What was my premise, and how was it being challenged? I purposely made the example not about me, and the specifics of my opinion in the example are irrelevant. The ESTj thing was just a generic example of challenging that those qualities are ISTj qualities.
Your premise was that those traits were attributable to ESTjs and not ISTjs. When the IXFp is using those traits to prove that this person is ISTj, s/he is implicitly challenging that premise (i.e., s/he is essentially saying "qualities XYZ are ISTj traits - not eSTj traits"). When your response isOriginally Posted by Joy
me: Perhaps that person is ISTj.
IxFp: He's nothing like the ISTjs I know. The ISTjs I know are *insert qualities here* and aren't *insert other qualities here*
me: Actually, that sounds more like a description of ESTjs [to me].
IxFp: No, this person is ISTj. He's just like another ISTj I know.
me:...and how do you know that the other person is ISTj?
IxFp: He's *insert the aforementioned qualities here* and isn't *insert the other aforementioned qualities here*.
me:
And, obviously, the REASON this sort of dialogue is frustrating (and the reason you presumably took notice of this phenomenon to actually make a post on it and attribute it to a Te-PoLR), is because both parties are going around in circles.
yes but INFps in particular see everything as subjective so everything Joy says has to do with her. Every word that comes out of her mouth, every word that Joy types, has to do with Joy. They are her means of communication. Because you're an ENTj you won't accept this, the same way as an INFp will not accept your response, but if you are an ENTj communicating with an INFp then you should know this or you'll end up debating semantics and get nowhere in the conversation.No, I agree with Joy. Regardless of who is right about it being ISTj or ESTj, the point is that the "IxFp" is caught in a logical loop. If you replace the phrase "that sounds more like an ESTj" with "are you sure ISTjs are like that?" the point is still made and it has nothing to do about "Joy" in that dialogue being right or wrong about ESTjs or ISTjs.Actually I think it's quite relevant. Bothand
people (assuming that they are intelligent) will not accept something if it's wrong lol.
The purpose of saying "he doesn't remind *me* of ISTjs" is to establish an opinion. So for example, if you don't agree with me on what an ISTj is then having any kind of conversation is going to get us nowhere. It doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, it means I believe I'm confident enough in my belief that I am right on this to make it known to you. That being said, if we are friends, and you know you are right, I expect you to challenge my belief and enlighten me. The point is to clearly establish commonalities in what we are talking about so that we can avoid future misunderstandings. The more entrenched my belief is, the more more convincing you will have to do. Also my belief, if it's well held, will rarely change in one conversation/debate. Often, for example, I'll end a debate with a friend whilst still holding on to my viewpoint. Afterwards when I'm alone, if my friend's debate was well-established enough to challenge my belief, I will think it over, do some research to make sure their opinion corresponds with outside information, and only then will I internally accept that I was wrong and change mine.
I think sometimes I annoy people by debating with them, directly or passively, but the purpose of this behaviour is to acquire information. If I appear overconfident in my beliefs it does not mean I am overconfident in my beliefs, it's rather a tactic employed to scare you off if you're a charlatan.
In regards to Te as my PoLR, I have noticed that I've often suffered frustration when I had an ENTj professor. I felt like they were just talking on and on, spurting out facts like it was no one's business just to hear the sound of their own voice. Their teaching style (in history) would focus on one small period and then would methodically detail every name after name, date after date. I found it frustrating because in regards to history I've always been more focused on the themes, the patterns. It doesn't matter to me what the assassin's name was or the exact hour that he killed the king unless his name or the hour have some sort of symbolic significance. I need to know the significance on a grander scale, in the case of the assassin, for example, I'd want to know if history repeated itself somewhere else, i.e. if there were multiple assassinations after that, if the kings were falling into the same trap over and over due to a problem they were not foreseeing... From my classes I prefer that the teacher take it as given that students are capable of using wickipedia to get the specific names, dates etc. From a Te-standpoint I can see how I'm "missing the point". While to a degree it has to do with Ti, in the case of my history prof situation it's visible that I was compensating by resorting to my strength - Ni. I found that she was over-glorifying Te, even making us do Te-based assignments, which she claimed were an essential skill to an historian.... which i found to be a false claim because, in my experience, only Te history profs espouse it as essential, in history i on the contrary aspired towards the style of William Crosby in his book "Ecological Imperialism" or Robert Wright in "A Short History of Progress", and thus resented being academically penalized.
I think such misunderstandings are quite common in ENTj-INFp interaction, both sides frustrated with the other because the other "doesn't see the point", and usually both sides get so caught up arguing their own point that the misunderstanding is perpetuated. Thankfully there's this nifty system known as "Socionics", it deals with information exchange and predicts this so that it may be avoided, lol
INFp-Ni
MyYour premise was that those traits were attributable to ESTjs and not ISTjs. When the IXFp is using those traits to prove that this person is ISTj, s/he is implicitly challenging that premise (i.e., s/he is essentially saying "qualities XYZ are ISTj traits - not eSTj traits"). When your response isme: Perhaps that person is ISTj.
IxFp: He's nothing like the ISTjs I know. The ISTjs I know are *insert qualities here* and aren't *insert other qualities here*
me: Actually, that sounds more like a description of ESTjs [to me].
IxFp: No, this person is ISTj. He's just like another ISTj I know.
me:
IxFp: He's *insert the aforementioned qualities here* and isn't *insert the other aforementioned qualities here*.
me:
Okay... and how is this different from: "the reason that Joy thought those were ESTj traits was because those are traits she has attributed to ESTjs for whatever reason"?My
But you still have not conceded that there is a possibility that those traits ARE indeed ISTj traits. (The IXFp likewise here has not conceded with the possibility that they may be ESTj traits.)The second
I fail to see how either party here is any more guilty of not listening to the other?
Exactly... and it is a particularly frustrating one because no matter how many times you ask, they keep returning to that premise. You'll talk about related things in an attempt to understand and think that what they're saying isn't leading back to that point again... but it is.
Seriously?
The thought never crossed my mind. Some of the issues INFps have had with me are beginning to make more sense.
No. It only happens with you, Joy..
At the risk of sounding pompous, both are Ti.
Yes!Te: If the facts (
Ti: If the structure of the system (
As for all this circular reasoning stuff: wtf are you guys talking about?
It's not about listening. At all.Okay... and how is this different from: "the reason that Joy thought those were ESTj traits was because those are traits she has attributed to ESTjs for whatever reason"?My
But you still have not conceded that there is a possibility that those traits ARE indeed ISTj traits. (The IXFp likewise here has not conceded with the possibility that they may be ESTj traits.)The second
I fail to see how either party here is any more guilty of not listening to the other?
In actual conversation, I would go into why I thought the traits were ESTj > ISTj. I didn't in the example because there was no need to. And the people the IxFp is talking about could very well be ISTjs. That is also irrelevant to the example.
You don't respond to me the same way other Beta NFs do. I think you understand my tone better than they do because we've had a lot of one on one conversation.No. It only happens with you, Joy.
You don't respond to me the same way other Beta NFs do. I think you understand my tone better than they do because we've had a lot of one on one conversation.No. It only happens with you, Joy.you must have edited sometimes before I hit the quote button
What misutii said makes sense in terms of information elements though.
Okay... this is another one of those occasions where I think I know what you're trying to say... but you haven't quite said it. At all. lol.
Okay in that case:
I don't think I do this, and this isn't something I've seen just IXFps do (in fact, it's not something I've seen all that many intelligent people do; usually there will at least be some level of awareness that they keep returning to the same premise over and over again, without considering the source of that premise).
I think they are aware of it, and that's why they get frustrated. And this may not be related specifically to weak Te.
If they're really aware of it, what's to stop them from remedying it?
I wish I knew! Probably a long, in depth conversation about it with a Ti type.
That or some time alone during a long walk with their own
None of you - Baby, Kim, Logos - seem to have actually read what my argument was.
What I said was:
So we have:
So all of "Joy's" reference to ESTjs are removed, and the IxFp is still in a loop. That is precisely what I meant and said.me: Perhaps that person is ISTj.
IxFp: He's nothing like the ISTjs I know. The ISTjs I know are *insert qualities here* and aren't *insert other qualities here*
me: Are you sure ISTjs are like what you just described? How do you know?.
IxFp: No, this person is ISTj. He's just like another ISTj I know.
me:
IxFp: He's *insert the aforementioned qualities here* and isn't *insert the other aforementioned qualities here*.
me:
But then Kim, ignoring this, goes on to say:
Kim just leaves the ESTj references to make the point that Joy is in a circular loop, which just shows that she did not read or understand at all what I meant in my argument (sorry Kim), but perhaps I should have written it explicitly.
Diana did see the point (not necessarily based on what I wrote):
But Baby STILL goes back to the bloody ESTj reference:
Fortunately, referring to what Diana wrote, the point seemed to be finally understood.
Yet, again, what I said should have been crystal clear:
So we have:
Which is exactly the point Diana made and that Baby then understood.me: Perhaps that person is ISTj.
IxFp: He's nothing like the ISTjs I know. The ISTjs I know are *insert qualities here* and aren't *insert other qualities here*
me: Are you sure ISTjs are like what you just described? How do you know?.
IxFp: No, this person is ISTj. He's just like another ISTj I know.
me:
IxFp: He's *insert the aforementioned qualities here* and isn't *insert the other aforementioned qualities here*.
me:
My whole point is -- the mere word "ESTj", that Joy unnecessarily included in her argument, derailed the whole discussion. Rather than try to understand what the point actually was, most people seemed to want to prove that she was wrong.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Ok. So back to the topic. What exactly is Te PoLR?
That example that Joy and Topaz gave are very familiar to me. Exactly what I've experienced with this INFp friend of mine.
He makes a claim, and I'll ask him to give some examples, or to elaborate what he's trying to say. That's where some miscommunication start.
So, are we that sure that ExFps are not like that? Are those examples of Te PoLR?
INTp
sx/sp
That's not really a PoLR, per se. It just shows a difference in quadra values. I'm sure he sometimes wishes you would be more consistent in your beliefs.
Err.. That's not what I'm trying to ask.That's not really a PoLR, per se. It just shows a difference in quadra values. I'm sure he sometimes wishes you would be more consistent in your beliefs.
I'm asking, what Joy stated in the first post, and the example she gave. If they are good examples of a Te PoLR
INTp
sx/sp
I have no time to sift through muddy water in search of arguments.
Yes, the IxFp is in a loop. Baby, Kim and I acknowledged that even prior, but we have also acknowledged that Joy is also in a logical loop of her own due to this miscommunication of these logical reasonings. The IxFp is not addressing Joy's logic, and she is not addressing the IxFp's logic; they are merely bypassing each other.So all of "Joy's" reference to ESTjs are removed, and the IxFp is still in a loop. That is precisely what I meant and said.
The structural integrity of the original argument was dependent upon the perceived potentially contradictory nature within argument presented as attributed to superfluous additions. In other words, we were trying to understand the point, but the inclusion of the ESTj changed or altered the perception of the point. You can try and accuse us of not trying "to understand what the point was," but Joy's argument as written was not without logical problems (My whole point is -- the mere word "ESTj", that Joy unnecessarily included in her argument, derailed the whole discussion. Rather than try to understand what the point actually was, most people seemed to want to prove that she was wrong.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I hate to say it, but I did get your point and was making the counter-point that just as you arbitrarily change that part, it can be altered in a different way. You put words into Joy's mouth that weren't there. She did not question the method of typing IN the conversation, she only questioned the typing itself and did not ask for Te-validation. So in order to make my point, I presented you with another example of filling in the gaps that shows how they go around in circles because Joy fails (!) to take the Te-route that you for some reason inserted into this conversation. And Logos and Baby filled in the gaps the way I did. There is no Te in that conversation and your interpretation of the remarks is a bit of a stretch, if you ask me.None of you - Baby, Kim, Logos - seem to have actually read what my argument was.
What I said was:
So we have:
So all of "Joy's" reference to ESTjs are removed, and the IxFp is still in a loop. That is precisely what I meant and said.me: Perhaps that person is ISTj.
IxFp: He's nothing like the ISTjs I know. The ISTjs I know are *insert qualities here* and aren't *insert other qualities here*
me: Are you sure ISTjs are like what you just described? How do you know?.
IxFp: No, this person is ISTj. He's just like another ISTj I know.
me:
IxFp: He's *insert the aforementioned qualities here* and isn't *insert the other aforementioned qualities here*.
me:
But then Kim, ignoring this, goes on to say:
Kim just leaves the ESTj references to make the point that Joy is in a circular loop, which just shows that she did not read or understand at all what I meant in my argument (sorry Kim
Tsk tsk, this shows that you did not read or understand at all what I meant in my argument (sorry Expat
Now the reason why you would fill the gaps with Te and we don't is perhaps the interesting point and suggests that perception is a powerful thing. But at best this conversation was just a very misleading and useless example.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Fair enough, again, Joy (if I indeed understand what she was trying to say) should not have mentioned ESTj imo.The structural integrity of the original argument was dependent upon the perceived potentially contradictory nature within argument presented as attributed to superfluous additions. In other words, we were trying to understand the point, but the inclusion of the ESTj changed or altered the perception of the point. You can try and accuse us of not trying "to understand what the point was," but Joy's argument as written was not without logical problems (
It won't be the first --
Well perhaps, but I didn't think that my changes were arbitrary at all, I think that what she meant is what Diana pointed out, that in that exchange Joy's point was about the "IxFp" not explaining where his/her criteria for "ISTj" came from originally, and the "ESTj" remark was a way of illustrating that. I don't see it as a stretch, to me it was clear, but that in itself is also significant, of course.
First, a PoLR is not an inability, it's a low priority.
In the case of Te PoLR, I'd say that it's, among other things, a mistrust of outside factual sources of information, if they contradict your intuitive vision (IEI) or personal experiences (SEI).
A typical Te PoLR argument: "you shouldn't believe everything you read".
Now, of course you shouldn't believe everything you read
Another one, with regard to history books, is : "history is written by the winners anyway" which is used when a particular historical report contradicts the Ti concept the IXFp has adopted.
Or "there is no point in watching [insert a tv network here], their news are all biased, I already know what their point of view is, I won't watch that trash".
Te PoLR is visible when the person thinks that you're wasting your time/being silly by relying too much on "unimportant" or "probably unreliable" or "irrelevant" facts, especially if you got them from external sources.
Yes, that is what I meant. I could see it, but not necessarily. It could just as well be meant the other way (or even more likely if you ask me). Fair enough, Identicals think alike, eh?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Oh, I understood you, all right. But I ignored you.What I said was:
So we have:
me: Perhaps that person is ISTj.
IxFp: He's nothing like the ISTjs I know. The ISTjs I know are *insert qualities here* and aren't *insert other qualities here*
me: Are you sure ISTjs are like what you just described? How do you know?.
IxFp: No, this person is ISTj. He's just like another ISTj I know.
me:
IxFp: He's *insert the aforementioned qualities here* and isn't *insert the other aforementioned qualities here*.
me:
I did not intend to prove that Joy was "wrong" but that she wasn't seeing the entirety of the picture as she had portrayed it - not as you or even Diana had interpreted it. I conceded once I saw Joy allowed Diana's words to speak for her.
Funny, to me (and apparently to Diana) it was obvious that that was what Joy meant.Oh, I understood you, all right. But I ignored you.
I did not intend to prove that Joy was "wrong" but that she wasn't seeing the entirety of the picture as she had portrayed it - not as you or even Diana had interpreted it. I conceded once I saw Joy allowed Diana's words to speak for her.
EDIT: this is meant only to say that it was obvious to me -- not that I'm smarter or anything like that.
Who'da thunk it. Then perhaps Joy had something going for her after all when she said:
I'm sorry if I'm dense, but how things are said is important to me, and integral to my understanding of what is being said. Obviously this has Socionics implications and Logos/misutii/you yourself have fleshed that out already.
:wink: That was an honestly humorous little disclaimer you included.Funny, to me (and apparently to Diana) it was obvious that that was what Joy meant.Oh, I understood you, all right. But I ignored you.
I did not intend to prove that Joy was "wrong" but that she wasn't seeing the entirety of the picture as she had portrayed it - not as you or even Diana had interpreted it. I conceded once I saw Joy allowed Diana's words to speak for her.
EDIT: this is meant only to say that it was obvious to me -- not that I'm smarter or anything like that.
But it is understandable in many ways, especially in the context of the
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Getting back to this -- from the point of view of Te, the "IxFp" is in a logical loop because there is no apparent external origin of the ISTj as a concept; the "IxFp" has an internally consistent view of what makes a person an ISTj, but seems to validate that concept only by internal cross-reference ("other ISTjs I know"), which is to mean: I have an internally consistent conception of what ISTjs are like. So the internal consistency seems to be the validation of that concept.
The flaw from the point of view of Te is that if you don't check that concept with external sources of information, you will not know whether your concept of what an ISTj is coincides with that of other people, so, for instance, what you have decided to call an "ISTj" might actually coincide with what others call an "ESTj".
So, again, from your point of view -- is that an accurate description of how you see the "IxFp"s logic?
Yes. The other issue which I realized while looking at Joy's original post was that she herself never submits her own criteria for why she may even suspect the original person of being an ISTj (not that she had too necessarily in a hypothetical conversation). She says her assertion of a person's type, then the IxFp takes it from there and Joy merely questions the IxFps proof. But it may be possible for the loop to be negated if Joy were to have explained why she thought that the person in question was an ISTj. Then she too could make her own set of internal cross-references which would allow here to be better on page with the IxFp.Getting back to this -- from the point of view of Te, the "IxFp" is in a logical loop because there is no apparent external origin of the ISTj as a concept; the "IxFp" has an internally consistent view of what makes a person an ISTj, but seems to validate that concept only by internal cross-reference ("other ISTjs I know"), which is to mean: I have an internally consistent conception of what ISTjs are like. So the internal consistency seems to be the validation of that concept.
The flaw from the point of view of Te is that if you don't check that concept with external sources of information, you will not know whether your concept of what an ISTj is coincides with that of other people, so, for instance, what you have decided to call an "ISTj" might actually coincide with what others call an "ESTj".
So, again, from your point of view -- is that an accurate description of how you see the "IxFp"s logic?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
But if you rely on own internal cross-references, the most that you can reach is something like, "I understand what you call an ISTj, but this is different from what I call an ISTj" and, at best, agree to disagree. It allows for understanding where the other is coming from, but not to reach an agreement or mutual correction.
True enough, but I still see them ending the discussion with a greater understanding of each other than otherwise.But if you rely on own internal cross-references, the most that you can reach is something like, "I understand what you call an ISTj, but this is different from what I call an ISTj" and, at best, agree to disagree. It allows for understanding where the other is coming from, but not to reach an agreement or mutual correction.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Wow... this thread is an example of it's point.
And yes, Expat and Diana both perfectly understood what I posted, but it seems they were the only ones. Or at least the only ones who posted. Perhaps thehotelamush too, but I dunno. And yes, Expat can speak for me (or put words in my mouth, as someone else described it) at times. This is because when he has done so, he's been correct every time. I know I've spoken for him at time as well, which is something that I generally don't do (speak for others), but felt it was okay because I knew I was correct.
Anyways... it is beyond me why anyone would purposely choose to ignore the point.
We didn't ignore it, we pointed out that it was ambiguous and therefore not a good example.
Anyways... it is beyond me why anyone would purposely choose to ignore the point.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
How so?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Okay, maybe it's more than just the point of this thread. But it is example after example of weak Te.
This thread seems too far gone. I understand that a few people got hung up on my choice of words in the example. It seems there's really nothing more to discuss. That is, unless people enjoy repeating themselves.
If it is an example of weak Te, then that is to be found in your example of Te ego-block conversing with an IxFp because there is no obvious Te on your part. People who pointed this out UNDERSTOOD what you were trying to say, but pointed out that the Te is not APPARENT enough for the example to work. Don't hide behind your supposed strong Te. Had you phrased that one line like Expat did, fine. But you didn't and you did not realize that without it, Te was only implied. At best. But it could have just as well been absent.
At least make an effort of following people's reasoning instead of shrugging, telling people that they cannot follow a Te example where there is none, and quit once again when you don't have anything to offer anymore. It's so annoying.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
I didn't say that I have Te in my ego block or that the example is one of a Te type conversing with an IxFp. The thread is about IxFps, not me. Any type could observe something like that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote