where does this go...

[ooo]

when one brings up what others say, usually random people, acquaintances, as a proof of "correctness" and truth? this is usually done in a gossipy way, sometimes it's done with the purpose to bring something/someone down, and then the stories they tell in support of their truth assume rather dark shades, the subjects they talk about become "bitches and drug dealers" and all the sort of bad behind the scenes come out, but often I suspect that these stories are not true and that the person just enjoys provoking others... obviously they even enjoy hearing of these intriguing stories and find them very amusing...

could this be related to anything socionically?

[WVBRY]

What? Example?

[ooo]

talking about a place, the person says "that place really sucks, Tom and Jerry said so, so many people said that the guy is just keeping it to bring on his columbian coke traffic while the girls in there *** &$*" +smirky look

[WVBRY]

Welcome to the Titty Twister?

[ooo]

yeah, and in socionics?

[WVBRY]

Why must it be type related?

[ooo]

why do you keep making me dumb questions lately : )

[WVBRY]

You started this thread with a dumb question.

Why must this be socionics related, why must everything be soconics related?

[domr]

anecdotal evidence is called empiricism and yes it can be defined in socionics.

[ooo]

why are you trolling my thread? keep out

[domr]

why are you trolling my thread? keep out

I'm not trolling. The other guy telling you that your question is dumb is trolling. But okay, I'll let you struggle.

[ooo]

domr, anecdotal is evidence of nothing, empiricism ain't based on someone else's experience but on first hand test and trial.

(yeah, I was telling that to Ave.)

[domr]

domr, anecdotal is evidence of nothing, empiricism ain't based on someone else's experience but on first hand test and trial.

(yeah, I was telling that to Ave.)

It's the same thing. Determining the truth based on evidence, based on actual observations, is called empiricism or a posteriori knowledge. A person's individual observation or a scientist's trial observations are both observations.

[WVBRY]

Such a kind person, Domr.

I wasn't trolling. I'm asking why everything must be socionics related. A valid point especially since this isn't the type of thing that is type related or matters if it is.

Sorry, ooo, but this is kind of a pointless thread IMO.

[domr]

Such a kind person, Domr.

I wasn't trolling. I'm asking why everything must be socionics related. A valid point especially since this isn't the type of thing that is type related or matters if it is.

Sorry, ooo, but this is kind of a pointless thread IMO.

because this is a model of the human mind so it sound explain certain aspects of human behavior.

[ooo]

yeah good, if you say "someone says he does very bad stuff", just to talk bad of someone, without any evidence or argumentation, you're just reporting voices, or probably making them up

[ooo]

thx @aster, that's really thorough!

actually makes great points, the person I'm talking about is doing all those things listed there, in my opinion, ie. goosips trying to create a network where he's high ranked and, this:

Negative gossip about third parties, who of course have no opportunity to defend themselves, is a dangerous game that can rebound on the gossiper. To be good at malicious gossip requires a high degree of subtlety and skill. The trick is to appear to be sympathetic to the victim while holding him below the waterline with implicit denigration.

the being nice in front of someone else he then talks bad about is something that happens often.

[Tallmo]

could be related to suggestive function. But hard to say more precisely.

[Bertrand]

thx @aster, that's really thorough!

actually makes great points, the person I'm talking about is doing all those things listed there, in my opinion, ie. goosips trying to create a network where he's high ranked and, this:
the being nice in front of someone else he then talks bad about is something that happens often.

I think you can care about someone and criticize them without "implicitly denigrating" them. the denigration seems to me a product of projections not necessarily the reality. the second you criticize anyone outside of their presence you're simultaneously purporting to care for them and holding yourself "above" them, but that doesn't immediately invalidate whatever you're saying--it certainly doesn't make it automatically "unfair". sometimes people can function as an example to others of how not to be, or one can simply warn someone else about a 3rd parties' conduct, which might impact them later. none of this is inherently unfair or denigrating in principle. and even if it was, it could just as easily be traced back to the person's conduct who kicked off the "gossip." what makes gossip unfair is how truthful it is. if someone portrays a one sided account, that's what turns news into gossip. especially if the motive in so doing is self interest. what makes gossip bad then is essentially victimizing someone for your own benefit and essentially lying to whoever you're talking to in order to pull that off. gossip is really just another word for spreading lies. if it is true, no one has anyone to blame but themselves for other people speaking truthfully about them, because they did it. obviously if its the kind of thing that is hurtful and private but you're selectively emphasizing that this person did it, when technically everyone does it, its not the truth at issue, its the selective attention on this person for an ulterior motive that also makes something bad. in other words, taking a picture of someone on the toilet isn't really the fault of the person who poops. but saying so and so stole $500 dollars from the church offering, and you saw them do it, is not gossip if its true. same with so and so cheated on their wife. the second that sort of thing becomes equivalent to using the toilet (meaning outside the bounds of fairly bringing to others attention), society has lost its moral footing and gossip is not really the problem

[ooo]

thx for the perspective, Bertrand. I know this may sound biased and well, obviously it is, I'm talking from my point of view here. I'm not doubting the good intentions or the inherent constructive nature of healthy criticism, I'm even a fan of truth in all its shades. But I'm really not commenting on the content of the information he provides, although it has a role, but rather for the ways he does this, which is so natural to him to sort of characterize him. when we people who know him well, talk about his opinion on something or what he said of something or someone, we just say "oh you know how exaggerated he is!", because that's just the way he is, he does this with everything, and it's mostly funny and ok... but it can even easily go over the top. he's perceived as rather black and white, something bad becomes the worst, something good is ok... lol. the things he says often are made up, like once a common acquaintance was going to africa for holidays and my friend started to say that he's a pimp and goes to africa just to administer the pimpin' society.. lol, but he believed in it and went around spreading such news... I mean.. lol

[ooo]

crAck yeah, I guess something is ntr and something else could be, and that part could overlap easily in the functions that you and others have pointed out, which is actually weird! Te or Fe? The motives for him behaving like that are disparate because it's a common trait of his, he's doing it pretty much always, for all occasions, so I'd say that the shock effect is always created in how he behaves through this feature, I see it as a special way to create an instant bond, it actually works, he knows how to interact with people instantly, even thanks to his particular kind of storytelling... in the bad spectrum this behavior becomes extreme, he reports of people saying this and that and so it must be true, and it's always usually just one tiny part of the real story and probably not even true, but just said out of some made up conjecture...
he enjoys reading political newspapers, keeps up with what goes on, has a strong opinion in most of these things... idk!

[wasp]

it's from wikisocion.net (x) it doesn't cover everything in the OP but it does cover some of it

[ooo]

lol that looked like me... hmmmm no but this person could actually be a SEI or an IEI, it's just hard for me to imagine him as a feeler but it could be , but so weird to imagine that.... all of this said looks like creative Fe though, so no doubt it's a possibility, especially for the reasons I mentioned: shock and bond (+ rank), and Te could be a bad soft spot coz you're not any useful or factual in reporting random voices or stories... so that's Te polr. but alternatively I see him as Se + Ti user, not sure of the order, as if he's creating his internal schemes and they match with what others say (Fe suggestive), and so he can align to them, and Se could be the provocative effect... but could it be that Te in creative position takes the literal meaning of creating Te-facts and so exaggerate on Te in this way? It'd hard to make it a Fe polr though.

[ooo]

lol no, he's just a person I know well and that I've tested and can't make sense of his type. yesterday I was talking about him with someone else and they expressed my same ideas, and it's not the first time, so I think this behaviour gives some hints to his cognitive style, because it's something he repeatedly does, in good and bad, and repetition creates special patterns in our brains. so maybe it's not functionally or type related, but maybe someone is doing this more than someone else and if we assign them a type, and find a meaningful correlation, we can say that type x tends to behave more like I've described.

[Sol]

when one brings up what others say, usually random people, acquaintances, as a proof of "correctness" and truth?

the trusting to clearly bad sources reminds bad T

> this is usually done in a gossipy way

to spread gossips about people is mostly F types fun