reasoning in precisely that way. It will always seem like attacks. I hope I haven't seemed overly offended as I try to understand what it is that you see.

Thank you And no, not overly offended at all.

[Phaedrus]

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.

This is a very interesting approach. I can see the connection LIE with positivism.
I hope you do come up with some ideas about ILE's approach, because I see a lot of potential in this whole way of looking at it.
...not that any type is bound to a philosophy or particular "ism," of course...but there are patterns.

I forgot to mention that empiricism is an essential part of the LIE positivistic approach, just as it is in the ILI pattern generalizing approach. In some versions of "positivism" formalism is more accentuated, and if seen in that perspective there is a link also between the LII theoretical modelling approach and positivism. As I think I mentioned in one of my early posts on this forum, INTjs tend to be formalists. The "leading" INTjs on this forum are formalists, and they seem to be aware of that fact and accept it.

If the truth can't be formalized it is not a truth, according to the formalists. Kurt Gödel was of another opinion, and his two incompleteness theorems prove that there are truths that can't be formalized. So, as a matter of fact Gödel has falsified the formalist approach to truth. That is probably the strongest argument against the hypothesis that Gödel was an INTj, which might be a natural hypothesis otherwise. Many of his contemporaries in the Vienna circle around 1930 were formalists, when he stood there alone as a convinced Platonist, believing in objective eternal truths that can't be proven but are still truths.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus accused me of being "cocky". That's precisely it! Everyone looks cocky in their strong functions to those who do not have the same strong functions, just like I see Se EPs as overly abrasive.

Expat misunderstands as usual. The word "cocky" was chosen as an euphemism for "stupid". He actually looks somewhat weak in , since he doesn't know how to evaluate the evidence objectively.

What I see in both Phaedrus and yourself is a sort of annoyance that I am questioning your knowledge and understanding, and especially Phaedrus sees that as emotional hostility. Do you see where I'm coming from?

And here Expat is misinterpreting what I say -- again! It is as if he deliberately refuses to understand. Why can't he connect the dots?

I don't see your behaviour as emotional hostility. If anyone here has insisted on interpreting things in an emotional framework it is you, Expat. You interpreted what XoX was saying as Fe, and here you think that I think that you are emotionally hostile. That is ridiculous. You are intellectually hostile of course, and that is what I am fed up with when it comes to my type, because I have no choice but to perceive anyone who really thinks that I am most likely some other type than INTp as a complete idiot, who doesn't understand much about the ILI type.

You misunderstand us ILIs all the time, Expat, but I doubt that you are able to realize it. I don't think for a minute that you deliberately are trying to insult me or anyone else. You come across as rather naive and blind to the truth, that's all. And my point is that I have now decided to interpret any questioning of my INTp-ness from you in the future as an attack on me as a person. You can of course choose not to question my type, and in that case everything is fine and back to business. But I am not interested in hearing any more doubts about my type. If people want to discuss my type and are questioning my INTp-ness, they can do that in private. I will not change my mind about my type. I have reached the point of no return.

[Expat]

Expat misunderstands as usual. The word "cocky" was chosen as an euphemism for "stupid"

Ah ok. I did not see it as an obvious interpretation.

I don't think for a minute that you deliberately are trying to insult me or anyone else. You come across as rather naive and blind to the truth, that's all.

So -- you realize I'm not insulting you or anyone deliberately. Yet you deliberately choose to see an attack (as the next quote shows) where you know there is no such intention.

What you are saying is, "I know you do not intend to insult me, but I will choose to see it that way, regardless of your intentions".

Is that an accurate interpretation?

And my point is that I have now decided to interpret any questioning of my INTp-ness from you in the future as an attack on me as a person.

What do you hope to achieve by doing that?

You can of course choose not to question my type, and in that case everything is fine and back to business.

So -- even if you know I don't see INTp as your most likely type, everything is fine as long as I don't voice that opinion? Is that an accurate interpretation?

[Exodus]

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)

I have found that test to be fairly accurate.

[Phaedrus]

Expat misunderstands as usual. The word "cocky" was chosen as an euphemism for "stupid"

Ah ok. I did not see it as an obvious interpretation.

I probably wasn't an obvious interpretation, so you are excused. But what I meant to imply was that to me it is obvious that neither of us sees the other person as in any way superior.

You can interpret that in terms of a Supervisor relation, and it seems as you do, but if so you are interpreting it incorrectly. This is actually a rather clear example of two Mirrors trying to correct each others understanding. It is so extremely obvious, seen from my perspective (which is also the perspective of Jonathan and probably XoX too) that you are missing and dismissing important pieces all the time. Seen from your perspective I guess you think that I am doing that. And it is also very obvious that I can't find a way to explain to you what you are missing, since every such attempt has so far resulted in even more misunderstandings.

So -- you realize I'm not insulting you or anyone deliberately. Yet you deliberately choose to see an attack (as the next quote shows) where you know there is no such intention.

Don't say that you misunderstand this too! I realize that you are not trying to insult anyone deliberately, but if I were some other type I would probably interpret it otherwise. You should realize that you can't say such things to me, or to anyone else, and not expect me to see you as an idiot. You are not entitled to believe that I am most likely not an INTp, if you want me to treat you as an equal. It becomes impossible for me to take you seriously, if you insist on believing that I am not an INTp. Is that so hard to understand?

You treat me as someone lacking in intelligence and competence, and since I know that I am rather intelligent, and also rather competent when it comes to typing people, I must conclude that there is something wrong with your conception of me. And if you don't realize that it is something wrong with your conception, then the reason must be that you can't understand, because you are lacking in competence and/or intelligence.

The problem will go away if you start to treat me with some respect, and the minimum of respect I require of you (specifically you, since some others are almost impossible to discuss with anyway) is that you think that I am at least capable of typing myself correctly. And, as a consequence of that, you simply must change your view on how to interpret my posts, what functions I am using, and what those function uses reveal about my type. Since I know for a fact that I am INTp, you can't have another view on my type than I have, if we are going to have a serious discussion. You simply must find a way to reconcile your interpretations of my posts with the fact that I am an INTp. If you can't do that, any further serious discussion will be a waste of time.

What you are saying is, "I know you do not intend to insult me, but I will choose to see it that way, regardless of your intentions".

Is that an accurate interpretation?

Not quite. Now you know what my intentions are. You know that I don't want you to dispute my type. If you choose to do that anyway, the consequence will be that I will think that you are an idiot. It's your choice. Why should you continue with some behaviour that you know I find insulting, unless you want to insult me?

And my point is that I have now decided to interpret any questioning of my INTp-ness from you in the future as an attack on me as a person.

What do you hope to achieve by doing that?

To stop you from questioning my INTp-ness. I am not sure it will have that effect, of course, but that is what I hope to achieve.

So -- even if you know I don't see INTp as your most likely type, everything is fine as long as I don't voice that opinion? Is that an accurate interpretation?

No. If I know that you refuse to reconsider your recent typing of me, you will know that I will see you as an incompetent idiot, who is sticking to his beloved beliefs even if he realizes that those beliefs are probably false.

There just might be room for some some sort of "compromise" here, even if you continue to believe in private that I am not an INTp, but in that case you should not base any argument on the assumption that I am not an INTp, and you should never state in public that you think that I am not an INTp. Maybe it could work, but I don't promise anything. The inevitable consequence is of course that I will see you as an idiot, but if you keep the belief that I am not an INTp to yourself, I will not state in public that I think that you are an idiot if you have that false belief. Then we both will know what one person will think of the other in such a scenario. If you don't attack my person, I won't attack your person. Tit for tat.

[KSpin]

I think he's saying. "Let's agree to disagree."

[Expat]

Right, back on topic --

@Jonathan: how do you see this recent interaction? I am not asking you to take sides . How do you see this interaction?

[Expat]

You know that I don't want you to dispute my type. If you choose to do that anyway, the consequence will be that I will think that you are an idiot. It's your choice. Why should you continue with some behaviour that you know I find insulting, unless you want to insult me?

Because this is a forum to discuss Socionics, not to agree with each other at all costs. If my opinion on your type differs from yours, and I think that your saying "so-and-so is likely of the same type as me therefore INTp", if I said nothing I would not be contributing to further understanding of Socionics in my view. And my view may be wrong, but I assume that people can decide for themselves which view is correct. That is also the difference between you and Jonathan in my view.

To say "do not continue with such behavior, regardless of your views, because I will find it insulting" is a primitive attempt at emotional manipulation.

[Phaedrus]

If my opinion on your type differs from yours, and I think that your saying "so-and-so is likely of the same type as me therefore INTp", if I said nothing I would not be contributing to further understanding of Socionics in my view.

But the problem with that is that I feel the same need to contribute to further understanding of Socionics. And if you dispute the things I say about INTps because you believe that I am not an INTp, then you are not contributing to further understanding of Socionics. On the contrary you makes it more difficult for people to see the truth. So we will end up correcting each other again. How should that potential problem be avoided?

[Megan]

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.

Then disagree it is then. I do not think EQ is related "essentially" or otherwise Expat.

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.

I see it as him not wanting to get into a neeedlessly hostile (this is subjective of course)discussion and I think that is very sensible on his part; and I too would not say that he values keeping the peace over getting into the discussions. I suggest that you look at what he is doing rather than what he is saying. He has continued to discuss things with you and try to solve the issues even though it appears that he (and perhaps some others here) think that you often appear needlessly overly assertive and sure of your knowledge(to put it very mildly). Perhaps ISFjs need a person who is very confident and forceful in their knowledge to compensate for their issues with scepticism but a lot of other people just view that sort of behavior as close-mindness and arrogance and sort of find it difficult to deal with it at times and it is not because of disinterest in external facts/information as known by you either.

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.

I can assure that there are logical types with naturally high EQ. EQ is is not type related from my experience dealing with hundreds of people weekly and I would need strong evidence or reasoning to believe otherwise.

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.

I do not see where you can say he has a "need" for EQ, he has merely expressed a preference for a discussion at a certain level (I have seen people who I think are INTps do that) and yet he has persisted with this discussion even when it fell below that level. Perhaps he was merely wanting a discussion where all his points are understood without a ton of emotional "drama" and behavior that could even be seen as dismissive even if it is unintentional or unrecognized as such by you. It appears to me at least that you often totally do not get what he is saying (he has said this) and perhaps he does not always get what you are saying either.

Jonathan in any case just does not seem like an INFp to me (even though i am not saying he isn't either)and I see no arguments presented here to strongly or even mildly indicate that he is one.

[Expat]

How should that potential problem be avoided?

Why should it be avoided? If you say to someone "I think you may well be INTp because I think we are of the same type and I am INTp", especially if I think that the person is likely not an INTp I (or anyone else) will say "well I don't think Phaedrus is necessarily an INTp, I think you shouldn't type yourself based on that" and that's it. Then you may call me an idiot if you want. And the person will have to decide what to do for him/herself. That person may well decide that it's ridiculous for me to question your type, and will listen to you rather than to me.

This is something called freedom of speech and discussion of ideas. It's not a "problem to be avoided".

[Expat]

Then disagree it is then. I do not think EQ is related "essentially" or otherwise Expat.

According to the ever-friendly-but-not-always-reliable Wikipedia:

Emotional Intelligence, also called EI and often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient or EQ, describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups.

How is that not related to ? It's almost a definition of . Unless you disagree with that definition of EQ, or that that is a definition of . The major difference is that that definition, if applied to , makes it seem too "calculating" which is not necessarily the case.

Or are you thinking of EQ as something different from that quote?

I do not see where you can say he has a "need" for EQ, he has merely expressed a preference for a discussion at a certain level (I have seen people who I think are INTps do that) and yet he has persisted with this discussion even when it fell below that level. Perhaps he was merely wanting a discussion where all his points are understood without a ton of emotional "drama" and behavior that could even be seen as dismissive even if it is unintentional or unrecognized as such by you. It appears to me at least that you often totally do not get what he is saying (he has said this) and perhaps he does not always get what you are saying either.

I'm not sure at all that Jonathan has such a "need", I mentioned that to explain the Tony Blair example. It is my view that Jonathan is -inclined, albeit in a very subdued way. I may be wrong. I am not at all "sure" that he isn't INTp.

[Jonathan]

The difference, as I see it, is that LIIs and LSIs are more confident in their own understanding of a system, just like LSEs and LIEs are confident in their own knowledge. I claim to know more Socionics than you. I think it's true, but it might be false yet I have no problem in making this claim in public, or in particular, because I am confident that at least there is a good case for it, and accusations such as Phaedrus's recent ones have no effect on me at all.

Phaedrus accused me of being "cocky". That's precisely it! Everyone looks cocky in their strong functions to those who do not have the same strong functions, just like I see Se EPs as overly abrasive.

tcaudilllg has developed his own system single-handedly. Who knows whether it relates to reality or not Yet he has no problem in defending it here, even knowing that nobody understands it or agrees with it -- he thinks we are the ones who are stupid. He has no problem with people not understanding or agreeing with it, he has a problem with non-topic hostile comments such as niffweed's.

What I see in both Phaedrus and yourself is a sort of annoyance that I am questioning your knowledge and understanding, and especially Phaedrus sees that as emotional hostility. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I find these comments interesting, and worthwhile to consider. Before, I had thought you were arguing that I have Te PoLR because you thought I was making logical errors (straw man arguments etc.), whereas I did not agree that there were any logical mistakes on my part, though there did seem to be miscommunications. But now what you're talking about makes more sense and is more interesting.

The way you're approaching it...the confidence in the accepting function, sometimes to the point of caricature...seems very much in the spirit of Jung's original writings, actually. In a sense, the accepting function, one's great strength, also is a source of weakness...The Te person being overly-convinced of his knowledge, the Ti person being totally confident in a system that makes no sense to anyone else. These are good examples.

When challenged by someone of similar ability, the accepting function probably seems unassailable, unflappable. What's less clear is when people are annoyed or defensive when challenged, whether that's the PoLR, any weak function, or possibly in some cases a function that's fairly strong but seems to be unfairly attacked.

For example, if someone were to say to you "You're so unimaginative. How come you're so practical all the time? Why don't you ever see things from the long-term perspective" and started pointing out things to demonstrate that you're like this, which you thought were untrue and taken out of context, perhaps you might get annoyed (?). In any case, it wouldn't be an attack on your accepting function, but it's not necessarily indicating PoLR either.

I'm stating this just as a "devil's advocate" approach; I think what you're talking about has a lot of merit and potential. I'm picturing now a classic IEI being confronted by a strong Te argument about something he/she feels strongly about...typically it's a movement or belief system that person has some emotional investment in (IEIs are open-minded, but they can have certain attachments, and their openness is probably better revealed through a Ti argument).

I can imagine that person being defensive in a certain way...but there's the key...it's the way in which that person is defensive. In my image, that person has an attitude of "how dare you challenge my cherished belief" and so raises his/her voice a little bit and pretty soon says "could we talk about something else?" To me, that's classic PoLR...changing the topic, feeling that the arguments are "unfair" or not important, believing that the whole approach (the whole function the person is using) shouldn't even be applied to the given situation.

What a classic IEI would not do, though, is have an attitude of "you're totally wrong to think I'm weak in this area," or "you think I don't know that?" In that case, the annoyance wouldn't have a PoLR flavor, but could be some other function...perhaps the creative function or an id block function. Codifying the different kinds of annoyance people may have when challenged might be of value as a further approach of investigation.

[Jonathan]

Moreover, then my question to you is this -- why don't you, yourself, choose which viewpoints you personally agree with is? Of course there are different strains in Socionics, even a look at Rick's and Ganin's sites already shows that. Since it's not hard science, and we lack empirical results that are reliable, we will probably never reach an iron-cast understanding and agreement of which strain is correct.

Why don't you choose the strain you yourself think it's the most correct one? You will never reach a fully consensual answer on that, I can assure you.

Good question. Basically, I see no real need to. Of course, if you look at my posts, I do generally lean in a particular direction. You could see this particularly in my posts in Hugo's and Dio's threads, in which my criticisms were somewhat pointed. But I always see the other point of view. For me, it's about continuous investigation, and what I plan to eventually do with these ideas (in terms of musical or linguistic analysis, or coming up with better systems). Naturally, I often come up with what seems to be a conclusion, and I'm excited about it as a potential new understanding. But afterwards it has no value to me; I'm more interested in the investigation process. So even if I do come up with "the answer," I don't defend it or hold it as a position. I'm more into problem-solving than in holding a position as the "correct" one. It's not that I don't mean to apply all these "provisional understandings" for practical use; I do. If something is important to me, I dig and dig, focusing on nuances that are so subtle (or so related to issues unrelated to the forum other people don't see) it appears that I'm asking the same question over and over. But I guess what I'm confident in is that I have a good approach, that I ask the right questions and am on the correct path leading to somewhere.

[Phaedrus]

Of course, if you look at my posts, I do generally lean in a particular direction. You could see this particularly in my posts in Hugo's and Dio's threads, in which my criticisms were somewhat pointed. But I always see the other point of view. For me, it's about continuous investigation, and what I plan to eventually do with these ideas (in terms of musical or linguistic analysis, or coming up with better systems). Naturally, I often come up with what seems to be a conclusion, and I'm excited about it as a potential new understanding. But afterwards it has no value to me; I'm more interested in the investigation process. So even if I do come up with "the answer," I don't defend it or hold it as a position. I'm more into problem-solving than in holding a position as the "correct" one. It's not that I don't mean to apply all these "provisional understandings" for practical use; I do. If something is important to me, I dig and dig, focusing on nuances that are so subtle (or so related to issues unrelated to the forum other people don't see) it appears that I'm asking the same question over and over. But I guess what I'm confident in is that I have a good approach, that I ask the right questions and am on the correct path leading to somewhere.

What you say here, Jonathan, is the key to understand me as well. When you phrase it this way, I realize very clearly, that what irritates me most in all this mess, is that we never seem able to move forward. I want to dig deeper, to reach higher levels of understanding when it comes to the types, but people keep dragging me down. They keep us all from reaching those higher levels of understanding, they keep us all from digging deeper into interesting subjects, with all these questionings of my type, which only reveals their own incapacity for acquiring knowledge and apply it to new areas of human understanding.

I would have hoped that we could agree, at least sometimes, that now we have reached to this level. Now we understand this better and can move on and see what the consequences are. Maybe we need to modify our understanding of something else in the light of this new insights? Maybe there is something wrong with how I previously understood this, since this new pieces of evidence seem to contradict my previous conceptions? But almost all such hopes seem to be in vain, because the only type who is clearly willing to adopt such an approach is the ILI. Most other types prefer to defend their own positions out of personal interests instead of a willingness to find the objective truth.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Exodus]

Moreover, then my question to you is this -- why don't you, yourself, choose which viewpoints you personally agree with is? Of course there are different strains in Socionics, even a look at Rick's and Ganin's sites already shows that. Since it's not hard science, and we lack empirical results that are reliable, we will probably never reach an iron-cast understanding and agreement of which strain is correct.

Why don't you choose the strain you yourself think it's the most correct one? You will never reach a fully consensual answer on that, I can assure you.

Good question. Basically, I see no real need to. Of course, if you look at my posts, I do generally lean in a particular direction. You could see this particularly in my posts in Hugo's and Dio's threads, in which my criticisms were somewhat pointed. But I always see the other point of view. For me, it's about continuous investigation, and what I plan to eventually do with these ideas (in terms of musical or linguistic analysis, or coming up with better systems). Naturally, I often come up with what seems to be a conclusion, and I'm excited about it as a potential new understanding. But afterwards it has no value to me; I'm more interested in the investigation process. So even if I do come up with "the answer," I don't defend it or hold it as a position. I'm more into problem-solving than in holding a position as the "correct" one. It's not that I don't mean to apply all these "provisional understandings" for practical use; I do. If something is important to me, I dig and dig, focusing on nuances that are so subtle (or so related to issues unrelated to the forum other people don't see) it appears that I'm asking the same question over and over. But I guess what I'm confident in is that I have a good approach, that I ask the right questions and am on the correct path leading to somewhere.

Process>Result??

Yeah. I think this points to INTp.

[Jonathan]

Right, back on topic --

@Jonathan: how do you see this recent interaction? I am not asking you to take sides . How do you see this interaction?

Well, besides the fact that it appears quite dysfunctional, and that Phaedrus seems rather exasperated, and that it is not getting addressed on a clear logical level....

Really I think it does demonstrate some gray areas or nuances not covered in the basic theory. In theory, each person is a static type, and the intertype relations then naturally come out of that. So an ILI and LIE naturally find commonality in Te, and thus relatively harmonius relations.

But my theory is that the reality is slightly different. For two people to have a certain kind of relations, they must accept each other's functions for what they are, and various factors could intervene in that process. In Phaedrus's case, it seems that he feels that the logical validity of some his previous posts was not taken enough into consideration, as if you were not hearing him properly. (I'm reminded of an LIE I knew in college; my competent defense of my points after considerable skepticism on his part led to respect and friendship; had the first conversation been different, then the relations may have come out differently.)

The result is, admitedly, very similar to how an IEI might react to Te...an annoyance, an obviously emotional reaction, a certain closing off to the other person's Te arguments. The question isn't the reaction or the fact it's emotional now, but what triggered it and lead away from what I'm guessing where previously more objective conversations.

In an IEI's case, it would be dismay that evidence, logic, method should stand in the way of the vision, what the person values. IEIs, I suspect, are annoyed by what they see as the "dryness" of Te, and the fact that if something works for them (creates emotional satisfaction), then whether it's externally valid or not may have little relevance.

In an ILI's case, it would be an annoyance based on lack of recognition of the person's intelligence or competence. Personally, I do think that's more the issue here....Phaedrus seems more annoyed that you don't see his arguments as competent, and that's why he's closing himself off to your arguments. He's clearly concerned about competence, objectivity, etc. ....but that's no guarantee that you'll see on the same plane.

Functions are not commodities, like something you get in the bulk foods section. Everyone has their own version of them. And I think there may be some "in-betweenness"...where you may in fact be reacting to some aspect to Phaedrus's thinking that isn't 100% Te and is somehow influenced by Ti, making it slightly more Fe...that's possible.

In addition to that, in my experience Ejs, especially rational subtypes, may be annoyed by the views of Ni subtypes who say their idea of things without (seemingly) giving enough of a reason or structured context.

Anyhow, those are just my observations, for what they're worth.

[Jonathan]

It is my view that Jonathan is -inclined, albeit in a very subdued way. I may be wrong. I am not at all "sure" that he isn't INTp.

If I understand this correctly, this is pointing to something that's a little bit against the simplistic/classic Model A 101 approach...that is, it's suggesting, possibly, being an ILI who values "in some way" or in certain circumstances.

If that's what you're implying, I actually think that's right. I certainly don't hate , although at many times I think an approach may conflict with my thoughts. For example (or by way of analogy...), if I'm thinking about something, and someone has an emotional movie on T.V., I want to get away from that as soon as possible and focus on my thoughts. However, if I've exhausted my activities and don't feel like doing anything anymore, I might want to watch the emotional movie.

[Jonathan]

But almost all such hopes seem to be in vain, because the only type who is clearly willing to adopt such an approach is the ILI.

This is actually a good insight and valuable discovery. From my experience, it's quite right: Defining ILI in the way we both understand it here, it is true...You can only have an ILI conversation with an ILI...the kind of conversation where two people are investigating some philosophical truth together extensively, valuing the dialectic approach as useful, discussing and debating but in an atmosphere of complete respect, each person letting the other take back any argument that didn't pan out, never making each other's competence an issue...etc.

That doesn't mean, however, that you can't have good conversations with other types. I've had some great conversations with LIEs, and they tend to sharpen me and draw me out. I've also had really good conversations with IEIs, ILEs, LIIs, and other types.

Don't think that because Expat or anyone else has conflicted with you in certain ways that this means that all people of that type are like that, or that other types' values are any less than ILI's.

However, the important corollary, now, is that if someone disagrees with you, or says something that you believe is incorrect, it's always good to try to judge whether the type relation involved is going to lead to a productive discussion before getting too invested in it. It never makes sense to debate an LIE unless you're prepared to rely on predominantly Te arguments (which must be understood as such by both parties...not so easy over the internet where you can't explain yourself), and not appealing to Ni. It never makes sense to debate with an IEI or EIE because they will make it quite personal. Debating philosophy with an SLE isn't productive; with SLEs it's better to share Ni insights and leave out the appealing to Te. And so on...

[Expat]

Before, I had thought you were arguing that I have Te PoLR because you thought I was making logical errors (straw man arguments etc.)

I wouldn't attribute that directly to Te PoLR, but it may have looked that way.

When challenged by someone of similar ability, the accepting function probably seems unassailable, unflappable. What's less clear is when people are annoyed or defensive when challenged, whether that's the PoLR, any weak function, or possibly in some cases a function that's fairly strong but seems to be unfairly attacked.

A PoLR hit does not make you annoyed or defensive, it's more baffling. You get more defensiveness from HA attacks and, yes, from "unfair" attacks on strong functions, where reactions to the latter will vary.

For example, if someone were to say to you "You're so unimaginative. How come you're so practical all the time? Why don't you ever see things from the long-term perspective" and started pointing out things to demonstrate that you're like this, which you thought were untrue and taken out of context, perhaps you might get annoyed (?). In any case, it wouldn't be an attack on your accepting function, but it's not necessarily indicating PoLR either.

Aha. Good that you say that. I have been on occasion called a "sensor" and even "illogical" in private by someone who I think is IEI (and whom I much like, btw), and precisely due to that. That person, I think, gets -- exasperated sometimes at my not being able, or willing, to make or follow "intuitive leaps", not seeing or refusing to see what is obvious to the IEI - or, conversely, at my preference, or need, to explain the "obvious" in information-loaded Te fashion. This may also be another reason why some people at Socionix love(d) to say I am LSE. The same people seem even proud of their unwillingness, or inability, to explain factually how they reached their "Ni" conclusions.

My reaction is usually to think that those who call me "unimaginative" or "sensor" etc are putting too much faith on their "intuition"; their conclusions may even be correct, but I still think they are going about it the wrong way. The annoyance seems to be more on their side than mine, but I may be wrong on that.

I'm stating this just as a "devil's advocate" approach; I think what you're talking about has a lot of merit and potential. I'm picturing now a classic IEI being confronted by a strong Te argument about something he/she feels strongly about...typically it's a movement or belief system that person has some emotional investment in (IEIs are open-minded, but they can have certain attachments, and their openness is probably better revealed through a Ti argument).

I agree with what you're saying, but to me the thing is -- a Ti argument (if I understand you right) would work by showing that their belief has some internal flaws, but often those beliefs do not have obvious Ti flaws -- you do need a Te argument. So, to my PoV, an openness limited to Ti is not that open at all.

I can imagine that person being defensive in a certain way...but there's the key...it's the way in which that person is defensive. In my image, that person has an attitude of "how dare you challenge my cherished belief" and so raises his/her voice a little bit and pretty soon says "could we talk about something else?" To me, that's classic PoLR...changing the topic, feeling that the arguments are "unfair" or not important, believing that the whole approach (the whole function the person is using) shouldn't even be applied to the given situation.

I'm not sure that that is "classic" PoLR -- do we really bother to have "cherished beliefs" in the PoLR? It sounds more like a weak function but not the PoLR.

What a classic IEI would not do, though, is have an attitude of "you're totally wrong to think I'm weak in this area," or "you think I don't know that?" In that case, the annoyance wouldn't have a PoLR flavor, but could be some other function...perhaps the creative function or an id block function. Codifying the different kinds of annoyance people may have when challenged might be of value as a further approach of investigation.

That is closer to what I think about the PoLR, but I could see it happening in some circumstances, especifically in Socionics discussions.

Process>Result??

Hmm, ok. That would make sense --

[Expat]

The result is, admitedly, very similar to how an IEI might react to Te...an annoyance, an obviously emotional reaction, a certain closing off to the other person's Te arguments. The question isn't the reaction or the fact it's emotional now, but what triggered it and lead away from what I'm guessing where previously more objective conversations.

In an IEI's case, it would be dismay that evidence, logic, method should stand in the way of the vision, what the person values. IEIs, I suspect, are annoyed by what they see as the "dryness" of Te, and the fact that if something works for them (creates emotional satisfaction), then whether it's externally valid or not may have little relevance.

Yes, but not only that -- an IEI has focus not only on Ni but also on Ti, so the "vision" will also be logical. The problem (from the Te PoV) is its relevance to external reality.

It is my view that Jonathan is -inclined, albeit in a very subdued way. I may be wrong. I am not at all "sure" that he isn't INTp.

If I understand this correctly, this is pointing to something that's a little bit against the simplistic/classic Model A 101 approach...that is, it's suggesting, possibly, being an ILI who values "in some way" or in certain circumstances.

If that's what you're implying, I actually think that's right.

Wait, I wasn't thinking of saying anything innovative. You do show signs to value more than some presumed ILIs here. However, the key issue is whether you'd value it over or . That isn't clear to me.

I certainly don't hate , although at many times I think an approach may conflict with my thoughts. For example (or by way of analogy...), if I'm thinking about something, and someone has an emotional movie on T.V., I want to get away from that as soon as possible and focus on my thoughts. However, if I've exhausted my activities and don't feel like doing anything anymore, I might want to watch the emotional movie.

Well this can be interpreted both ways.

Kristiina told me that if she watches an overly depressive movie, especially with an unexpectedly depressive ending, that affects her for quite some time. That is a sign of being sensitive to Fe. I think she would appreciate a positively emotional movie, though.

I would expect an ILI (or SLI) to dislike overly emotional (emotional in Fe ways, there are movies emotional in Fi ways) movies by thinking "that's ridiculous" or by cringing, just like they react to ESEs - but that reaction would be to both positive and negative Fe.

So, in your case, it depends if it's any kind of emotional movie that distracts you, or whether they are Fe or Fi.

In my own case, I am not disturbed specifically by emotional movies as such. What disturbs me in such cases is simply the noise and lights from the tv, which may be related to Si PoLR or not.

[Expat]

This is actually a good insight and valuable discovery. From my experience, it's quite right: Defining ILI in the way we both understand it here, it is true...You can only have an ILI conversation with an ILI...the kind of conversation where two people are investigating some philosophical truth together extensively, valuing the dialectic approach as useful, discussing and debating but in an atmosphere of complete respect, each person letting the other take back any argument that didn't pan out, never making each other's competence an issue...etc.

That's where I see you getting into Fe territory, or EQ territory as Megan suggested.

"each person letting the other take back any argument that didn't pan out": I have no problem with that, that's common in intellectual sparrings and brainstormings. I also say things that, if pointed out to me, I will have to say that they were wrong.

The problem I have had in some discussions is not when people take back their arguments - it's when they refuse to acknowledge they made those arguments in the first place, even if I am quoting them back to them word-by-word, forcing me to really quote their posts. Sure I may be using them out of context, but that can be explained, it's not the same thing as not even seeing where I'm coming from.

"never making each other's competence an issue...etc.": if you are discussing indeed about "philosophical" subjects, or about the beauty of some pieces of music, that's possible. It's not possible in discussions on Socionics types, especially if two individuals have very strong conflicting views on the same point. Then, even if it's not openly stated, of course they are questioning each other's competence. How could they not?

Unless you mean "not questioning each other's competence openly", which becomes a Fi or Fe issue, depending on the situation and people involved.

[Jonathan]

"never making each other's competence an issue...etc.": if you are discussing indeed about "philosophical" subjects, or about the beauty of some pieces of music, that's possible. It's not possible in discussions on Socionics types, especially if two individuals have very strong conflicting views on the same point. Then, even if it's not openly stated, of course they are questioning each other's competence. How could they not?

Unless you mean "not questioning each other's competence openly", which becomes a Fi or Fe issue, depending on the situation and people involved.

You're right that sometimes in Socionics, making reference to the person him/herself may be relevant in a conversation. However, in my view, ILIs or even Ni types in general (maybe Ips in general) often talk "abstractly" and make less reference to the individual (i.e., they talk about things "in general" or as if in the 3rd person). I think Ejs make more reference to the individual (both good and bad) even in conversations that have nothing to do with Socionics. I don't see this as a T/F thing, since I'm not talking about witholding something so as not to hurt someone's feelings. I think it has more to do with the person's relation to object/subject.

[Jonathan]

That person, I think, gets -- exasperated sometimes at my not being able, or willing, to make or follow "intuitive leaps", not seeing or refusing to see what is obvious to the IEI - or, conversely, at my preference, or need, to explain the "obvious" in information-loaded Te fashion. This may also be another reason why some people at Socionix love(d) to say I am LSE. The same people seem even proud of their unwillingness, or inability, to explain factually how they reached their "Ni" conclusions.

Yes, I was going to mention something like that. I believe a potential disconnect between Ni types or (or subtypes) and Ej types is precisely that the Ni thinks the Ej should make an intuitive leap, whereas the Ej may think the Ni is jumping to conclusions. I believe some disconnects that have occurred, such as between you and Phaedrus, are related to this difference.

I suspect it's that rather than simply a T/F issue, because I know someone who is most likely EIE and often had problems with my tendency to "jump to conclusions." I know that's just one data point...but it makes sense that it could be a temperament issue. When I mentioned in an earlier post that you seemed to get quite "personally" involved, you said yourself that what I was seeing was related to Ej temperament.

I can imagine that person being defensive in a certain way...but there's the key...it's the way in which that person is defensive. In my image, that person has an attitude of "how dare you challenge my cherished belief" and so raises his/her voice a little bit and pretty soon says "could we talk about something else?" To me, that's classic PoLR...changing the topic, feeling that the arguments are "unfair" or not important, believing that the whole approach (the whole function the person is using) shouldn't even be applied to the given situation.

I'm not sure that that is "classic" PoLR -- do we really bother to have "cherished beliefs" in the PoLR? It sounds more like a weak function but not the PoLR.

What a classic IEI would not do, though, is have an attitude of "you're totally wrong to think I'm weak in this area," or "you think I don't know that?" In that case, the annoyance wouldn't have a PoLR flavor, but could be some other function...perhaps the creative function or an id block function. Codifying the different kinds of annoyance people may have when challenged might be of value as a further approach of investigation.

That is closer to what I think about the PoLR, but I could see it happening in some circumstances, especifically in Socionics discussions.

Interesting that we would see these oppositely. In the first case, I don't mean that the person has cherished beliefs in the area of the PoLR, but that when the person's cherished beliefs are questioned by a PoLR argument, that person dismisses the relevance of even applying that function.

I don't see the second case as PoLR, because there the person is showing that he/she values the area, but is simply contesting the assertion that he/she is weak in it.

[Jonathan]

One other interesting thing to point out...

I have been on occasion called a "sensor" and even "illogical" in private by someone who I think is IEI (and whom I much like, btw), and precisely due to that. That person, I think, gets -- exasperated sometimes at my not being able, or willing, to make or follow "intuitive leaps", not seeing or refusing to see what is obvious to the IEI - or, conversely, at my preference, or need, to explain the "obvious" in information-loaded Te fashion. This may also be another reason why some people at Socionix love(d) to say I am LSE. The same people seem even proud of their unwillingness, or inability, to explain factually how they reached their "Ni" conclusions.

My reaction is usually to think that those who call me "unimaginative" or "sensor" etc are putting too much faith on their "intuition"; their conclusions may even be correct, but I still think they are going about it the wrong way. The annoyance seems to be more on their side than mine, but I may be wrong on that.

So basically, your response when someone questions your Ni>Si is that you think that they're wrong and you explain it by mentioning something about them that would explain why they see things the wrong way.

I'm sure you won't agree, but I do see, potentially, a parallel when you challenge the Fe>Te in some of the "ILI or not ILI candidates here," in that some of the responses have been to suggest that you're not seeing things properly because you're LIE and don't understand the perspective of Ips and so on...

[Creepy-bg]

Expat isn't nearly as pigheaded about it though (depending on just which ILIs we're talking about here) even in his own statement he qualified it as possibly being wrong. I don't see that coming from ahhem... one particular supposed ILI who seems incapable of making that statement.

[Expat]

So basically, your response when someone questions your Ni>Si is that you think that they're wrong and you explain it by mentioning something about them that would explain why they see things the wrong way.

Not really. I would like to see a well-made case that I am Si>Ni. But it has to be better than say "sometimes I think you're a sensor". Let's go deep into the definitions of what is Si, Ni, and where I'd show Si>Ni.

I'm sure you won't agree, but I do see, potentially, a parallel when you challenge the Fe>Te in some of the "ILI or not ILI candidates here," in that some of the responses have been to suggest that you're not seeing things properly because you're LIE and don't understand the perspective of Ips and so on...

A parallel can be made if you insist. However, in the specific case of XoX, I would really like to see a careful, functional analysis that would make a case for his being Fi>Fe and Te>Fe, rather than to say that "I don't understand him" or "that is consistent with so-and-so descriptions" etc.

If I am "not seeing things properly", surely this can be explained. To say " you can't understand me because you lack Ni" is not enough.

Perhaps I have stepped into that region when I say that some people's take on logic seems flawed to me, although I do try to explain how I see it.

EDIT: thanks Bionicgoat.

[Megan]

A parallel can be made if you insist. However, in the specific case of XoX, I would really like to see a careful, functional analysis that would make a case for his being Fi>Fe and Te>Fe, rather than to say that "I don't understand him" or "that is consistent with so-and-so descriptions" etc.

I do not think that functional analysis is necessarily a good way to make a case for a person's type even though as a dominant person you would prefer to deal with the information regarding the matter at that level. It has been seen over and over again where even the "experts" of socionics disagree with what exactly is being expressed/seen function wise in a person's behavior, values, way of communication etc. I think that if a person is so inclined they can come up with a very good functional analysis of why you are an ESFj ( possibly with an overactive role function :wink: rather than an ENTj). It seems that trying to proof a person type using functional analysis though having an air of objectivity about it, often ends up being just as unclear and subjective as saying "I think Xox is an ENFp because he just appears that way to me and my intuition". It seems that you are trying very hard Expat to apply objectivity and "facts" to an area that short of some blood test being discovered to determine type cannot actually really be objective. It is not that some people here do not like or value objective facts it is just that they realize that there are no real objective facts and universally accepted definitions in the this area.

Until the blood test is developed by the great scientists of Russia , I think we are better off considering a variety of methods and input to come closer to determining a person's type rather than just relying on "functional analysis" and other pseudo based approaches as evidence of a person's type.
The functions, how they interplay with each other and their real life manifestation in a person seems highly dependent on each socionists (or novice socionists) own understanding and opinion and is not actually fact based; typing from a functional analysis perspective actually starts from a highly subjective base in that regard. However, I guess we could do more "functional analysis" if only to appease the dominants or something .

[Jonathan]

@Megan....yeah, it is inexact. However, the purpose of typing is two-fold: It's to type the person, and it's also to perfect the understanding of the functions. So maybe if people try the functional approach enough, the functional model becomes perfected to the point where it is accurate. Obviously a complex analytic approach with bad assumptions is no better than an intuitive guess.

I think Expat's ideas with this whole IEI thing are interesting, and at least partly correct. The problem I have with it, though, is that if we took the assumption of the various candidates being ILI/Ni-subtype, then we should expect weaker Te preference than in an LIE anyway, in part because of the Ni subtype. And if Expat is right about a Te weakness, it still doesn't tell us how a confirmed Beta NF feels about whether there's Fe strength.

For example, if Sned, Kristiina, etc., say "Yes, that person has strong Fe," and Expat says "and he has weak Te," then that's pretty clear evidence. But if Expat says "weak Te" and Sned or others imply "and weak Fe too," then where are? All we have is Ni people (assuming that part's correct) with a somewhat complex relationship between Te and Fe.

[Creepy-bg]

the person's just all round weak?

[Megan]

the person's just all round weak?

[Jonathan]

the person's just all round weak?

LOL, could be.
...although I think a person may have weak preferences without having weak competence. Anyhow, bridging between two usually conflicting functions may also be a talent.

[Megan]

So maybe if people try the functional approach enough, the functional model becomes perfected to the point where it is accurate.

I am not sure how you arrived at this.

For example, if Sned, Kristiina, etc., say "Yes, that person has strong Fe," and Expat says "and he has weak Te," then that's pretty clear evidence. But if Expat says "weak Te" and Sned or others imply "and weak Fe too," then where are? All we have is Ni people (assuming that part's correct) with a somewhat complex relationship between Te and Fe.

You are basing your arguments on the assumption that Sned, Kristina etc are types and that Expat is a type. Now I will not challenge that assumption at present because those are most likely their types. Be aware though that the types of these people are not uncontroversial and irrefutable and using them or others as a yardstick to measure/determine other people's type is a particularly sound method. You cannot make Expat a meter to measure the presence/quantity of ness or Kristina a meter to measure the presence/quantity of ness in other words. You must also see the general weakness in assuming that because an individual who is a XXXx type (or claims to be in any case)does not subjectively see another individual as having the same strong functions as themselves and therefore not of XXXx type that it is necessarily true.

I hope you get what I am saying...I have not slept in a very long time.

[Jonathan]

So maybe if people try the functional approach enough, the functional model becomes perfected to the point where it is accurate.

I am not sure how you arrived at this.

It's just a general thing about the development of structured, scientific approaches. You're suggesting the impatience of someone who sees things intuitively with those who construct complicated castles of technical numbo jumbo to come up with the answers. At first, intuition always wins the battle, as the rational side of things is stuck trying to prove things bit by bit. However, over the course of history, science and technology are able to catch up, though only if led by sound intuitions.

You are basing your arguments on the assumption that Sned, Kristina etc are types and that Expat is a type. Now I will not challenge that assumption at present because those are most likely their types. Be aware though that the types of these people are not uncontroversial and irrefutable and using them or others as a yardstick to measure/determine other people's type is a particularly sound method. You cannot make Expat a meter to measure the presence/quantity of ness or Kristina a meter to measure the presence/quantity of ness in other words. You must also see the general weakness in assuming that because an individual who is a XXXx type (or claims to be in any case)does not subjectively see another individual as having the same strong functions as themselves and therefore not of XXXx type that it is necessarily true.

I hope you get what I am saying...I have not slept in a very long time.

Well Expat certainly thinks he's a yardstick. I basically agree with you: It all dissolves into thin air if you analyze the what-ifs enough. What if we're all crazy, for example? But as for my posts, you can probably read them better if you put the words "suppose..." or "I'm hypothesizing that..." before almost everything I say. I think that's the main cause of those times when Expat doesn't see eye-to-eye with me actually...I just always assume that the "I'm hypothesizing that..." or "supposing..." is there that I don't say it explicitly in every sentence. But if you were to add it in, you'd have a better sense of how I really think.

[Expat]

Well Expat certainly thinks he's a yardstick.

That's not correct. I think that my evaluations of other people's use of functions are objectively correct (in as far as anything regarding functions is objective) and they should be independent of the observer's type. However, if you ask me why I see it and others don't, one possibility is my use of functions, assuming my type is correct. Another possibility is of course that my evaluations are wrong. It's a very different thing from using myself as "yardstick". And please note that I've never used poster's supposed relationships with me to type them, as some other people here are so fond of doing.