The Great Phaedrus debate

[Phaedrus]

Maybe you just broke some kind of record, KSpin. Could be that you are the first INTp to have been accepted so easily and so fast as an INTp by this forum. I am still not accepted as an INTp, even though I have been around for more than a year now. But you sure seem to be an INTp, so we are probably the same type.

[Phaedrus]

For the moment, given the information available, I have no problem seeing KSpin as INTp. Perhaps that will change if he provides more information about himself - I don't know. I had little problem "accepting" drd52 as INTp, although I'm not "sure". On occasion some people do pop up - and disappear - who are typed as INTp.

Yes. But the thing that is so incomprehensible is that people can accept others as INTps so easily, and yet fail to see that the evidence for INTp in my case is so much stronger than any of the evidence they use to type others as INTps. Does that mean that they are stupid? Maybe, but it is rather depressing to think that.

What you seem to be doing is to try to neutralize those who question your INTp-ness by dismissing them, as somehow "never accepting anyone as INTp", so, the fact that they question your typing can be regarded as irrelevant.

That's what you're doing, isn't it?

No, I am saying that everyone who is questioning my INTp-ness based on all the information I have provided, directly and indirectly, about my type in various of posts on this forum are incompetent and ignorant when it comes to typing people. And those who are questioning my INTp-ness without having any more ground for it than their subjective impression are just immoral and unscientific.

[Phaedrus]

Greetings to you Phaedrus. Are you the person to talk to around these parts, when you want to know what's what?

there are many, myself included, who would strongly advise against that.

That's the kind of reaction I tend to get when I speak up and try to tell the truth. But if you want to learn the truth about the types, you should definitely ignore such remarks, KSpin. I am the one you should listen to if my comments clearly contradict someone else's on this forum. I am most likely right in such cases.

[KSpin]

:wink: We shall see.

[FDG]

Greetings to you Phaedrus. Are you the person to talk to around these parts, when you want to know what's what?

there are many, myself included, who would strongly advise against that.

That's the kind of reaction I tend to get when I speak up and try to tell the truth. But if you want to learn the truth about the types, you should definitely ignore such remarks, KSpin. I am the one you should listen to if my comments clearly contradict someone else's on this forum. I am most likely right in such cases.

You are a delusional, autistic fool.

[Phaedrus]

Greetings to you Phaedrus. Are you the person to talk to around these parts, when you want to know what's what?

there are many, myself included, who would strongly advise against that.

That's the kind of reaction I tend to get when I speak up and try to tell the truth. But if you want to learn the truth about the types, you should definitely ignore such remarks, KSpin. I am the one you should listen to if my comments clearly contradict someone else's on this forum. I am most likely right in such cases.

You are a delusional, autistic fool.

So what if I am or not? As usual, the only thing you are capable of doing, FDG, is to come up with a totally irrelevant remark. Most people (including you) persistently refuse to provide any rational arguments for their claims that I am wrong. The only thing I hear over and over again is that I am wrong, but no one, I repeat no one, has any valid argument for such a claim. That's why it is almost impossible for me not to think that people are idiots. Why shouldn't I, when all the evidence points in that direction?

[FDG]

Greetings to you Phaedrus. Are you the person to talk to around these parts, when you want to know what's what?

there are many, myself included, who would strongly advise against that.

That's the kind of reaction I tend to get when I speak up and try to tell the truth. But if you want to learn the truth about the types, you should definitely ignore such remarks, KSpin. I am the one you should listen to if my comments clearly contradict someone else's on this forum. I am most likely right in such cases.

You are a delusional, autistic fool.

So what if I am or not? As usual, the only thing you are capable of doing, FDG, is to come up with a totally irrelevant remark. Most people (including you) persistently refuse to provide any rational arguments for their claims that I am wrong. The only thing I hear over and over again is that I am wrong, but no one, I repeat no one, has any valid argument for such a claim. That's why it is almost impossible for me not to think that people are idiots. Why shouldn't I, when all the evidence points in that direction?

That's because you're an idiot

[KSpin]

OK... name calling doesn't really get us anywhere...

[Slacker]

Thinking you're not INTp makes us immoral????

[Phaedrus]

OK... name calling doesn't really get us anywhere...

That's why it so hard to get anywhere on this forum, if you are interested in the objective truth. Now you have got a hint of what I was talking about, KSpin. But the level of the discussions are sometimes even lower than that. The hounds just won't stop hunting you, if they have decided that you are worth hunting. That can be seen as a sort of compliment of course. They would never bully someone they perceive as less intelligent than themselves, but it is a sad phenomenon anyway.

[Phaedrus]

Thinking you're not INTp makes us immoral????

No. Saying that I am not INTp without having any arguments for your claim is immoral. It is immoral to have a strong opinion and state that opinion, if you have no objective grounds for believing it to be true. If you think that I am not an INTp it means that you think that it is okay to dismiss everything I say about myself as irrelevant or false. And that is not okay -- unless you are trying to show why I am wrong about all the things I have said to back up my claim that almost all the evidence suggests that I am an INTp. And that you haven't done.

[Logos]

Thinking you're not INTp makes us immoral????

No. Saying that I am not INTp without having any arguments for your claim is immoral. It is immoral to have a strong opinion and state that opinion, if you have no objective grounds for believing it to be true. If you think that I am not an INTp it means that you think that it is okay to dismiss everything I say about myself as irrelevant or false. And that is not okay -- unless you are trying to show why I am wrong about all the things I have said to back up my claim that almost all the evidence suggests that I am an INTp. And that you haven't done.

Why is that immoral? You are essentially condemning ignorance as immoral. What if your "objective" grounds were wrong or misguided, and you based your stated strong opinion upon these faulty objective grounds? Or what if you incorrectly interpreted what was grounded objectively and that had negative consequences either to yourself or to others? Is it immoral then?

[aestrivex]

Thinking you're not INTp makes us immoral????

No. Saying that I am not INTp without having any arguments for your claim is immoral. It is immoral to have a strong opinion and state that opinion, if you have no objective grounds for believing it to be true. If you think that I am not an INTp it means that you think that it is okay to dismiss everything I say about myself as irrelevant or false. And that is not okay -- unless you are trying to show why I am wrong about all the things I have said to back up my claim that almost all the evidence suggests that I am an INTp. And that you haven't done.

Why is that immoral? You are essentially condemning ignorance as immoral. What if your "objective" grounds were wrong or misguided, and you based your stated strong opinion upon these faulty objective grounds? Or what if you incorrectly interpreted what was grounded objectively and that had negative consequences either to yourself or to others? Is it immoral then?

+1

[Slacker]

Thinking you're not INTp makes us immoral????

No. Saying that I am not INTp without having any arguments for your claim is immoral. It is immoral to have a strong opinion and state that opinion, if you have no objective grounds for believing it to be true. If you think that I am not an INTp it means that you think that it is okay to dismiss everything I say about myself as irrelevant or false. And that is not okay -- unless you are trying to show why I am wrong about all the things I have said to back up my claim that almost all the evidence suggests that I am an INTp. And that you haven't done.

Your "evidence" looks a lot like "because I said so" over and over again. I'm moving from thinking you're INTj to ISTj. I don't know for sure what type you are but I think it's a type and a type that values , and your emotional response about immorality in regard to a simple disagreement makes me think that even more.

[anndelise]

Since KSpin is new and, it seems, been sucked into the Phaedrus issue, I think perhaps KSpin should know that there have been a number of attempts by INTps, INTjs, and ENFps to show inconsistencies about Phaedrus' claimes of INTp-ness. This issue is not a new issue and has been one for a year or so. Unfortunately, many of the really good and well-thought out attempts were amongst those that had been victims of the mass deletion a few months back. The only real response Phaedrus ever gives back is a slippery slope that if he isn't INTp then all of socionics falls apart...as if socionics is somehow dependent and held together by him being INTp.

One of the self descriptions once given by Phaedrus was that he does not use subjective information, but always uses objective information (this he claims is Te>Ti)...and yet, almost every thread Phaedrus has to insert his insistence that he is INTp (even when the thread is not about him) and how similar he feels to the current possible INTp, and how awesome his own personal understandings are and how everyone else here is too stupid to catch on. Frankly, many of us are pretty sick of him doing this every single time someone comes in who might be INTp. He sets it up so that if we accept the person as INTp, then we must then accept him. He then turns the thread not into whether or not the new person is INTp, but whether or not he himself is INTp. Unfortunately, he uses subjective argument to do so.

So, you won't likely be seeing well thought out arguments against Phaedrus' supposed INTp-ness..because we've tried that already, we've given him exaustive example after example of how his behavior and his self-descriptions point to INTj (my argument was for NTj, neither saying I nor E), a couple of us even predicted in the open in the thread to him how his behavior and how his reasoning argument would go, and when he did exactly as we said he would.... he continued to refute it...even while using the same structure and words we said he would use.

My advice is..ask Phaedrus to please not include you in the issues between he and some of the forum. To allow you to be interacted with, debated with, joked with, and conversed with, on your own terms, as your own self, and not under his shadow.

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

Thanks anndelise for a quick summary about Phaedrus's strife with other board members. I have seen these discussions occur on several other topics on the board, and I was also wondering where this all started from, or if there was more information about how this issue began. I expect that the topic will be derailed with discussion about Phadreus's issue, so I will stick around and see if I can read more. Is it safe to ignore Phaedrus's other self-analysis threads and posts on how much he is an I(N)Tp?

[anndelise]

Thanks anndelise for a quick summary about Phaedrus's strife with other board members. I have seen these discussions occur on several other topics on the board, and I was also wondering where this all started from, or if there was more information about how this issue began. I expect that the topic will be derailed with discussion about Phadreus's issue, so I will stick around and see if I can read more. Is it safe to ignore Phaedrus's other self-analysis threads and posts on how much he is an I(N)Tp?

I would say that the answer to that depends on whether or not you believe him to be INTp.

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

Thanks anndelise for a quick summary about Phaedrus's strife with other board members. I have seen these discussions occur on several other topics on the board, and I was also wondering where this all started from, or if there was more information about how this issue began. I expect that the topic will be derailed with discussion about Phadreus's issue, so I will stick around and see if I can read more. Is it safe to ignore Phaedrus's other self-analysis threads and posts on how much he is an I(N)Tp?

I would say that the answer to that depends on whether or not you believe him to be INTp.

Well, it's not up to me believe. Many people on this board have ridiculed Phaedrus for his belief that he is INTp, and as you said, other members have stated that they believe that he is XNTj. Even though I have not examined any evidence personally, I shall refer to the judgement of other's on this board that he is not INTp, rather than Phaedrus's own interpretation.

[anndelise]

Well, it's not up to me believe. Many people on this board have ridiculed Phaedrus for his belief that he is INTp, and as you said, other members have stated that they believe that he is XNTj. Even though I have not examined any evidence personally, I shall refer to the judgement of other's on this board that he is not INTp, rather than Phaedrus's own interpretation.

or...as you're studying up on NiTe you'll be learning more about whether or not it describes you better than other types, and as you're doing so, you'll be a little more aware and capable of making your own decisions as to whether or not you believe it describes him.

or...you could take a safe route and just focus on learning/understanding the functions et al for yourself....regardless of Phaedrus' influence.

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

Well, it's not up to me believe. Many people on this board have ridiculed Phaedrus for his belief that he is INTp, and as you said, other members have stated that they believe that he is XNTj. Even though I have not examined any evidence personally, I shall refer to the judgement of other's on this board that he is not INTp, rather than Phaedrus's own interpretation.

or...as you're studying up on NiTe you'll be learning more about whether or not it describes you better than other types, and as you're doing so, you'll be a little more aware and capable of making your own decisions as to whether or not you believe it describes him.

or...you could take a safe route and just focus on learning/understanding the functions et al for yourself....regardless of Phaedrus' influence.

Well, since I will be forming my understanding of INTp's from mostly information on this board, I was merely asking a simple question of not taking into account Phaedrus's analysis of his INTp'ness. I wouldn't be making a judgement about Phaedrus, just making that my information about INTp's is not based off of Phaedrus's conclusions that (s)he is example of an I(N)Tp. If I do learn enough, I will be able to conclude if Phaedrus is or not an INTp, for the simple fact that I should be able to notice if Phaedrus's self-descriptions and actions on the board do match the majority of other descriptions of INTp's in Socionics. But ignoring some of Phaedrus's conclusions about INTp's can help reduce the amount of confusion I will encounter while learning about Socionics.

I can safely say that I am not at the ability to figure out other board member's types. Of course I will be learning more about the types and functions and evaluating later once my knowledge is more developed-- it is possible for me to do this and ignore some of Phaedrus's information and learn more about Socionics at the same time until I can more properly evaluate Phaedrus's information.

[Logos]

Since KSpin is new and, it seems, been sucked into the Phaedrus issue, I think perhaps KSpin should know that there have been a number of attempts by INTps, INTjs, and ENFps to show inconsistencies about Phaedrus' claimes of INTp-ness. This issue is not a new issue and has been one for a year or so. Unfortunately, many of the really good and well-thought out attempts were amongst those that had been victims of the mass deletion a few months back. The only real response Phaedrus ever gives back is a slippery slope that if he isn't INTp then all of socionics falls apart...as if socionics is somehow dependent and held together by him being INTp.

One of the self descriptions once given by Phaedrus was that he does not use subjective information, but always uses objective information (this he claims is Te>Ti)...and yet, almost every thread Phaedrus has to insert his insistence that he is INTp (even when the thread is not about him) and how similar he feels to the current possible INTp, and how awesome his own personal understandings are and how everyone else here is too stupid to catch on. Frankly, many of us are pretty sick of him doing this every single time someone comes in who might be INTp. He sets it up so that if we accept the person as INTp, then we must then accept him. He then turns the thread not into whether or not the new person is INTp, but whether or not he himself is INTp. Unfortunately, he uses subjective argument to do so.

So, you won't likely be seeing well thought out arguments against Phaedrus' supposed INTp-ness..because we've tried that already, we've given him exaustive example after example of how his behavior and his self-descriptions point to INTj (my argument was for NTj, neither saying I nor E), a couple of us even predicted in the open in the thread to him how his behavior and how his reasoning argument would go, and when he did exactly as we said he would.... he continued to refute it...even while using the same structure and words we said he would use.

My advice is..ask Phaedrus to please not include you in the issues between he and some of the forum. To allow you to be interacted with, debated with, joked with, and conversed with, on your own terms, as your own self, and not under his shadow.

Thank you Anndelise. Your summary, and indeed it was just a summary, was quite humorous and frustratingly accurate.

[Phaedrus]

Thinking you're not INTp makes us immoral????

No. Saying that I am not INTp without having any arguments for your claim is immoral. It is immoral to have a strong opinion and state that opinion, if you have no objective grounds for believing it to be true. If you think that I am not an INTp it means that you think that it is okay to dismiss everything I say about myself as irrelevant or false. And that is not okay -- unless you are trying to show why I am wrong about all the things I have said to back up my claim that almost all the evidence suggests that I am an INTp. And that you haven't done.

Why is that immoral? You are essentially condemning ignorance as immoral. What if your "objective" grounds were wrong or misguided, and you based your stated strong opinion upon these faulty objective grounds? Or what if you incorrectly interpreted what was grounded objectively and that had negative consequences either to yourself or to others? Is it immoral then?

Correction: It is immoral to have a strong opinion and state that opinion, if you don't believe that you have any objective grounds for believing it to be true and refuse to reveal those assumingly objective grounds on request.

[FDG]

Thinking you're not INTp makes us immoral????

No. Saying that I am not INTp without having any arguments for your claim is immoral. It is immoral to have a strong opinion and state that opinion, if you have no objective grounds for believing it to be true. If you think that I am not an INTp it means that you think that it is okay to dismiss everything I say about myself as irrelevant or false. And that is not okay -- unless you are trying to show why I am wrong about all the things I have said to back up my claim that almost all the evidence suggests that I am an INTp. And that you haven't done.

You don't have a clue about what's moral and what's not. You always insult people with your arrogance and presumption, yet dare calling others immoral for such trivial occurrances so that, if we were to take your word for truth, most instances happening in the world right now would be deemed as immoral. Get lost in your sea of madness, please.

Correction: It is immoral to have a strong opinion and state that opinion, if you don't believe that you have any objective grounds for believing it to be true and refuse to reveal those assumingly objective grounds on request.

It is not immoral because it does not infringe anybody's rights: rather, given that submission is immoral by definition since it implies an element of coercion, Your stance is immoral since it assumes that somebody else has to submit to your system of ethics. I beg you to stop talking about things you do not understand, such as morality.

[Phaedrus]

Your "evidence" looks a lot like "because I said so" over and over again. I'm moving from thinking you're INTj to ISTj.

That's almost like a slap in the face, since there is no good argument whatsoever for believing that to be true. I find it offensive that you don't even bother to look at any of the many pieces of information that I have provided about myself as a person. I know for sure that an ISTj is absolutely impossible for me to be, and yet you think that you are entitled to think that. You must believe that I am a complete idiot, if you are serious about what you say here, and why shouldn't a take that as a personal offense?

I don't know for sure what type you are but I think it's a type and a type that values , and your emotional response about immorality in regard to a simple disagreement makes me think that even more.

This is no emotional response about a simple disagreement. This is an illustration of how people refuse to consider the evidence for a hypothesis. If you looked at the evidence you would KNOW FOR SURE that I cant' be an ISTj. And now, when I say that, you SHOULD go back and take a look at the arguments again, you SHOULD DO THAT. If you don't do that, and simply decide to stick with that ISTj belief, then you are immoral. So, please go back an reconsider the grounds for your belief.

[Mea]

Your "evidence" looks a lot like "because I said so" over and over again. I'm moving from thinking you're INTj to ISTj.

That's almost like a slap in the face, since there is no good argument whatsoever for believing that to be true. I find it offensive that you don't even bother to look at any of the many pieces of information that I have provided about myself as a person. I know for sure that an ISTj is absolutely impossible for me to be, and yet you think that you are entitled to think that. You must believe that I am a complete idiot, if you are serious about what you say here, and why shouldn't a take that as a personal offense?

I don't know for sure what type you are but I think it's a type and a type that values , and your emotional response about immorality in regard to a simple disagreement makes me think that even more.

This is no emotional response about a simple disagreement. This is an illustration of how people refuse to consider the evidence for a hypothesis. If you looked at the evidence you would KNOW FOR SURE that I cant' be an ISTj. And now, when I say that, you SHOULD go back and take a look at the arguments again, you SHOULD DO THAT. If you don't do that, and simply decide to stick with that ISTj belief, then you are immoral. So, please go back an reconsider the grounds for your belief.

Do you even know the meaning of the word immoral.
And who are you to tell her how and what to think/believe.

[FDG]

Your "evidence" looks a lot like "because I said so" over and over again. I'm moving from thinking you're INTj to ISTj.

That's almost like a slap in the face, since there is no good argument whatsoever for believing that to be true. I find it offensive that you don't even bother to look at any of the many pieces of information that I have provided about myself as a person. I know for sure that an ISTj is absolutely impossible for me to be, and yet you think that you are entitled to think that. You must believe that I am a complete idiot, if you are serious about what you say here, and why shouldn't a take that as a personal offense?

You do understand that your style of argumentation here is exactly the same as the style your are referring to as something you deem unworthy and immoral? How logically consistent is this for a person that claims to base his entire life upon logical consistency?

This is no emotional response about a simple disagreement. This is an illustration of how people refuse to consider the evidence for a hypothesis. If you looked at the evidence you would KNOW FOR SURE that I cant' be an ISTj. And now, when I say that, you SHOULD go back and take a look at the arguments again, you SHOULD DO THAT. If you don't do that, and simply decide to stick with that ISTj belief, then you are immoral. So, please go back an reconsider the grounds for your belief.

Again, read above, you really look like shit when you do this, even worse than when I get angry at you.

[Phaedrus]

@ anndelise and others who don't think that I am INTp

Smilingeyes has convincingly proven to all of you in public that I am most likely an INTp, and that I can't be an INTj. But you simply ignore that proof. And you ignore that I have consistently stated that I have an IP temperament, that I have had public discussions with INTjs on this forum, which convincingly show that I am not an INTj. You ignore the fact that I can easily identify with other INTps on this forum and that they can identify with me, that I don't identify with the INTj's way of describing themselves, nor with their way of writing. You ignore the fact that it is much easier for me to understand and follow the reasonings of types, whereas I really have to force myself to understand what the INTjs are getting at, since our thought processes are simply very different. You ignore my intertype relations with ESFjs, who are exactly like Rick describes them, you ignore that my behaviour is exactly the way PoLR is described in Socionics, you ignore the fact that I have read many more type descriptions than any other person on this forum and that I have compared them and analyzed them from every conceivable angle to find out which fits best, and that the result of that extremely thorough process is that I can say with certainty that the socionic INTp descriptions fit me much better than any INTj, ISTj or INFp description, and that the differences are so extremely clear and obvious, that is impossible for me to think that I am any of those other types. You ignore the fact that I have consistently tested as an INTp and an INTP on almost every test that has been discussed on this forum, that I am a clear cut Enneagram 5, who has tested as that type on every Enneagram test ever taken (except one that was discussed on this forum where I got a very slight preference for 9 -- the IP type in the Enneagram -- with 5 as clear second), and that I strongly identify with 5w4. The list can be made longer, but what's the point of that, if you refuse to consider it?

[Phaedrus]

Is it safe to ignore Phaedrus's other self-analysis threads and posts on how much he is an I(N)Tp?

I won't kill you if you do, but if you want to find out who is right and who is wrong here, you should definitely try to read some of my posts in the past. And you should look at Smilingeyes's arguments.

[Expat]

Unfortunately, many of the really good and well-thought out attempts were amongst those that had been victims of the mass deletion a few months back. The only real response Phaedrus ever gives back is a slippery slope that if he isn't INTp then all of socionics falls apart...as if socionics is somehow dependent and held together by him being INTp.

Yes. At most, his understanding of Socionics will fall apart. Which is a very different thing.

FWIW, should it be "proven" that, say, XoX is an INTp, I will state clearly that it will be my own understanding of Socionics that will fall apart (assuming that XoX's persona here is his real one, of course). I will then have to review the arguments and understand how my own understanding could be so wrong. Perhaps I would drop Socionics altogether. But it's a different thing from claiming that Socionics falls apart.

almost every thread Phaedrus has to insert his insistence that he is INTp (even when the thread is not about him) and how similar he feels to the current possible INTp, and how awesome his own personal understandings are and how everyone else here is too stupid to catch on. Frankly, many of us are pretty sick of him doing this every single time someone comes in who might be INTp. He sets it up so that if we accept the person as INTp, then we must then accept him. He then turns the thread not into whether or not the new person is INTp, but whether or not he himself is INTp. Unfortunately, he uses subjective argument to do so.

Yes. Phaedrus, first, nobody in this forum is -- "above" having their type questioned. Including me, of course. That should be clear by now. Even if the reasons for questioning are not good, the discussions are useful in themselves. And the reason why your own type comes so often into "the open" is precisely what anndelise described -- since your own typing methods are directly related to your own view of your own type, very often that brings your own type into the discussion.

What you seem to be doing is to try to neutralize those who question your INTp-ness by dismissing them, as somehow "never accepting anyone as INTp", so, the fact that they question your typing can be regarded as irrelevant.

That's what you're doing, isn't it?

No, I am saying that everyone who is questioning my INTp-ness based on all the information I have provided, directly and indirectly, about my type in various of posts on this forum are incompetent and ignorant when it comes to typing people. And those who are questioning my INTp-ness without having any more ground for it than their subjective impression are just immoral and unscientific.

In that particular exchange, when you essentially implied that it's difficult for every INTp to get "acceptance", you were saying something very different from what you just said now:

Maybe you just broke some kind of record, KSpin. Could be that you are the first INTp to have been accepted so easily and so fast as an INTp by this forum. I am still not accepted as an INTp, even though I have been around for more than a year now.

This is obviously untrue and manipulative, as is your claim to have said that that's not what you were doing in that particular exchange.

That's why it so hard to get anywhere on this forum, if you are interested in the objective truth. Now you have got a hint of what I was talking about, KSpin. But the level of the discussions are sometimes even lower than that. The hounds just won't stop hunting you, if they have decided that you are worth hunting.

Come on. Are we all "hunting" you on purpose? Why?

Ah, I see:

That can be seen as a sort of compliment of course. They would never bully someone they perceive as less intelligent than themselves, but it is a sad phenomenon anyway.

1) How do you know that's what "they" - or "we" - would never do?
2) So this is all because we perceive you as more intelligent than ourselves?

I can't speak for the others, but let me assure you that I most definitely do not perceive you as more intelligent than myself. Honestly, truly. Please believe me on that.

As for "hunting" you and being "immoral" etc.

If you'll remember, Phaedrus, I was rather open to your being INTp, also due to the Smilingeyes interpretation of the obstinate-construct-creating thing. But that would imply that you are a logical subtype, not intuitive as you are now saying. So that story is also not straightforward.

What made me question your type more strongly was, as the record clearly shows, your arguments and behavior in XoX's type thread. There it became clear that you have no understanding whatsoever of model A functional ordering or definitions, since you couldn't even understand the arguments enough in order to disagree with them.

And if you could, during all that discussion, not see why - according to Socionics theory of quadras and model A - XoX was most clearly not INTp, and if you still identified strongly with what he said in that regard, that made me, yes, (1) question your understanding of Socionics and (2) question your self-typing as INTp.

Since I still do take into consideration what you say about yourself regarding identification with Ni IP and INTp profiles, rather than dismiss it totally, I think that the type most likely for you is INFp.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that has nothing whatsoever with "hunting" you and, much, much less, with perceiving you as more intelligent than myself. This reaction is silly.

[Expat]

Your "evidence" looks a lot like "because I said so" over and over again. I'm moving from thinking you're INTj to ISTj.

That's almost like a slap in the face, since there is no good argument whatsoever for believing that to be true. I find it offensive that you don't even bother to look at any of the many pieces of information that I have provided about myself as a person. I know for sure that an ISTj is absolutely impossible for me to be, and yet you think that you are entitled to think that. You must believe that I am a complete idiot, if you are serious about what you say here, and why shouldn't a take that as a personal offense?

There is one very good argument for thinking it might be true. The reason why most people think you are a type - as in quadra value, not necessarily ego - is because of your own brand of stubborness and insistence that every single piece of information in Socionics - regardless of how it was obtained (do you even know whether Reinin typed his case studies accurately? I don't) "must" fit together. That is not being , that is your particular concept. Yes, Smilingeyes sort of "explained it away" as the obstinate-constructivist thing, but that would imply that you are more like a logical subtype which is what he himself said.

As for "thinking you are a complete idiot" -- that is just an attempt at intimidation: "don't you dare suggest I am ISTj, otherwise I will take that as a personal offense". Does that lead to constructive discussion?

I personally think ISTj is a very unlikely type for you, but I understand why Slacker Mom and others might think so.

[Phaedrus]

I can't speak for the others, but let me assure you that I most definitely do not perceive you as more intelligent than myself. Honestly, truly. Please believe me on that.

I'd like to believe you on that, and it is probably true since, you haven't been hunting me like many others.

If you'll remember, Phaedrus, I was rather open to your being INTp, also due to the Smilingeyes interpretation of the obstinate-construct-creating thing.

That was a convincing argument against INTj.

But that would imply that you are a logical subtype, not intuitive as you are now saying. So that story is also not straightforward.

And what he said about that was in relation to comparing me with Jonathan. For quite a while I had been more like Rocky and niffweed, but Smilingeyes also perceived me as more on the intuitive side about a year ago. And I have always identified more with the intuitive subtype descriptions. Now, that phenomenon has been explained, and we can see clearly that I am usually an intuitive subtype of INTp, even though I, occasionally, act more like a logical subtype.

Since I still do take into consideration what you say about yourself regarding identification with Ni IP and INTp profiles, rather than dismiss it totally, I think that the type most likely for you is INFp.

And that is still the wrong conclusion to draw here. I find it very strange that you can perceive me as an INFp when you can see how I express myself in my posts and how I react to what others say on this forum. My behaviour is simply not consistent with being an INFp. The correct conclusion you should draw from this, is to reconsider your belief in the reliability of your preferred typing methods.

[Slacker]

Expat - the reason I thought maybe ISTj instead of INTj is because I'm seeing him as beta>alpha now. I thought INTj because I can feel Ti, but if INTjs get upset at something I say, they either dismiss me and move on, or they consider what I've said and dismiss it and move on, or they consider what I've said and work with it, or some combination. They don't argue to the death. I assume because Se isn't a quadra value? Anyway, I'm sensing some kind of Se action. Maybe it's just a quadra value and it isn't in his ego block.

Tcda. . . whatever his name is spelled - he's more obviously INTj because he's able to consider other possibilities, and he changes his theories to coincide with new possibilities he's entertaining. Phaedrus doesn't do that. He says the same thing over and over again, and gets upset when hearing the same thing over and over again doesn't make us change our minds. That seems more Se-ish.

His thinking that people are immoral for not agreeing with him or for not believing him if he says the same thing over and over again is Fe-ish IMO. To attach an emotional argument to his supposedly logical conclusion makes me think maybe a beta F type instead of a T type.

Anyway, I'm not sold on ISTj but I am fairly set on Beta.

[Phaedrus]

There is one very good argument for thinking it might be true. The reason why most people think you are a type - as in quadra value, not necessarily ego - is because of your own brand of stubborness and insistence that every single piece of information in Socionics - regardless of how it was obtained (do you even know whether Reinin typed his case studies accurately? I don't) "must" fit together. That is not being , that is your particular concept.

That is not a concept. Why won't you guys ever learn that? It has much more to do with the strong influence that has on my behaviour and attitudes. In one thread in the past, which, as usual, soon turned into people questioning my type and my understanding of the functions, I said:

What I try to do is to make my empirical observations of patterns fit into a theory. I try to make generalizations.

I start with observing a pattern. I don't start with a stated idea, like the INTjs, who starts with an object function creating a field function. Instead I start with a field function and create an object function. I have introverted perception and my behaviour here is only consistent with being a Narrator. In the same thread I said that

I am more interested in general empirical observations of people's behaviours. That's why I am so focused on type descriptions and statistical findings of correlations between types and behaviours. I try to make all the empirical findings, all the pieces of information, all the things that are said about different types by different theorists of different models, fit together.

which is a clear illustration of why I consistently make general observations instead of specific observations. It is observation of fields, not objects. And every time I say that all the pieces of information must fit into the big puzzle otherwise we have to redo it, every time I start with accepting empirical facts and see where they are going to lead me, I am expressing a clear Gamma, non-Alpha attitude.

Yes, Smilingeyes sort of "explained it away" as the obstinate-constructivist thing, but that would imply that you are more like a logical subtype which is what he himself said.

I don't really care which subtype of INTp I am, since I can see both sides of the coin in myself. But since both you and Smilingeyes can see me as similar to an INFp, you must have seen the intuitive side of me too, and I still fit the intuitive subtype better in most real life situations.

As for "thinking you are a complete idiot" -- that is just an attempt at intimidation: "don't you dare suggest I am ISTj, otherwise I will take that as a personal offense". Does that lead to constructive discussion?

No, but it irritates me as hell that people refuse to support their claims with rational arguments, and totally ignore both my (and Smilingeyes's) counter arguments and my many very strong positive arguments for INTp.

I personally think ISTj is a very unlikely type for you, but I understand why Slacker Mom and others might think so.

Since you understand why I am not an ISTj, why can't you explain that to Slacker Mom and others so we can move on? They obviously listen much more to you than they listen to me.

[Expat]

I can't speak for the others, but let me assure you that I most definitely do not perceive you as more intelligent than myself. Honestly, truly. Please believe me on that.

I'd like to believe you on that, and it is probably true since, you haven't been hunting me like many others.

You definitely can believe me on that.

And that is still the wrong conclusion to draw here. I find it very strange that you can perceive me as an INFp when you can see how I express myself in my posts and how I react to what others say on this forum. My behaviour is simply not consistent with being an INFp. The correct conclusion you should draw from this, is to reconsider your belief in the reliability of your preferred typing methods.

Your behavior is not consistent with your conception of how INFps behave. My own conception, based on functional analysis, is consistent with what I see of your behavior.

[Expat]

Expat - the reason I thought maybe ISTj instead of INTj is because I'm seeing him as beta>alpha now. I thought INTj because I can feel Ti, but if INTjs get upset at something I say, they either dismiss me and move on, or they consider what I've said and dismiss it and move on, or they consider what I've said and work with it, or some combination. They don't argue to the death. I assume because Se isn't a quadra value? Anyway, I'm sensing some kind of Se action. Maybe it's just a quadra value and it isn't in his ego block.

I think that's a good analysis.

Tcda. . . whatever his name is spelled - he's more obviously INTj because he's able to consider other possibilities, and he changes his theories to coincide with new possibilities he's entertaining. Phaedrus doesn't do that. He says the same thing over and over again, and gets upset when hearing the same thing over and over again doesn't make us change our minds. That seems more Se-ish.

It does imo.

His thinking that people are immoral for not agreeing with him or for not believing him if he says the same thing over and over again is Fe-ish IMO. To attach an emotional argument to his supposedly logical conclusion makes me think maybe a beta F type instead of a T type.

Anyway, I'm not sold on ISTj but I am fairly set on Beta.

As is clear, that's my inclination too.

[Expat]

That is not a concept. Why won't you guys ever learn that? It has much more to do with the strong influence that has on my behaviour and attitudes. In one thread in the past, which, as usual, soon turned into people questioning my type and my understanding of the functions, I said:

What I try to do is to make my empirical observations of patterns fit into a theory. I try to make generalizations.

I start with observing a pattern. I don't start with a stated idea, like the INTjs, who starts with an object function creating a field function.

On the contrary, the idea that every single piece of information related to Socionics, including Reinin dichotomies (when, again, it's not even clear how Grigori Reinin himself typed the people he validated them with) must fit together perfectly is a concept. Your "empirical observations", themselves, are already filtered through Ti, only you don't realize it.

I am more interested in general empirical observations of people's behaviours. That's why I am so focused on type descriptions and statistical findings of correlations between types and behaviours. I try to make all the empirical findings, all the pieces of information, all the things that are said about different types by different theorists of different models, fit together.

which is a clear illustration of why I consistently make general observations instead of specific observations. It is observation of fields, not objects. And every time I say that all the pieces of information must fit into the big puzzle otherwise we have to redo it, every time I start with accepting empirical facts and see where they are going to lead me, I am expressing a clear Gamma, non-Alpha attitude.

But the problem is that we have no real information as to how "empirical" those "empirical facts" really are.

For instance, take Stratiyevskaya's descriptions, which I personally value. Presumably, she wrote those down with base on empirical observations of real people of those types. Ok. But according to which criteria did she type them as such in the first place? If she was automatically screening out some - for instance - INFps who don't act like the "romantic INFp", then of course her descriptions would not reflect the "non-romantic" INFps. The same goes for Filatova, and the others.

And that's even more important for the Reinin dichotomies.

I don't really care which subtype of INTp I am, since I can see both sides of the coin in myself. But since both you and Smilingeyes can see me as similar to an INFp, you must have seen the intuitive side of me too, and I still fit the intuitive subtype better in most real life situations.

Almost by definition, an intuitive INFp will be in many respects similar to an intuitive INTp, just like a logical ENTj will be similar to a logical ESTj. We don't have to argue that point too much.

As for "thinking you are a complete idiot" -- that is just an attempt at intimidation: "don't you dare suggest I am ISTj, otherwise I will take that as a personal offense". Does that lead to constructive discussion?

No, but it irritates me as hell that people refuse to support their claims with rational arguments, and totally ignore both my (and Smilingeyes's) counter arguments and my many very strong positive arguments for INTp.

The way I see it, Smilingeyes simply said how the constructivist-obstinate combination could explain your behavior. That was all. In one single post (if I recall correctly).

I personally think ISTj is a very unlikely type for you, but I understand why Slacker Mom and others might think so.

Since you understand why I am not an ISTj, why can't you explain that to Slacker Mom and others so we can move on? They obviously listen much more to you than they listen to me.

And why is that? Why do you think they listen more to me than they listen to you?

As for my own reasons for not thinking you are ISTj - you don't seem to have Se in your Ego. You seem more Victim than Aggressor.

[Phaedrus]

That is not a concept. Why won't you guys ever learn that? It has much more to do with the strong influence that has on my behaviour and attitudes. In one thread in the past, which, as usual, soon turned into people questioning my type and my understanding of the functions, I said:

What I try to do is to make my empirical observations of patterns fit into a theory. I try to make generalizations.

I start with observing a pattern. I don't start with a stated idea, like the INTjs, who starts with an object function creating a field function.

On the contrary, the idea that every single piece of information related to Socionics, including Reinin dichotomies (when, again, it's not even clear how Grigori Reinin himself typed the people he validated them with) must fit together perfectly is a concept. Your "empirical observations", themselves, are already filtered through Ti, only you don't realize it.

Then your understanding of Socionics contradicts Smilingeyes's. You are completely wrong about what you say here. I now realize that you were probably misinterpreting Jung too, when you said those things about his introverted thinking type. Like so many others, including Rick, you haven't understood the difference between accepting and creating . That's one of the main reasons people confuse the behaviour of INTps with the behaviour of INTjs. You simply don't know those two types well enough.

I am more interested in general empirical observations of people's behaviours. That's why I am so focused on type descriptions and statistical findings of correlations between types and behaviours. I try to make all the empirical findings, all the pieces of information, all the things that are said about different types by different theorists of different models, fit together.

which is a clear illustration of why I consistently make general observations instead of specific observations. It is observation of fields, not objects. And every time I say that all the pieces of information must fit into the big puzzle otherwise we have to redo it, every time I start with accepting empirical facts and see where they are going to lead me, I am expressing a clear Gamma, non-Alpha attitude.

But the problem is that we have no real information as to how "empirical" those "empirical facts" really are.

If you use your own preferred typing method here, that should be no problem. You should see that my attitude here is non-Alpha. You should see that it is Gamma.

Almost by definition, an intuitive INFp will be in many respects similar to an intuitive INTp, just like a logical ENTj will be similar to a logical ESTj. We don't have to argue that point too much.

Yes, we agree on that. But then you should have no problem with seeing me as an INTp. Accept that I am an INTp, and try to learn something from it instead. Your typing methods need to be calibrated.

[Expat]

Smilingeyes has convincingly proven to all of you in public that I am most likely an INTp, and that I can't be an INTj. But you simply ignore that proof.

To state the obvious, Smilingeyes's opinion - just like mine, or Sergei Ganin's, or Rodney Dangerfield's - is not the ultimate truth. Smilingeyes put together a consistent system based on his own interpretation of how Reinin dichotomies really work, and based on that he explained - or suggested - that the obstinate-construct-creating combination would account for your -- stubborness. But, unless you are inclined to take that explanation as infallible and inviolable, it remains one explanation.

And you ignore that I have consistently stated that I have an IP temperament, that I have had public discussions with INTjs on this forum, which convincingly show that I am not an INTj. You ignore the fact that I can easily identify with other INTps on this forum and that they can identify with me,

That applies to some INTps, not all. Unless you want to argue that those who don't identify with you are necessarily not INTps. Then it becomes easy.

that I don't identify with the INTj's way of describing themselves, nor with their way of writing. You ignore the fact that it is much easier for me to understand and follow the reasonings of types, whereas I really have to force myself to understand what the INTjs are getting at, since our thought processes are simply very different. You ignore my intertype relations with ESFjs, who are exactly like Rick describes them,

It's not a question of "ignoring", it's that a lot of it becomes subjective.

you ignore that my behaviour is exactly the way PoLR is described in Socionics,

On the contrary, not only I don't "ignore" it, I strongly disagree with that statement. Especially after the XoX thread. You don't show accepting Fe, but you show a lot of creative Fe.

you ignore the fact that I have read many more type descriptions than any other person on this forum

Including some bad and/or irrelevant ones, which is your problem, I daresay.

and that I have compared them and analyzed them from every conceivable angle to find out which fits best, and that the result of that extremely thorough process is that I can say with certainty that the socionic INTp descriptions fit me much better than any INTj, ISTj or INFp description, and that the differences are so extremely clear and obvious, that is impossible for me to think that I am any of those other types. You ignore the fact that I have consistently tested as an INTp and an INTP on almost every test that has been discussed on this forum,

Has anyone here so consistently tested as their supposed type in all tests? A lot of tests posted here are crap. Surely you can see that. If you test as INTp/INTP in almost all of them, this is more an evidence of your manipulating them (not necessarily consciously) than of your type. I have tested as ENFp in McNew's latest test. Is that evidence that there is some ENFp in me?

As for the descriptions, I don't doubt for a second that you identify better with the INTp descriptions than with others. The question is whether that is really the most important criterion.

that I am a clear cut Enneagram 5, who has tested as that type on every Enneagram test ever taken (except one that was discussed on this forum where I got a very slight preference for 9 -- the IP type in the Enneagram -- with 5 as clear second), and that I strongly identify with 5w4. The list can be made longer, but what's the point of that, if you refuse to consider it?

I, for one, do consider it. I dismiss the evidence based on tests, because I think tests are generally unreliable. For you to identify with 5w4 is to me consistent with being Ni IP, whether INTp or INFp.

The problem for seeing you as INTp according to model A, to me, is that you seem to value Ti over Te and Fe over Fi. An "INTp" with Fe>Fi and Ti>Te is, according to model A, an INFp. Even if resembling, in traits, more a supposedly "typical" INTp than a supposedly "typical" INTp.

You say you don't get along with ESFjs. Let's assume that those ESFjs are typed correctly. Ok. That's good for differentiating INTj from INTp, but not INFp from INTp.

[Expat]

Then your understanding of Socionics contradicts Smilingeyes's.

I can live with that, even if it were true I try to understand his temperament-and-dichotomies based version of Socionics. That doesn't mean I prefer it over the model A one, especially when they conflict.

You are completely wrong about what you say here. I now realize that you were probably misinterpreting Jung too, when you said those things about his introverted thinking type. Like so many others, including Rick, you haven't understood the difference between accepting and creating .

First, I have made clear my criticism on Jung's types. They are there on the relevant threads. It is obvious that I don't think that his types are consistent with present model A Socionics theory.

Perhaps you could then explain what is the difference between acc-Ti and cre-Te; but it is fair to say that, if you think Rick hasn't understood it, then you should stop quoting him as authority whenever it suits you. If Rick is right whenever he agrees with you, ok, but then you don't need to quote him as reference. Or Smilingeyes, for that matter.

That's one of the main reasons people confuse the behaviour of INTps with the behaviour of INTjs. You simply don't know those two types well enough.

I think I do.

I am more interested in general empirical observations of people's behaviours. That's why I am so focused on type descriptions and statistical findings of correlations between types and behaviours. I try to make all the empirical findings, all the pieces of information, all the things that are said about different types by different theorists of different models, fit together.

which is a clear illustration of why I consistently make general observations instead of specific observations. It is observation of fields, not objects. And every time I say that all the pieces of information must fit into the big puzzle otherwise we have to redo it, every time I start with accepting empirical facts and see where they are going to lead me, I am expressing a clear Gamma, non-Alpha attitude.

But you still haven't addressed the issue as to how "empirical" those "empirical facts" really are.

If you use your own preferred typing method here, that should be no problem. You should see that my attitude here is non-Alpha. You should see that it is Gamma.

Maybe I "should", but I don't. Sorry. Gamma Te is not about not being non-critical as to the available evidence.

Yes, we agree on that. But then you should have no problem with seeing me as an INTp. Accept that I am an INTp, and try to learn something from it instead. Your typing methods need to be calibrated.

I will certainly never "accept" you as INTp just on your say-so. I do accept that you identify closely with INTp and INTP profiles. I do not "accept" that you are functionally an INTp as in Fi>Fe and Te>Ti. What needs to be calibrated is your understanding of Socionics theory, as became embarrasingly obvious in the XoX type thread.

[Expat]

And I see you just ignored this bit, which I think is very important:

For instance, take Stratiyevskaya's descriptions, which I personally value. Presumably, she wrote those down with base on empirical observations of real people of those types. Ok. But according to which criteria did she type them as such in the first place? If she was automatically screening out some - for instance - INFps who don't act like the "romantic INFp", then of course her descriptions would not reflect the "non-romantic" INFps. The same goes for Filatova, and the others.

And that's even more important for the Reinin dichotomies.