I can not understand this

[Expat]

I was baffled by your blindness to the fact that you might be wrong in your interpretation of XoX's preferences, and I still am. It is your method that I am criticizing, especially your faith in it, the fact that you think that your interpretations are infallible -- not your understanding of the criteria for Fe/Fi.

Nonsense -- any reading of how the discussion proceeded then shows that that wasn't the case.

Are you completely disturbed, Expat!? Your comments are insulting. How the hell do you know if I have used functional analyses or quadra values in my typings or not? I don't post everything I ever think of on the Internet -- do you? I have said over and over again that everything fits my typings. If it doesn't I don't have a strong opinion about it. Whenever I have a strong opinion about someone's type, you can be sure that I can see him or her fit both the functions and the quadras.

My "never" obviously refers to what I can see here, and it's clear that functional analysis and quadra values have a very low priority for you.

Nonsense. Do I have to mention every aspect every time I say something about someone's type? EVERYTHING MUST FIT.

Fine -- let's then discuss at some point how XoX's functional preferences "fit" a typing as INTp for him, shall we?

But you have never built up your case for someone's type on quadra values or functional preferences. So it's a fair assumption that you don't think they are very important or feel confident about using them.

Such a ridiculous assumption. I had never thought that you were thinking along those lines when it comes to my understanding of Socionics.

Well, it's a fair assumption based on how you make your cases for typing people - yourself and others.

You usually concentrate on type descriptions - all you can think of - test results, some references to some of your favorite philosophers, then comparisons to yourself if you think said person could be INTp, sometimes temperaments, your understanding of the objectivist/subjectivist divide, and more recently references to Smilexian Socionics. That seems to cover about 90% of what you say about anyone's type.

[Expat]

Isha's idiotic comment here is just another example of people insulting me and their own level of intelligence.

Why are so many people keen on insulting you, in your opinion?

[Phaedrus]

I was baffled by your blindness to the fact that you might be wrong in your interpretation of XoX's preferences, and I still am. It is your method that I am criticizing, especially your faith in it, the fact that you think that your interpretations are infallible -- not your understanding of the criteria for Fe/Fi.

Nonsense -- any reading of how the discussion proceeded then shows that that wasn't the case.

Good that that has become clear at last. This is probably the main source of misunderstanding between us when it comes to that discussion. You are interpreting what I intended to express in that thread in clearly the wrong way, or I didn't manage to express myself in a way that you would understand the way I intended. What I say in the quote above definitely was, and still is, one of my most central points.

My "never" obviously refers to what I can see here, and it's clear that functional analysis and quadra values have a very low priority for you.

Yes, it has a lower priority as a typing method. I don't think that that method is reliable enough, at least not in itself. But all the functional analyses and quadra values must, ultimately, make sense. They must fit whatever other typing result you get by using other methods. What I find irritating is that you seem to dismiss other methods too easily, if their results seem to contradict the function analyses or quadra values, which is a clear mistake in my opinion. And, as I have now said many times, the main reason why I think so is because I question the infallible reliability of function analyses and quadra values as a typing method.

Nonsense. Do I have to mention every aspect every time I say something about someone's type? EVERYTHING MUST FIT.

Fine -- let's then discuss at some point how XoX's functional preferences "fit" a typing as INTp for him, shall we?

What we have is what looks like an anomaly. Your functional analysis is inconsistent with other pieces in the typing puzzle, so either your analysis is incorrect or those other pieces of information are false for some yet unknown reasons. But until we can explain those other pieces in a way that is consistent with the function analysis, we cannot say that XoX cannot be an INTp. Such a conclusion is not warranted.

But you have never built up your case for someone's type on quadra values or functional preferences. So it's a fair assumption that you don't think they are very important or feel confident about using them.

Such a ridiculous assumption. I had never thought that you were thinking along those lines when it comes to my understanding of Socionics.

Well, it's a fair assumption based on how you make your cases for typing people - yourself and others.

So, just because something is not mentioned you assume that it does not exist? I don't act like that myself. Unless I know that a person does or does not think a certain way, I don't assume anything.

You usually concentrate on type descriptions - all you can think of - test results, some references to some of your favorite philosophers, then comparisons to yourself if you think said person could be INTp, sometimes temperaments, your understanding of the objectivist/subjectivist divide, and more recently references to Smilexian Socionics. That seems to cover about 90% of what you say about anyone's type.

Maybe, but that does not mean that I dismiss functional analyses as unimportant. They clearly must fit all the other types of evidence. And so should quadra values, even though I am perhaps most skeptical of those as a guideline, since they are so easily misused and misinterpreted. But if taken all together, my preferred typing "methods" you list above are more reliable than just a functional analysis.

[Phaedrus]

Isha's idiotic comment here is just another example of people insulting me and their own level of intelligence.

Why are so many people keen on insulting you, in your opinion?

That is not my area of competence. I am weak in both and , and I honestly don't know, except that it is a rather common phenomenon if we study group behaviours on a general level in a biological and game theoretical perspective.

[Expat]

But you have never built up your case for someone's type on quadra values or functional preferences. So it's a fair assumption that you don't think they are very important or feel confident about using them.

Such a ridiculous assumption. I had never thought that you were thinking along those lines when it comes to my understanding of Socionics.

Well, it's a fair assumption based on how you make your cases for typing people - yourself and others.

So, just because something is not mentioned you assume that it does not exist? I don't act like that myself. Unless I know that a person does or does not think a certain way, I don't assume anything.

Then you don't know how to select data. If, in the context of Socionics discussions, you never get deep into quadras and functional analysis for typing, it's a more than fair assumption to say that you give lower priority to those - much lower - than those other areas I listed.

@Hector: apologies for the thread hijack Don't let that discourage you from continuing to ask about your type, please.

[Phaedrus]

You are a judging type, and your preference for selecting data early in the information process is a reflection of that. Of course you know that the information process of an INTp is different. I take in more data without evaluating it immediately as you do. But such a natural difference between rational and irrational types is rather irrelevant here. What is relevant is the end result we may come up with, and if we are able to evaluate that result objectively. In that respect I can see no reason to believe that the method of an INTp is inferior to that of an ENTj.

[Hector]

Here are some traits about IP that I think I have.

IP, Introverted rational (perception-adapting temperament)
Energy exchange. Energy level is very unstable. They react to discomfort very strongly, which is why they use their energy to avoid unacceptable conditions or to create comfort. On their rare moments of activity, they become similar to the representatives of the EP temperament, but on their moments of inactivity, they seem similar to the representatives of the IJ temperament. They tend to hide from the world and cope with their personal resources, which are bigger than they might seem to others. They are not able to constantly manage with energy exchange rhythm. Their working capacity is smaller than it is for the other temperaments.

This is somewhat like me, in fact it is probably more like me than I want to admit. The last line about smaller working capacity bothers me because I do not like the idea of being deficient in any way, yet I do tire easily when working on what I consider to be frivolous tasks. I do not know what exactly is meant about the 'personal resources bit' so maybe that is true maybe not for me.

They only work effectively when they are perceiving the need for it or when there are important circumstances which they can’t ignore. There is no point in pushing those people, because they will seemingly agree with the aggressor, but will find ways to evade their duties. They either can’t or won’t overwork and they don’t share other people’s enthusiasm in principle.

This is me in a nutshell when it comes to work I do not want to do. No doubt about it, this is a great description.

Recommended sports. Gracefully rhythmic sports (swimming, riding the bicycle) or sprinting (short distance), jumping, etc.

I don't know if I am graceful. I feel as though I may be, but I don't think I am in a position to say.

Emotions and behavior. Highly sensitive to the emotions of others. They can’t stand unstable moods or stormy emotions, which is why they avoid conflict and they try to solve misunderstandings. They don’t try to change the situation, they adapt to it by showing extraordinary ingenuity and flexibility.

This is very true of me. Upset or sad or really angry people really bother me. I just don't like being around people when they are that way and sometimes I get like this feeling of "unreality" if that makes any sense (I could not think of a better word) when I am in situations where people are very mad or very sad/upset.

In relaxing, comfortable and safe situations they bloom, become good and social people. They try to be good towards their surroundings and act in a kind and caring way. They are pleasant and easygoing people in close relations and cold and distant towards all others. It’s necessary to treat them in a caring and attentive way to preserve their vulnerable emotionality and fragile nervous system.

Again, I would say that this is pretty true of me that I do not like admitting it, especially the last line. Those are things that I prefer to keep other people from knowing about as well as overcome myself. (It is not as difficult admitting things online though ) Anyway, I do not like admitting such things because I want to act like and really be a strong person. So I see the last line of this quote as something that is true of me but something I am trying to change.

Now here are some things from the INFp description that I thought fit me very well:

A somewhat idealistic romanticist. He is a person prone more to reflection than action. An individualist. He is little concerned with the present; he is more excited by brilliant perspectives of "bright cities, which may be built one day". His emotionality is of a high enough level, he understands very well the feelings of another and does not hide his own. But his emotionality is always somewhat restrained in order to observe the effect it produces. He expresses emotions not when another’s patience would get exhausted, but when he himself (she herself) considers it necessary. His way of handling emotions is very creative: for example, he may consider rage to be ethical, and restraint non-ethical.

This is a pretty good description of me I would say. Generally, I keep my feelings to myself but sometimes I will let others know in a more creative way just like the description says.

Easily infatuated. What makes another stand out for him is forcefulness, drive, insightfulness, naturally if this force lends itself to the influence of his emotions. He is very tolerant to people, understands them and tries to forgive their weaknesses.

That's me. That last line is very true, as I sometimes get really angry with someone but then they do something I like and I am no longer angry and things are back on track.

Tutankhamon’s smile. His line of defense in extreme conditions is his skill to demonstrate his attitude toward the situation, to reveal its comical aspects. So he has a fine sense of humor and possesses a very characteristic transparent smile, which appears at critical moments. His smile is warm, warming and exciting. However, his smile is in most cases caused by inner anxiety; the natural purpose of this smile is to raise his partner’s fighting spirit, to stir him up.

I hate to admit it but this is very true of me. However, if the situation requires it, I can stand up for myself just fine. Although the whole anxious smile thing is right on.

Elegant. He comes off as steady and upright. He practically never squints his wide-open eyes. Typically, he is not prone to lower his arch-shaped eyebrows. Elegance is an every day thing with him, not something reserved for outings and special occasions. One can seldom see him in a non-aesthetic pose, his voice intonations are also refined, and movements are plastic and even rhythmic. In the light of the aforementioned two things are amazing: he does not care much for the elegance of others (his dual, The Legionnaire, is emphatically non-demonstrative); chaos reins in his living quarters; both things and people which enter his home should find their places by themselves, or with the help of someone other then the Lyricist.

The bolded part is so true. My eyebrows are always up! I do not know about the whole elegance thing, but I am always very self-conscious of the way I look and the way I am moving. It takes a lot of effort for me to go out in public without having put myself together in some decent way. I would not say that my living space is chaotic, though it is not particularly orderly. A bit messy, but not a big sty by any means.

A struggler for the emotional naturalness of people. He feels responsibility for mood of his friends and relatives, for their vital tonus. He uses his fine sense of humor to make them laugh, shake them up. In a company he scans the attendees not in order to find out what they are wearing, but in order to remark how each is feeling: this is exactly what he needs to relate to others. In general, he dreams of bringing harmony into society. History means to him history of the arts. He strives for beauty, which may be – poetry, arts, even nice trinkets. He himself strives to be refined. He adores communication with artists, poets, bohemians, and in general with exotic people.

This is very true of me, I do want to make sure that everyone is happy. Even when I am arguing with someone about this or that, I want to make sure not to push things to far so that they get upset. I feel really bad when I push things to far by accident. History for me does not mean the history of the arts however. I like art, don't get me wrong, but there is lots of other history out there that is just as important. I do strive for beauty, as the description says, and also to be refined, however I do not like speaking with exotic people. Well, I don't know.... I like artists when I like their work, so it really depends on what sort of person they are and their artistic tastes rather than their being interested in art.

1. Feelings. Dramatic men and women live in an emotional world. They are sensation oriented, emotionally demonstrative, and physically affectionate, They react emotionally to events and can shift quickly from mood to mood.
2. Color. They experience life vividly and expansively. They have rich imaginations, they tell entertaining stories, and they are drawn to romance and melodrama.
3. Attention. Dramatic people like to be seen and noticed. They are often the center of attention, and they rise to the occasion when all eyes are on them.
4. Appearance. They pay a lot of attention to grooming, and they enjoy clothes, style, and fashion.
5. Sexual attraction. In appearance and behavior, Dramatic individuals enjoy their sexuality. They are seductive, engaging, charming tempters and temptresses.
6. Engagement. Easily putting their trust in others, they are able to become quickly involved in relationships.
7. The spirit is willing. People with Dramatic personality style eagerly respond to new ideas and suggestions from others.

1. This is true of me so long as it does not mean to say that I demonstrate these things to other people all the time. I keep that sort of stuff to myself.

2. I do have a good imagination. As a child sometimes I would be playing some sort of make believe game and be doing this and that, but then after awhile the game would go entirely into my head and I would just be sitting or lying down imagining the whole story. However, I do not know if I am a particularly interesting story teller and I don't think I like drama. Sure romance is good (but who doesn't like romance).

3. I do not know about this. I like to be noticed and appreciated (but again, who doesn't). I am often the center of attention in my group of friends, but never around people I do not know or am just a little acquainted with.

4. I guess... I almost always wear collared shirts if that means anything. I do not want to go about looking like a goof, but I don't really know anything about fashion. Just a collared shirt and khaki pants for me most of the time. Though I just remembered that I have enjoyed the times when I had to wore a tuxedo... Maybe I do like fancy clothes. But I still do not know exactly how to tie a tie.

5. I don't know about this one. It does not sound like me.

6. The first part of this is true of me, but not so much the second. I put my trust in people very fast, but it takes me awhile to really get close to someone.

7. This is true of me. I am willing to give most things a try.

This is from the typical beliefs section:

1. I am an interesting, exciting person.
2. In order to be happy I need other people to pay attention to me.
3. Unless I entertain or impress people, I am nothing.
4. If I don't keep others engaged with me, they won't like me.
5. The way to get what I want is to dazzle or amuse people.
6. If people don't respond very positively to me, they are rotten.
7. It is awful for people to ignore me.
8. I should be the center of attention.
9. I don't have to bother to think things through—I can go by my "gut" feeling.
10. If I entertain people, they will not notice my weaknesses.
11. I cannot tolerate boredom.
12. If I feel like doing something, I should go ahead and do it.
13. People will pay attention only if I act in extreme ways.
14. Feelings and intuition are much more important that rational thinking and planning.

1. I do believe this.
2. Maybe this is part of happiness for me, but not the whole thing and I do not think that I need people per se rather than maybe just a person in particular.
3. I don't believe this.
4. I do believe this.
5. Sort of. For somethings this is true, but other things that... Hm.... maybe this is more true of me than I originally thought... Often when I am imagining success it involves me having dazzled everyone with some great work (in my mind that work tends to be either a philosophical one or a literary one).
6. lol this one made me laugh, because it is very true of me.
7. Yes I do not like being ignored.
8. Sometimes. Ehh... maybe most of the time. I don't know. I like for people to pay attention to what I am up to and what I have to say, but I do not like for it to be oppressive. I like to have some secrets for just myself and also I do not want to be some sort of pompous jerk because I am always trying to get people to pay attention to me.
9. This somewhat true of me. I tend to think quite a bit about different beliefs I have that I feel are important. However, in new situations I often come to opinions quickly and then defend my view on the fly if need be.
10. Maybe... I don't know about this one.
11. This is false of me. A few times a year I have to take a six hour train ride and I usually do absolutely nothing during those six hours. I just sit there and think about things.
12. Sometimes. But there are times when I have other things to do first.
13. No this is false of me. Well... I do not think that I have act "extreme" or in "extreme" ways. Maybe in different unusual ways, but at any rate these ways are not different from how I myself am. And I never think to myself "what can I do to get people to pay attention to me, oh how about this extreme thing, that ought to do it".
14. This is not really like me. For "in the moment" situations I tend to go with my gut, however for planning future events etc. I like to plan out what I am going to be doing.

I hope this helps. I can do a similar thing with other descriptions such as ENFj and INFj if that would help. I have a lost of similarities with those descriptions too, however I am starting to think that INFp is the one. Just ask if there is anything in particular. Finally, I have heard that some people can type based on what a person looks like, so here are some pictures of me:

[Creepy-bg]

where do I get one of those fuzzy green hats?

[Jarno]

.
3. Attention. Dramatic people like to be seen and noticed. They are often the center of attention, and they rise to the occasion when all eyes are on them.

3. I do not know about this. I like to be noticed and appreciated (but again, who doesn't). I am often the center of attention in my group of friends, but never around people I do not know or am just a little acquainted with.

I think they have exaggerated point 3 a bit. They almost make it sound like an ESFP.

An INFP would indeed be more like how you described it. So no problem there.

[Phaedrus]

Of course you're not dismissing functional preferences. My mistake. You don't understand them enough to be in a position to do so.

You are proving my point. You think that you are in a position to understand the functions, the types, and Socionics in general better than I am, considering the fact that you changed your opinion on what type your are yourself only a few days ago? Your incompetence here is embarrasing.

Oh my gosh, I have the capacity to learn and refine my understanding! I can take new information into consideration! What a rare and wonderous thing. It's amazing how different we are!

This is so funny and depressing at the same time. People with your attitude here think that they are so clever and have reached such a high level of understanding when they in fact are crawling on the first steps without realizing that they have a long way to go until they finally get it. You are in a process now, Isha. A typical process where you learn more and more about yourself, your own type, and Socionics in general. You will probably finally get it, but where you are now I was a long time ago. I have already been in that stage of confusion, I have already learned much more than you have and refined my understanding many levels beyond that. I wish you good luck in the exploring process, but don't assume that you have learned it all yet.

Guess what Phaedrus -- I have nothing to gain or to lose by being (or not being) any particular type, unlike you whose self-esteem is so obviously tied to maintaining your image as an INTp (why else would you feel insulted by people questioning your type?).

This is even funnier and even more depressing. People never seem to listen, and they never seem to learn anything. Everyone assumes that my self-esteem is tied to being an INTp. No one assumes that I am just trying to telling people the truth. What I think is insulting to mankind is the fact that stupid, unintelligent people have access to power, that they think (incorrectly) that they are very intelligent, smart, and competent, and that they do their best to keep real intelligence, real knowledge, and really bright and curious people, whom they perceive as threats, down in the mud.

On Isha's type, she's been quite consistent. Her initial self-typing of INFp was due to not understanding it all well, as I think she herself would agree. Since then, she's been very consistent about being a Gamma and that hasn't changed. If you focus on - and understand - the functional preferences and intertype relationships, that's what you see first, and it makes more sense to doubt whether you are an INTp or ENTj than whether you are, say, INTp or INTj. Yes, it should be simple to know whether you are EJ or IP, but depending on one's life circumstances, it's possible to be unsure, as in steveENTj's case.

Completely accurate.

Yes, and do you think that I disagree with that? But have you learned anything from it? Have you now learned that perhaps you should not base your typing of yourself only on quadra values, functional preferences, and intertype relationships, because then you might arrive at the wrong type? If you would have spent some time reading type descriptions, something about temperaments and perhaps something about introversion/extraversion too, then you would not have made that mistake. If you would have analyzed your type from just a few more angles, a few more perspectives, you might have got it right from the beginning. I don't know if you have found your correct type now or not, but I hope you have learned not to make typings so hastily and without proper understanding of all the relevant dimensions.

[Jarno]

To be honest, I've never understood why people don't know their own type.

I can see the types of most people I meet, and I guess they know themself even a bit better.

And if you are truly informed about socionics you should be able to guess your type just by looking at all the relationships you have with people.

[eunice]

To be honest, I've never understood why people don't know their own type.

I can see the types of most people I meet, and I guess they know themself even a bit better.

And if you are truly informed about socionics you should be able to guess your type just by looking at all the relationships you have with people.

I find it easier to know others' types than my own type. When I see others, I tend to notice stereotypical traits of particular types and it makes it easier for me to assess them. As for myself, I consider too much about my individual traits and find myself fitting in IXFx in general.

[Expat]

Isha's idiotic comment here is just another example of people insulting me and their own level of intelligence.

Why are so many people keen on insulting you, in your opinion?

That is not my area of competence. I am weak in both and , and I honestly don't know, except that it is a rather common phenomenon if we study group behaviours on a general level in a biological and game theoretical perspective.

Ok, but then you say this:

Everyone assumes that my self-esteem is tied to being an INTp. No one assumes that I am just trying to telling people the truth. What I think is insulting to mankind is the fact that stupid, unintelligent people have access to power, that they think (incorrectly) that they are very intelligent, smart, and competent, and that they do their best to keep real intelligence, real knowledge, and really bright and curious people, whom they perceive as threats, down in the mud.

So -- unless I am, yet again, "misunderstanding" something, it seems to me that you do think that people are keen on insulting you (as you call it) because they do their best to keep you, a person of "real intelligence, real knowledge, and really bright and curious" down in the mud. Actually that is the context of our interchange that let to my remark that you have now in your signature.

Although you deny it when asked - since you have to say that you don't focus on Fe or Fi - actually you have a lot of confidence in attributing motivations to other people.

[Expat]

@Hector

Trying something else.

Can you describe the personality and character of the people you most like to have around you, as friends? And, conversely, what are the characteristics of people that put you off the most?

[Phaedrus]

So -- unless I am, yet again, "misunderstanding" something, it seems to me that you do think that people are keen on insulting you (as you call it) because they do their best to keep you, a person of "real intelligence, real knowledge, and really bright and curious" down in the mud. Actually that is the context of our interchange that let to my remark that you have now in your signature.

This is not about me as person. It is a general pattern that can easily be observed if you look at the world as a whole and the processes ruling it. I look at this phenomenon from a very general perspective, which is, frankly, rather depressing. If you want to succeed you have to play the game according to rules that are foreign to your true nature -- and that in itself is depressing.

Although you deny it when asked - since you have to say that you don't focus on Fe or Fi - actually you have a lot of confidence in attributing motivations to other people.

If that means anything at all, it sure as hell suggest Fi>Fe, so I think it's time you drop that idiotic IEI typing of me in any case.

[Expat]

This is not about me as person. It is a general pattern that can easily be observed if you look at the world as a whole and the processes ruling it. I look at this phenomenon from a very general perspective, which is, frankly, rather depressing. If you want to succeed you have to play the game according to rules that are foreign to your true nature -- and that in itself is depressing.

But in the thread where we had the exchange from which you got that phrase of mine for your signature, it was definitely about you as a person.

Although you deny it when asked - since you have to say that you don't focus on Fe or Fi - actually you have a lot of confidence in attributing motivations to other people.

If that means anything at all, it sure as hell suggest Fi>Fe,

No it doesn't.

But rather than explain why it doesn't on a theoretical level - which I can see would be a waste of time - let me use an example.

When Kristiina (sorry Kristiina) was trying to persuade the forum that she was ENTj, she also very often attributed motivations to those who disagreed that she was ENTj -- she said that being ENTj was a sort of "elitist club", and more specifically, that there was a problem about "accepting any woman in the forum as ENTj".

So, she was confident in "discovering" the supposed "hidden motivations" of people. She thought that people simply did not want to accept her as ENTj (rather than really not seeing her as such); you think that people want to bring you down due to your greater intelligence.

So it's not about Fi>Fe, unless (1) you think Kristiina is a Fi>Fe type or (2) the two examples are inverse situations.

so I think it's time you drop that idiotic IEI typing of me in any case.

You may think that as much as you like, I have no problem with your thinking that.

[Phaedrus]

This is not about me as person. It is a general pattern that can easily be observed if you look at the world as a whole and the processes ruling it. I look at this phenomenon from a very general perspective, which is, frankly, rather depressing. If you want to succeed you have to play the game according to rules that are foreign to your true nature -- and that in itself is depressing.

But in the thread where we had the exchange from which you got that phrase of mine for your signature, it was definitely about you as a person.

Yes, but that is your opinion, which has nothing to do with the general pattern I am talking about. And even if you are very intelligent (which is not unlikely based on your posts), I am still right about this general phenomenon, and you know perfectly well that I am not among the least intelligent on this forum, so your comment is rather irrelevant, since in that case we are both among the smartest persons here (but probably not the smartest).

[Expat]

@Phaedrus

I wasn't at all comparing your intelligence to mine, not at all. I used the remark as reference to the thread.

In that other thread you made precisely that point - "people bringing down others whom they perceive as more intelligent than themselves". Now to me it was clear that you said that as referring to your case in the forum in particular, not to a general pattern with no relevance to you. If you disagree, I''ll have to dig up that thread some time.

[Phaedrus]

@Phaedrus

I wasn't at all comparing your intelligence to mine, not at all. I used the remark as reference to the thread.

This is really ridiculous. In that case I misunderstood you completely.

In that other thread you made precisely that point - "people bringing down others whom they perceive as more intelligent than themselves". Now to me it was clear that you said that as referring to your case in the forum in particular, not to a general pattern with no relevance to you. If you disagree, I''ll have to dig up that thread some time.

The general pattern is still there, and I am almost always referring to generalities. In this context my case is of course an example of that general pattern, but that was not my point. You are no different from others here. You insist on interpreting whatever I say as being about me as a person, and that is very irritating, since I am not interested in that. I am interested in getting to the objective truth of the matter -- whatever the matter is.

[Expat]

The general pattern is still there, and I am almost always referring to generalities. In this context my case is of course an example of that general pattern, but that was not my point. You are no different from others here. You insist on interpreting whatever I say as being about me as a person, and that is very irritating, since I am not interested in that. I am interested in getting to the objective truth of the matter -- whatever the matter is.

I'm not going to start guessing whether something is "irritating" to you or not before posting it, so to mention that will not accomplish anything.

I "insist" in recognizing that a lot of what you say - not "whatever" is indeed about you as a person, and if you mention that as an "example" or a "point" it makes little difference to the conclusion that you see yourself as the more-intelligent-than-the-others target. Which is a relevant point in the context of several ongoing discussions.

[Phaedrus]

I "insist" in recognizing that a lot of what you say - not "whatever" is indeed about you as a person, and if you mention that as an "example" or a "point" it makes little difference to the conclusion that you see yourself as the more-intelligent-than-the-others target. Which is a relevant point in the context of several ongoing discussions.

You are proving my point -- that you disregard what I say that I mean and insist on interpreting it as meaning something else, which is the same thing as ignoring my intentions and deliberately "misunderstand".

[KSpin]

I think he's just arguing because he believes that the information being used is erroneous in some way.