Fi is not empathy and SLEs are not sociopaths. Fi is understanding the nature (closeness, distance, stability) of relationships. SLEs feel just the same, they are just insecure in their assessment of relationships and that can sometimes lead to Se posturing to compensate. /broken record
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Jeremy, having an "EII God complex" is not justification for presenting yourself as some sort of enlightened Socionics information repository and bullying people that don't agree with you.
If you really just want attention, then keep it coming so that your ban is quick and painless.
Where'd your TIM label go? LolOriginally Posted by Reactance
I don't think you understand the definition of empathy.
? I was banned for making 3 Betas mad lol.
What ya doing on here?
God, you sound like a nerd LOL. Sorry, but I don't go around being passive aggressive as a shield.Jeremy, having an "EII God complex" is not justification for presenting yourself as some sort of enlightened Socionics information repository and bullying people that don't agree with you.
If you really just want attention, then keep it coming so that your ban is quick and painless.
"The ability to understand and share the feelings of another?" That's just ethics. No reason to be confined to Fi.
God, you sound like a nerd LOL. Sorry, but I don't go around being passive aggressive as a shield.
You're clearly just looking for a reaction. Bye. xD
Awwwwww come on LOL
Want quotes on Ethics from SSS? Had a multi day discussion with them about it
Yummy
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
What the hell just happened here?
Oh, sorry lol. I guess I should disclaimer that I'm purposefully using different elements for various reasons.
Really? Lol. I don't take a lot of pictures, and of course, it's me, so it's odd to do one's own visuals like that lol. Most are done with my parents around on vacations, and I be who I need to be, so figured the pics may give off more Beta vibes. Hell, they still may.Starting with VI, based on the picture of you now you dress like a LOT of the Ne creatives I know. i mean a LOT.
Don't know if I would agree or not. That was basically the last time I had any concern for Se, as well as the end of my "super-ego block development" in Yermak's theory. I believe it was around 4-5 months after those pics that I underwent internally violent rejection of Se.If i were to look solely on your picture from a decade ago I would've probably said LSI.
I'll throw up some more later lolRegardless, I can see how you look like an EII more than an LII. I generally notice the difference in the eyes and you VI more Fi dom than Ti dom. However, I could probably easily get you confused for a perceiving dominant type so I don't think it counts for much. You do look similar to my EII friend, FWIW.
Socionics is most likely "TPL," types of physical looks lolThat's pretty much the entirety of my thoughts on VI, which I generally consider to be secondary when I type people. I do notice VI similarities, which fascinate me, so I always consider it anyway.
_____________________________________________
Was EII long before running into them. SSS has the only decent library of English resources, and they'll reply to you, if you have a question. On the minus side, they act pretty ticked if you if you question on alternate paths.If i type purely on SSS, which you reference a lot, i can easily see how you've come to EII.
I actually do play with the theories a lot in my head. I don't know all the Socionists, but I'm probably deeper into Socionics than anyone outside of Bukalov, Yermak, and Strat. Bukalov's deep parts get into pretty high level theoretical sciences, that I don't have the education to follow properly sometimes. Yermak's stuff uses systems and models theory as his based. Strat, I haven't read outside of his narrative descriptions. Mine lean towards computing, ability to be changed into applied theory on the lower levels, and bridging the various systems of socionics, psychology, philosophy, etc. I don't normally write it down due to the time it takes, concerns over if it is ethically in opposition to humanity if it's divulged, and ever-expanding and recorrecting it. I don't actually use the logic on a high level, but rather filter in an enormous amount of relationships information from the environment into it, and use objective and simple data to bridge them, and place others logics together into something that makes sense and works without blowing a gear or tire or something after a week.You do seem like normative Ti from everything I've read so far where you take the theory and don't really experiment with what aspects could be right or could be wrong-- something that I think people with Ti of higher dimensionality do. In another way this seems to enforce (Weak) Te valuing for you simply because you do treat the theory more on a factual basis. I will say that there seem to be quite a few Ti doms who take the theory for granted, which pretty much contradicts what I just said, but even so you don't seem to require the rigor they do when considering certain arguments. If you were to provide me with evidence that you do play around with the theory I might be inclined to change my typing. And if you disagree with this at all, i could be inclined to change my typing.
Well, Fi isn't an action, nor is Ti. Both are internal rationale that use various other extroverted elements for varying effects. When people "see Fi," they are usually confused about seeing Fe in relation to their understandings. What you will see often in the static types are the extroverted elements Se and Ne. Both can come from Ti or Fi directly. Because these forums existence is to discuss a logical system, you will see Se, Ne, or Te coming from a Ti source when discussing Socionics. Most often (simply because socionics is inherently alpha) you will see Ti+Ne, which is normally what I use when discussing socionics. Other times, you will see someone basically enforcing their logical systems on others, Ti+Se. When I defend/attack based on such, for instance, it is accompanied by negative control emotions. Finally, you will see appeals to objective logic via transition from Ti to Te. That said, with Ne blocked with Fi, you will only see such when the common "counseling" is used. I do sometimes counsel on here and on other forums, though it usually goes through PM's. Occasionally it will be public, and it's pretty obvious when one person is counseling another. Usually it involves them bringing up a real relationship issue. The only "practical" use I find in Socionics is using it to have people type themselves and others as a psychoanalytic tool to better flesh out where the "splits" between parties are. Can also use it the self to better pinpoint and give structure to thoughts on what you yourself see as the issues between others. Since it is a Socionics forum, heavy with low Fi and Ne, most choose to introduce their problems through the logical lens of Socionics, so it is only natural to generally heed their request and reply through the same lens. However, if it seems like they aren't just derping on the internet and are having a legitimate issue, then the Fi-Ne route will take precedence, as it is a real and serious issue.What makes this typing troublesome is that I really don't see much Fi from you. I mean you do seem to connect with others when you aren't just playing around on here, but that's not something i couldn't see an LII doing. And, furthermore, your discussions seem to gravitate toward theory more than anything. I see the ethical types on this forum gravitating toward the non-theory threads for more serious discussion- ya know such as the plus size models thread. Perhaps the gravitation toward theory is almost more of a 'male' or 'masculine' thing rather than an ethics vs. logic thing-- I think this could have some weight to it. Or maybe your Ne keeps you interested. It's not something I could seriously answer.
Don't know him, so can't really comment on it. Wouldn't an EII using Se look similar to SLE? Using Se- entails going in reverse order through the Mental, which is basically the same order as SLE. It's an issue with Socionics that they try and match static pieces with the reality that humans are dynamic. If you "want to see" someone as something, Socionics leaves enough loopholes that you're able to do such.Soooo are you an EII with super apparent logic functions? or are you a Ti ego? I don't believe you're Te ego because i get a very strong sense you do not have Pi or Je functions in your ego. Don't ask me why i think this. I just can't see it. Along with LII, I would maybe consider you are the same type as Transkar who is a member on here who is often banned for messing around (but he repeatedly makes new accounts). As far as I know, the possible types for him that have floated around have been ILE, SLE, and LSI with SLE being the most likely. You don't strike me as SLE, but maybe ILE-- this could potentially be way out in left field, im working on a pretty thin amount of data here, but it could make some sense.
For myself, I wouldn't say "super apparent logic functions," simply because I know myself and my life. Nowhere in Socionics is I.Q. really brought up. Probably the hardest types for me to accurately type are my own and LSE, simply because I am trying to say someone is "like me" or has traits that "match up with my own" well. I've been on the very high end minority scale of intelligence my whole life, so separating me into any system that ignores this aspect will seem "off" in some ways. Especially when I.Q. stereotypes are placed with a couple of elements that have no necessary baring on the other elements. Someone could be Ti PoLR and Ne Role, and have an I.Q. that is off the WEIS scale, with Se Leading and Fi Creating far beyond the average SEE or anyone else for that matter, or they could be SEE and be terrible with their Ego compared to other SEE's. No one knows, because, much like gender, Socionics chooses to ignore these very real things.
I think LSI's (real ones) would all automatically consider Socionics to be bulls***, and ignore it, simply because the system is full of logical holes that appear to be in place on purpose to please the users.Anyone who doesn't reference dimensionality of functions would probably say you are logical, fwiw- hell, even people who do reference dimensionality of functions would probably say you are logical. If i ignore my thoughts on dimensionality and where you might fit in then i'd be compelled to say logical also. You just seem way too interested in the theory.
Really, i don't know your type. These are all just thoughts for your consideration. The transkar idea is something that's been stewing in my head for a while but I didn't really become conscious of it until now.
As an aside, i might come back and edit this as more thoughts occur to me or as i spot revisions because, well, i don't proofread my posts before posting.
It's a logical system and I had need of it. Basically done with it now though. The tool and the exercise seem to have run the course of their utility.
Nah, that's the thing, Ti isn't exactly the Creative for me. I don't "flex" my logic like SLEs do it.Yes, such as your emphasis on Ti Creative.
Seriously though, getting really bored of Socionics really fast, so don't think I'm being a dick if I don't keep engaging on socionics matters.
Second line: Gotcha.
Typism. You are unable to consider factors beyond Socionics for manifested behaviour.
Yep, I reject the parts that have such holes.simply because the system is full of logical holes that appear to be in place on purpose to please the users.
I don't think the purpose is to please the users, tho'. That's a real weird idea there.
It's a weird idea that a system is created that lets people be what they want to be? That's what happens in groups; you give concessions to people. Otherwise, you may as well simply determine the system yourself, use the system yourself, and keep the system to yourself. That's just general human nature. You take some. You give some. And in the end you grant people their right to individuality, including if such entails that the system has means for them to use it under their own discretion and freedom of choice. You accept them, and who they are, or you turn your back on their own desires to be happy, no different from yourself.
Yes, it's a very weird idea to me. I'm only into the objective view of theories, nothing to do with "what someone wants to be". Has nothing to do with individuality or any of that crap you listed here. The theory needs to be falsifiable as well or I'm not interested.
By the way these snippets by you do show that you are Fi > Ti. I have no problem with your EII typing, you are just overdoing the Ti/Te which comes out real weird when you try to go beyond the limits too much.
No because it blows the tire after less than a day.
Good observations, especially the bolded.
I've seen the Fi despite him being an asshole troll. Just now, in the post above too. (Though it's also Ne-heavy.)What makes this typing troublesome is that I really don't see much Fi from you.
Lol he's not even remotely similar in ways of thinking to Transkar.Soooo are you an EII with super apparent logic functions? or are you a Ti ego? I don't believe you're Te ego because i get a very strong sense you do not have Pi or Je functions in your ego. Don't ask me why i think this. I just can't see it. Along with LII, I would maybe consider you are the same type as Transkar
Uh. What seems so logical about him? His stuff is painfully speculative going way way beyond what Ti would judge. I always had a hard time seeing Jeremy as Ti ego - I do reference the dimensionality principles. The only Ti ego typing I could accept for him is ILE but EII makes more sense.Anyone who doesn't reference dimensionality of functions would probably say you are logical, fwiw- hell, even people who do reference dimensionality of functions would probably say you are logical. If i ignore my thoughts on dimensionality and where you might fit in then i'd be compelled to say logical also. You just seem way too interested in the theory.
In any case, Ne ego with not quite inert Ti -> again, this leaves EII and ILE.
Actually, the difference in scores for SLE and LSI was not significant. So both types were possible based on the analysis.
Yeah, but that's the thing: It's not. They try and pass it off as though it is, but in the end it's just a very large maze with no cheese. Look at Ex parameter. Entropic directly asked how they know if the person isn't experienced with a dual. I also similarly asked, if all things can be experienced, then 4D information can be experienced and used/displayed. Both times, it was basically said "nope." The Ex parameter itself is a cop-out loophole. When discussing people typing, I said that people are only typing on current behaviors, and behaviors and behavior patterns change, and he wholeheartedly agreed and stated that they don't use behaviors. Eventually it boiled down to them using linguistics for typing. Linguistics is a modifiable behavior.Yes, it's a very weird idea to me. I'm only into the objective view of theories, nothing to do with "what someone wants to be". Has nothing to do with individuality or any of that crap you listed here. The theory needs to be falsifiable as well or I'm not interested.
By the way these snippets by you do show that you are Fi > Ti. I have no problem with your EII typing, you are just overdoing the Ti/Te which comes out real weird when you try to go beyond the limits too much.
No because it blows the tire after less than a day.
I understand what you're saying about systems, but I am telling you this is not that. This has been around since, what, the 70s? If two people on some forums can get this far in this amount of time with the system, then people spending 30+ years of their professional life could easily have come up with standards before, even if they are linguistic analysis acknowledged to be present-tense typing. The simple reality is, Socionics doesn't want to be such. If you question the Socionists directly and point out logical loopholes, they just get annoyed and fall back on essentially "magically because." The system is perfectly circular. You can go anywhere in it, no matter who you are, and on purpose. It's more like a logic flowchart tool for self-analysis of relationships in one's life than anything practically applicable between people.
Jeremy enjoy the rest of your time your ban seems to be on its way. And it IS going to HURT! All SLEs are now sociopaths? Are you getting this far? If I am SLE then according to your logic in a few days a poisoned letter is going to arrive to you and you'll die slowly and painfully, or maybe a hitman will torture you before he shoots your brains out.
Do I even know you?Jeremy enjoy the rest of your time your ban seems to be on its way. And it IS going to HURT! All SLEs are now sociopaths? Are you getting this far? If I am SLE then according to your logic in a few days a poisoned letter is going to arrive to you and you'll die slowly and painfully, or maybe a hitman will torture you before he shoots your brains out.
@Contra and Kim and others who are NOT CALLED JEREMY:
Well if I am SLE then it seems my depression totally kills my Se most of the time and I have but bursts of it. About the Fi PoLR, I can see that it may be confused with weak Fi as in LSE also. After all, both are semi-identicals and it sucks to distinguish them most of the time. At least for me. And another thing, I cannot see Si as ignoring function in me, really. I like comfort and value it to the point of getting more irritated than others when it's too hot, like it was here today, it pisses me off to a point where the air-conditioning becomes paradise for me. Others who were born in this hot country aren't that bothered about the heat as I am usually. This is one thing I consider for not-SLE.
Another thing which was previously discussed on the chatbox is that Fi-PoLR often shows as not being attached to people, even loved ones, and I'm over-attached to people. I really enjoy creating bonds and acquaintances and then friends. This also points to Fi-valuing not Fe valuing. Or doesn't it?
Last edited by Airman; 01-10-2016 at 02:38 AM.
If you keep this sort of behaviour trying to disrupt forum harmony, especially when it comes to my person, you may get to know me quite soon in a very unpleasant manner.
I meant, I don't recall speaking with you before.
Neither do I with you and I think we're better off this way. So keep it like that, this what I meant. Of course I was being acid, I'm not going to send you a poisoned letter or kill you. But you seem to have a bizarre reasoning that cannot come accross to me as acceptable. So cool, just refrain from further interaction with me, even in this wicked internet thing, full of wicked people like you... just keep away from me, you get it? Ok. Keep your typings and comments to other members and just do not include me. Is that too hard for your huge compensating ego?
Did I even type you? Lol
I honestly don't even know what you're talking about lol
Ok, well, then you may be LSE. What you described does sound like the LSEs I know. I think LIEs tend to ignore physical conditions rather than remain acutely sensitive to them. The reason I saw you as SLE in the chatbox was because many of your comments reminded me of a couple of SLEs I know. Of course, in this case, I am coloring you with the associations of types i already know, which makes me very liable to mistype. What I deem Fi polr could maybe also be 1D Fi.
I don't think I've had any chance to analyze the way Transkar thinks. Practically all of the posts I've read of him have been non-serious or videos.
ILE and EII are the typings i'm considering for him now. I'm not considering LII anymore.Uh. What seems so logical about him? His stuff is painfully speculative going way way beyond what Ti would judge. I always had a hard time seeing Jeremy as Ti ego - I do reference the dimensionality principles. The only Ti ego typing I could accept for him is ILE but EII makes more sense.
In any case, Ne ego with not quite inert Ti -> again, this leaves EII and ILE.
"Uh. What seems so logical about him?"
I mean i think the relevant question here is how much information do we really need to get a decent indication of someone's type? It's clear enough that the preponderance of Fi doms on this forum do not focus on the theory to the degree that jeremy does while the Ti egos do. And he sent me the link to a post where he has related socionics to some computer science systems theory (i've only skimmed it), which is something that sounds quite a bit like something an ILE might do (look at what reinin has done, and there are various other ILEs who try to relate social systems to physics and what not-- it seems this comparing of dynamics between sciences is something ILEs tend to do) whereas I've yet to see an EII really delve in like this. It isn't to exclude EII as a possible typing but to present enough circumstantial evidence that the typing of ILE *could* be more likely. As it goes for the rigor bit, I don't think he requires the rigor that LIIs typically do but an ILE? sure.
Another reason I have for ILE is the constant trolling. It's not something I could personally keep up because I just don't really have an interest in prodding people to see how they react. This is something that i generally associated with devalued (maybe also weak) Fi. More than that, i think messing around like this is what creates barriers to the community and the person in question, which not only seems like weak Fi but also unproductive. Once again, could an EII do this? sure. Do they typically? not that I've seen. Do ILEs? sometimes.
I don't mind pure analysis within the theory such as the one I provided where i rationalized his typing to be EII, but at a certain point I'd rather step back and compare what is consistent with reality because the mistakes inherent to any school's theories within socionics can lead one to get lost and rationalize a typing for one's self or others that is just wildly inaccurate yet remains consistent with the referenced theory. Really, we are dealing with very little data here. Maybe if he made a video his EII-ness would really shine through, I don't know.
EDIT: I'll also add that i'm sticking with EII as the most likely typing for him for now, but I have my reasons for considering ILE.
Last edited by Contra; 01-10-2016 at 05:15 AM.
I find the IQ relationship to sociotypes pretty fascinating. It very well may be the case that IQ has absolutely no dependency on type, but this would not seem to jibe with reality or my experience at least. While i've never personally been able to see the IQ scores of particular individuals, and i don't just judge people's intelligence based on my impressions, I have seen which types tend to do better in school and on standardized tests and whatever other things are correlated with g. In this case it seems that, uniformly, LIIs do the best. So If it is the case that certain types tend toward having higher IQs then I'd be interested to know which types score higher on certain aspects of intelligence i.e. do Ni doms tend to have higher verbal intelligence while Ti doms have higher mathematical intelligence or something of the sort? Do rational types do better in school than irrationals while IQ scores remain the same? Even more, I'd be interested to know what this says about IQ. Would it be safe to say that what IQ measures is a certain set of skills that a few types may have a propensity toward over others rather than an overall quality of cognition? In this case it would be harder to treat IQ like some sort of social darwinian test of mental efficacy or whatever.
My ignorance on this is partially on me because I have researched IQ but I've never actually taken an IQ test. If i did I might be able to answer the primary question here.
Yeah, i mean, sure. I think LIIs would too. Sometimes it's not even the logical holes as much as how incompatible it is with their preconceived notions of reality-- something we all have but some are more open to changing than others.I think LSI's (real ones) would all automatically consider Socionics to be bulls***, and ignore it, simply because the system is full of logical holes that appear to be in place on purpose to please the users.
I'm approaching this for me. I'm mainly interested in the nature of the theory and how 'real' it is. I'm also interested in how much a single type can say about a person, that is, how deep it runs for an individual. I think I've gotten about all of the information I can from this theory in this capacity.It's a logical system and I had need of it. Basically done with it now though. The tool and the exercise seem to have run the course of their utility.
Hmm....
- Starting quarrels to attempt displaying intellectual supriority... (while taking pride in it)
- Looks at things from a strict systematic point of view...
- Placing own interpretation of system above other's...
- A preference for the use of abstract (and ambiguous) terminology, almost as high as my own once was...
I've met people exhibiting these traits...they were all LII. These traits were even more prominent in the people stacking one of the aggressive Enneatypes.
Hell, without even breaking the posts down into details, he sounds far more like the LIIs I've met, than any EIIs.
Why am I so sure?
Frankly, because his posts sound like my evil twin.
So....what are the odds that the guy who keeps telling others that they mistyped themselves, in fact, managed to mistype himself?
I don't know; I think it may have crawled up your ass in search of a fitting home. I'll just...um, get a couple hands up there and find it. Just relax now.
good bye
No, the Ex parameter isn't a loophole. It would only be possible in an imaginary world for that to collect as much information as to look 4D consistently across every situation.
I disagree that you can go "anywhere" in the system.
Afaik there are standards, just different ones between different schools. (Doesn't mean they are all correct.)
We seem to be on the same page a lot.
Yep, that's ILE-ish. But in general it's just Ne ego. Even IEE's can do this with their Ti PoLR.I mean i think the relevant question here is how much information do we really need to get a decent indication of someone's type? It's clear enough that the preponderance of Fi doms on this forum do not focus on the theory to the degree that jeremy does while the Ti egos do. And he sent me the link to a post where he has related socionics to some computer science systems theory (i've only skimmed it), which is something that sounds quite a bit like something an ILE might do (look at what reinin has done, and there are various other ILEs who try to relate social systems to physics and what not-- it seems this comparing of dynamics between sciences is something ILEs tend to do) whereas I've yet to see an EII really delve in like this. It isn't to exclude EII as a possible typing but to present enough circumstantial evidence that the typing of ILE *could* be more likely. As it goes for the rigor bit, I don't think he requires the rigor that LIIs typically do but an ILE? sure.
I do have a hard time seeing Jeremy as having higher than 2D Ti when I read his reasonings. Maybe an ILE that has some mental problem
But overall he comes off as EII in his way of thinking. I have a hard time seeing him as a Fe valuer as well.
It does look like ILE a lot. I've seen EII trolling but they did it in a different manner, they would mess around but it was full of Fi, no Ti in it and it was not with the intent to make anyone better. For Jeremy what I see in these cases the most is Ne and some sort of weird reasoning that I associate with Fi but I could be wrong.Another reason I have for ILE is the constant trolling. It's not something I could personally keep up because I just don't really have an interest in prodding people to see how they react. This is something that i generally associated with devalued (maybe also weak) Fi. More than that, i think messing around like this is what creates barriers to the community and the person in question, which not only seems like weak Fi but also unproductive. Once again, could an EII do this? sure. Do they typically? not that I've seen. Do ILEs? sometimes.
A video would be interesting for sure.I don't mind pure analysis within the theory such as the one I provided where i rationalized his typing to be EII, but at a certain point I'd rather step back and compare what is consistent with reality because the mistakes inherent to any school's theories within socionics can lead one to get lost and rationalize a typing for one's self or others that is just wildly inaccurate yet remains consistent with the referenced theory. Really, we are dealing with very little data here. Maybe if he made a video his EII-ness would really shine through, I don't know.
Supposedly what IQ tests ask about is adjusted to the culture where they are being deployed. So it doesn't always have to be LII-friendly. It's just about general mental ability... how well your brain functions.
I would guess it's the Ne egos that have higher verbal intelligence.
Say more on your conclusions, I'm curious.I'm approaching this for me. I'm mainly interested in the nature of the theory and how 'real' it is. I'm also interested in how much a single type can say about a person, that is, how deep it runs for an individual. I think I've gotten about all of the information I can from this theory in this capacity.
He is far less than strict in his way of systematizing things. Too flexible.
As for the second one, he's more parroting whatever sources he's read.
What he does place above others's interpretation is his Ne perceptions.
Would be funnySo....what are the odds that the guy who keeps telling others that they mistyped themselves, in fact, managed to mistype himself?
@Airman, just quickly, I find that SLEs get very attached to people. Again, I don't think Fi means to WANT more relationships are "deeper" ones, it means that with strong Fi, understanding them becomes a priority. A Fi-dominant will have an easier time figuring out why a relationship has gone awry and be less confused about problems and tensions. SLEs are a bit helpless in that way and it's a vulnerability that, I think, can make them even more attached (or can lead to "bad boy posturing" like "I am too cool for this shit" when really they are suffering). I have said before that I find them to be the most loyal of partners and friends (because it takes them so long to fully trust their relationship with you).
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Just to add to what you said;
I find the Ex parameter to be representative of the fact that Socionics is a static system - a snapshot of preferences in regards to the use of cognitive functions.
As time goes and the longer we live, we pick up on more information through our infeiror functions and become more adept at using them. It takes longer time to develop a 1D function than a 4D function, but they get developed nonetheless. (This overlaps nicely with MBTI theory, where the sentiment is that different functions "develop" at different points in life. Although I would rather say that we become aware of them, because they are all inherently there to begin with.)
Thus it becomes harder to type people based on their behaviours once they get older. Behaviours do indeed change, but preferences of an information structure tends to remain the same. (There's a reason that some functions are considered to be "valued" - because we find the use of them mentally rewarding.)
Socionics in itself (as well as MBTI) is a system attempting to explain what goes on in your mind whenever confronted with information. How we structure this information.
I'd rather attribute this reasoning to the combination of leading Ti, ignoring/normative Te.
Going from my own experience of ignoring Ni, which manifests as that internal voice saying; "There's no historic basis for the success of your initiative!" and my innate reaction being; "Shush, I'm trying to do something here!"
Following this pattern, I can totally see this being applicable in his case, citing the example of dimensionality in mathemathics and dimensionality in Socionics. Ignoring Te in this case, manifests as dismissing the difference in context and following the similarity of terminlology. (Not considering evaluation of effectiveness, which is what Te usually takes care of.)
The whole point of LIIs being so good at generating possibilities is because they ignore the contextual connection. (Just as ILEs ignore the historical data pointing towards what is most likely, and thus succeed with what others deemed impossible/unlikely.)
The strictness tends to be internalized for a Ti dom, which is displayed in his writing of not wanting to "accept"/"play around" with the idea that someone else's explanation could be right. Listing more facts (although without connections) attempting to impose his view, rather than doublechecking himself. (I recognize this reluctance in the same way as when someone tells me that what I see as a possibility, to be unlikely.)
Yup, it's true, it's parroting of sources - but only by usage of factual statements. When asked for connection, the request is dismissed with a rant on how ineffective someone else is at locating information. (See post #614. Funnily enough, this is consistent with MBTI theory of Te "Opposing function", which equals to Socionics normative/ignoring.)
Alternatively, this kind of behaviour shows disinterest in advancing a topic, in favour of advancing their own image of superiority. Which would support @Hacim's claim in post #615.
What lead me down this path is the difference between ILE and LII. (Ti doms - LII - tend to prefer attempting to impose their logical structure on existing structures, whereas ILE mainly voices the concerns about the existing structure, then works around it wherever possible.)
My main doubt of him being an ILE is the reference to validity by authority itself. (Post #611) If there's one thing that tends to be true for ILE, it's that an authority can also be wrong and we would not be content with simply citing authority without explanation, when faced with a question. - Sure, this one is not based directly in socionics but it's one of the most dominant ILE traits across the board.
Another doubt is the fact that a main ILE drive is "how something works", not "that something works".
Last edited by Flaxe; 01-11-2016 at 04:57 PM.
It is entirely a loophole. It's representative of the typer's experience of the individual, not of the individual's experience.
Y'all sure refer to people that y'all have typed as evidence of things a lot lol. It's basically like arguing a case with the premise.
Well, kinda seems like it should be up your own now, lol.
Posting Permissions
