You mistake the colloquial understanding of "logical" with socionics logic, nevertheless IEE makes the most sense for him, he's very emotive and expressive something ILE are not, and unlike logical types he's got a tendency of not focusing on details when formulating his reasoning.Originally Posted by peteronfireee
The temperament is pretty much EP he's not directed, if you are coming from WSS then it'll be extremely difficult to notice temperament differences along with beta IEE & EII.
NeFe are mutually strong in ENFxs
Interesting. I am not coming from WSS, I have heard of that but don't know exactly what that is.
So, why exactly are you making a case for EP temperament?
I am not opposed to that. But I strongly think that he is EIE.
He's a bit like Tyler Oakley, slayage
He speaks like energizer bunny - definitely Ne. Maybe people confuse gayness with Fe. I think he's ILE - don't see any indication of Fi.
Nah, I'm not mistaking anything.
The way he expresses his views is very systematic, clear-cut, logical. (traits of Ti-valuing).
If you listen to his arguments, he has a very, "this is how it is and this is why X Y and Z falls into it" and "this is how the world works" systematic kind of approach.
As a conservative, I actually listen to some of Milo Yiannopoulos' stuff from time to time, and I can tell you his views in the realm of politics are very consistent all across the board.
If he was Ti-PoLR/IEE he would come off more scatter-brained and all over the place when expressing his ideas; I didn't get that general impression with Milo.
And to be clear, I'm not saying IEE can't be "logical," they certainly can be logical. But, IEEs don't express that logic in terms of building systems and having rules within that system that "THIS IS HOW IT IS" Ti-valuing types come off as.
Also, as an overall impression, he comes off a little too brash for an IEE; this is evident in his crude language and his "facts don't care about your feelings" attitude. Whereas with IEEs, their vibe comes off as a softer "everyone can be right" impression.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 03-22-2017 at 03:05 PM.
I'm not completely sure of what type he is, but I don't necessarily think that IEEs can't ever be argumentative.
For example:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ed_description
ILE descriptions are similar:
I'd say this is one of the more defining characteristics of ILEs:
Interesting:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ile_by_Gulenko
Anyway, both ethicals and logicals can be aggressive, if they are unhealthy.
Observe more people and you'll question that hypothesis along with even "valuing". Secondly assuming "ethical" means high emotional intelligence is another hypothesis you'll realise is flawed. For this reason, I overall accept that there are more than 16 types of people and unfortunately we abstract different observations in constructing our personal interpretation of these 16 labels.
BTW irrationals are scatter-brained (EP) or vague (IP) when they've not satiated all the information they feel is relevant to the matter of their consideration. Observe and communicate with people you classify as traditionally irrational and it'll be evident.
I've spoken to some of the guys linked to socionics Britannica, and they are working on a new delimitation on information & reason preference that's more logical, yet mutually upsets traditional view of socionics. I'm with them when they say there are more than 16types of people.
lmao, yea well observing you I can tell you don’t value Ti. Te > Ti-valuing for you based on,
1. You have a "there are exceptions to the rules” and skeptical tone in your posts that Te people tend to have.
2. You seem prioritize this over classifications, systems, and having an absolute way explaining things (which is Ti-valuing)
3. You appeal to external authority over internal validity, this is Te valuing > Ti valuing, as evidenced later:
HEY LOOK! I just placed you/classified you into a box!I've spoken to some of the guys linked to socionics Britannica, and they are working on a new delimitation on information & reason preference that's more logical, yet mutually upsets traditional view of socionics. I'm with them when they say there are more than 16types of people.
Never claimed that. I’m saying Milo imposes his views in a way uncharacteristic of an IEE. As I already mentioned, IEEs express their views in a softer, non-absolute tone relative to say, an ILE would express his views.
Nobody claimed you can’t classify people further beyond 16 types. I’m sure you and your friends at socionics Britannica could lol. Just like you could classify, for example, humans in a bunch of ways if you wanted to. I could classify a person based on skin, hair color, race, occupation, etc etc in a myriad and infinite number of ways as a matter of fact.
Socionics only describes one slice of your overall personality. Nobody claimed it was this ultimate badass system that describes your every move lol
Yup. But I guess that’s what makes discussion interesting because we all perceive and observe things differently.
Well, he’s definitely not introverted. So that eliminates IP. And if we can’t agree that he’s NOT introverted, then I don’t know what to say lol.
This is interesting, you are amongst the few people with a "informational" approach to socionics as opposed to the behavioural approach really quite characteristic WSS and most socionists. I'm impressed because most people on this forum don't.
When I say I'm ILI with alpha values, it seems quite cryptic to the basic folks around here. It's as if I'm stupid and incapable of understanding the theory.
Your insight here has tickled my fancy given how it is different from the behavioural approach as this here by Gulenko and most folks, which lead me to my peculiar ILI with alpha values self-classification. http://www.socioniks.net/biblioteka/6/obsh_poniat.html
I'm glad we are on the same path with this other Ti vs Te view. I'm "Te-valuing" however, you have few errors I can correct... sorry in a hurry right now will continue to respond later.
Last edited by Soupman; 03-22-2017 at 08:23 PM.
Scepticism can be observed in many forms but when I'm encountered with flaky "Ti" information I doubt because the facts employed aren't based on evidence. The facts aren't empirical and for that reason, I can't take them seriously.
On the matter of classification and systems, that's another error there, I'm very much interested in classifications and value concrete and logical models. Facts must be based on an empiricism, else it's rubbish to entertain such logic.
This is not true rather empirical basis is paramount whenever I entertain logic. The insinuation that external authority matters is false, it's an unrelated causal association which is one of my biggest problems with Ti thinkers, Ti errors, I'm most sensitive to.
Now to upset you, "Te valuers" recognise and understand the importance of structural consistency and coherency, imprecisely you refer to that as "internal validity" however that doesn't explain the reality of the process accurately. The realisation that Te and Ti are mutually important and dependent for exceptional analysis made me think initially that the dichotomy was broken since I see the value in both approaches. In layman's terms models, facts must be empirical to prove that a person isn't crazy yet mutually explained in a manner that is structurally consistent and coherent.
This put me in a conundrum since I've been struggling to explain what the difference is, yet I can't deny the fact since there is confusion between supposedly "Ti and Te" types. I've spoken to socionics Britannica and they have an incomplete articulation (it's not elegant and comprehensive enough), I can share it with you here:
To them, the difference is what they are calling critique priority.
"Te preference"(which they have a new name for I've forgotten)
*is what they are calling empiricism preference.
*When given factual information (Ti & Te realm) Te preference questions the empirical basis on such information. The moment the information has failed the empirical test, they aren't interested in hearing what you have to say. In LSE and LIE, this is most pronounced as they are obstinate in their attitudes.
*Also when Te preference types are feeling lazy, they ignore structural consistency & coherency simply following the flawed adage that facts speak for themselves.
"Ti preference"
*is what they call theoretical preference
*When given factual information (Ti and Te realm) Ti preference is concerned primarily with whether the information is illustrating, explaining something. The moment they are given a random assortment of facts, their brains lose interest feeling like a person is wasting their time. LSI & LII are most sensitive to this frustration
*However when Ti priority types are feeling lazy they ignore empirical considerations. Whilst their logic is consistent and illustrative, it has the flaw of not taking consideration of any facts or all the relevant facts of the matter
Last edited by Soupman; 03-23-2017 at 01:04 AM.
I'll say that we are definitely working from incompatible socionics models with incompatible heuristics and classifications. You have relegated the observations you've noted above to IEE which understandable as one method of classification.
Now I said that there are different methods of classification because after 5 years I've come to understood that arguments and difficulties in communication are resulting from the assumption that there is one reliable model of explaining socionics. The shared semantics add confusion by hiding the fact that we aren't using the exact same interpretations. The insults and frustrations we hurl at each other.
Overall I'll refrain from clarifying since my understanding is not yet perfected about definining and identifying the sociotype. There are no perfect models for fully explaining the types, especially with regards to diagnosis.
I'm an irrational type so I'll frustrate you with my indecision that'll remain till I feel I have enough information and a solid understanding. Nevertheless, I'd still explain various facets of the model I work with.
You can also say that there are two types of people! Or infinite types of people. Pick a scale
ILE. ILE and EIE are in the same benefit ring, which is basically a similarity in vital functions, which are the most apparent. This guy is also very Ep, keep him out of my temperament please.
Unfortunately, personalities come in clusters with varying degrees of overlaps, and it's difficult to articulate but I do not believe it's impossible. The main trouble I see is the fact that we aren't articulating the personality traits well enough and we aren't serious about allowing the research dictate the theory, as opposed to contrived classifications out there.
The people are finite and personalities can change, they also come with several peculiarities, socionics has got flaws, socionists show their bias even unintentionally.
I do not think it is so special really, we say that there are expression, relation within ethics. etc. We have models for how these play out. I bet there are some way of grouping behaviour or patterns of thinking into new types which can be added and not a finite amount of types. Or maybe not. ;p What do you really think than a type looks like?
The focus is on society and what he is in terms of identity stuff: aristocratic and F. He is not divorced from the self.
I find those kind of topics extremely ... boring to talk about. Now, if there is dismantling of concepts – that would make sense.
He sounds like supervisor of ESIs.
You go *decide yourself*!
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 03-23-2017 at 10:17 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
@Soupman
In short, our biggest differences is, as you mentioned, how much importance we place on "empirical data."
Which I think is fine, depending on your purposes.
If you want to come up with a more perfected system with precise definitions, and you want to present socionics in front a panel of PhD Russian academia scientists, like yeah have away at it and gather the empirical data.
But if you want to simply type someone, I don't think it's necessary to take out your taped glasses and run lab experiments under a microscope.
The fact of the matter is, without knowing who you really are, I could tell you were some Te-type, and I had it right:
Do you think this was just some wild random "flaky Ti" info? No, I reasoned based on what you said, how you said it, and tied it into what we currently know about Te vs Ti types.
Now if I spent some time around you, watching you like a hawk (lol), I'd have more information to accurately type you.
There have been NUMEROUS times I've observed my friends, typed them. They end up taking the personality test later on, and boom, it turns out I was very accurate with their results.
I have a story related to this. I remember having a conversation/debate with my friends. It was me and an LII vs a SLI. We were debating on whether or not black people were more aggressive than other types of people. The SLI said they weren't/or that he wasn't sure. This was in contrast to me and the LII, our attitudes were more along the lines of, "ARE YOU KIDDING ME WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THEY ARE." Then we listed off reasons and every day examples. The SLI was still skeptical.
That same dynamic is what's going on between you and me lol
Could we have pulled out studies and given more accurate, empirical data? Sure we could. We could have pulled out studies where it shows that black people in general have more testosterone relative to other races, etc.
But sometimes it's not necessary.
Sometimes yeah, you do have to wait for definitive proven studies to come out, but in some cases it's not necessary to wait a thousand years for research to confirm what we already know. ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US lol
^^Athletes are in better shape than old people and couch potatoes. Now I have the empirical data to back it up in a debate!!!!
Last edited by Computer Loser; 03-23-2017 at 02:31 PM.
I had a difficult time articulating the difference but I'm now better at it. With your LII/LSI & SLI example, it's even more apparent with the inverted priority Te and Ti place.Do you think this was just some wild random "flaky Ti" info? No, I reasoned based on what you said, how you said it, and tied it into what we currently know about Te vs Ti types.
Now if I spent some time around you, watching you like a hawk (lol), I'd have more information to accurately type you.
There have been NUMEROUS times I've observed my friends, typed them. They end up taking the personality test later on, and boom, it turns out I was very accurate with their results.
I have a story related to this. I remember having a conversation/debate with my friends. It was me and an LII vs a SLI. We were debating on whether or not black people were more aggressive than other types of people. The SLI said they weren't/or that he wasn't sure. This was in contrast to me and the LII, our attitudes were more along the lines of, "ARE YOU KIDDING ME WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THEY ARE." Then we listed off reasons and every day examples. The SLI was still skeptical.
That same dynamic is what's going on between you and me lol
Could we have pulled out studies and given more accurate, empirical data? Sure we could. We could have pulled out studies where it shows that black people in general have more testosterone relative to other races, etc.
But sometimes it's not necessary.
Sometimes yeah, you do have to wait for definitive proven studies to come out, but in some cases it's not necessary to wait a thousand years for research to confirm what we already know. ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US lol
^^Athletes are in better shape than old people and couch potatoes. Now I have the empirical data to back it up in a debate!!!!
Our biggest problem is that "Ti" types like to make generalisations from simple observations, the problem is that the "generalisations" aren't empirical. The simple observation is that there are instances of very violent subcultures which are further reinforced the media with an entertainment culture surrounding it. Forming generalisations, assumptions, that there are all like that, is a speculation as.opposed to direct empirical proof establishing empirical facts which can be falsified and explain how perculiarities of violence and aggression becomes known which would indicate how exactly such perculiar features cause it.
To convince an Te types, you'll be have to present empirical facts directly about the entity you are trying to prove, as opposed to deriving an assumption from adjacent observations without a proven deterministic.
Simple observations are Se/Ne, again here there perculiarities and the invertedness of reasoning shows itself here. Si/Ni are looking for simply observations but rather are looking to archive reliable observations that prove that what's being touted is true and remains true with time, this is the dynamic approach to reasoning.
In your African Americans being genetically violent example, Si/Ni is both aren't interested in what looks like cherry picking examples that have occurred. Rather they are looking for habitual proof, habitual experiences that remain true inspite of time, and cultural considerations,... Across time the observation being made must remain true in order to convince a dynamic personality.
Last edited by Soupman; 03-23-2017 at 05:48 PM.
So... what type is Milo?
I kind of agree with @unsuccessfull Alphamale in that he speaks a lot of... Aristocratic, subjective opinions, like yes, "identity politics". I feel like NTs are more comfortable with talking about general theories and systems and impersonal stuff.
@peteronfireee Are you a race realists? I presuming you are, I reckon that would the point of disagreement between you and the SLI.
On matters of political any type/person can holding wide ranging views, that doesn't have much influence on socionical matters.
Precisely. Other topics of debate include subjects such as "why are white people so bad at dancing?"
You can read the archives here:
https://tweetsave.com/nero
To be honest... he's actually not very cutting.
I'll agree with IEE. He gets a little annoying after a while ;p
IEE no way. 2D Fe / 1D Fi, N type works
Eh, the scientific way of thinking isn't strictly the domain of Te. It's just Logic.
I figure blacks seem to be better in some sports and it's possible that their gene pool differs enough overall from whites to see a significant difference in manifested aggressive tendencies. Other than that, I wouldn't be 100% sure either as to how much of it is cultural influences.I have a story related to this. I remember having a conversation/debate with my friends. It was me and an LII vs a SLI. We were debating on whether or not black people were more aggressive than other types of people. The SLI said they weren't/or that he wasn't sure. This was in contrast to me and the LII, our attitudes were more along the lines of, "ARE YOU KIDDING ME WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THEY ARE." Then we listed off reasons and every day examples. The SLI was still skeptical.
Pulling out a couple studies as isolated facts isn't quite good for anything. You have to have the relevant understanding to see what those facts really mean.Could we have pulled out studies and given more accurate, empirical data? Sure we could. We could have pulled out studies where it shows that black people in general have more testosterone relative to other races, etc.
That seems S vs N maybe. Sometimes scientists do research stuff that I do find a no-brainer from tangible experience sure lolSometimes yeah, you do have to wait for definitive proven studies to come out, but in some cases it's not necessary to wait a thousand years for research to confirm what we already know. ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US lol
Weak Ti or just human bias beyond type.
This is just Logic.On the matter of classification and systems, that's another error there, I'm very much interested in classifications and value concrete and logical models. Facts must be based on an empiricism, else it's rubbish to entertain such logic.
I don't like "unrelated causal associations" myself. I agree that wanting to check the system against reality, that is, valuing empiricism, doesn't mean following external authority, not at all.This is not true rather empirical basis is paramount whenever I entertain logic. The insinuation that external authority matters is false, it's an unrelated causal association which is one of my biggest problems with Ti thinkers, Ti errors, I'm most sensitive to.
Obviously you need quantifiable facts to analyse even for Ti.Now to upset you, "Te valuers" recognise and understand the importance of structural consistency and coherency, imprecisely you refer to that as "internal validity" however that doesn't explain the reality of the process accurately. The realisation that Te and Ti are mutually important and dependent for exceptional analysis made me think initially that the dichotomy was broken since I see the value in both approaches. In layman's terms models, facts must be empirical to prove that a person isn't crazy yet mutually explained in a manner that is structurally consistent and coherent.
Socionics just says that Ti is about the Static logical relationships about quantifiable information on objects and Te is the Dynamic logic of quantifiable information on actions and related facts.
I never understood why all those other irrelevant bits would have to be connected to these definitions going by various speculative ideas.
The confusion would be due to the difference in introverted vs extraverted tendencies. Otherwise both Ti and Te are Logic.This put me in a conundrum since I've been struggling to explain what the difference is, yet I can't deny the fact since there is confusion between supposedly "Ti and Te" types.
I've spoken to socionics Britannica and they have an incomplete articulation (it's not elegant and comprehensive enough), I can share it with you here:
To them, the difference is what they are calling critique priority.
"Te preference"(which they have a new name for I've forgotten)
*is what they are calling empiricism preference.
*When given factual information (Ti & Te realm) Te preference questions the empirical basis on such information. The moment the information has failed the empirical test, they aren't interested in hearing what you have to say. In LSE and LIE, this is most pronounced as they are obstinate in their attitudes.Yeah I shut down if I'm given a random assortment of facts. That totally fits me, I have to process the facts and reasoning of others in my own way.*Also when Te preference types are feeling lazy, they ignore structural consistency & coherency simply following the flawed adage that facts speak for themselves.
"Ti preference"
*is what they call theoretical preference
*When given factual information (Ti and Te realm) Ti preference is concerned primarily with whether the information is illustrating, explaining something. The moment they are given a random assortment of facts, their brains lose interest feeling like a person is wasting their time. LSI & LII are most sensitive to this frustration
*However when Ti priority types are feeling lazy they ignore empirical considerations. Whilst their logic is consistent and illustrative, it has the flaw of not taking consideration of any facts or all the relevant facts of the matter
Otoh I can be lazy and just take a known fact to solve a situation if I must.
If I ignore "empirical considerations" it's not due to laziness, it's simply me seeing the situation/world through this logical "filter" of mine that works to tell me what's the relevant facts and why and how to navigate it all. A fact that superficially would contradict my view doesn't mean it actually does contradict it. It depends. If on closer investigation it actually does contradict it in a deep way, I will have to rework the basic principles. If not in a deep way then I just need to rework that part of the system.
But this latter part on working with a system is true both for Ti lead and Te lead, both are systematic, both have methods and rules and all that, Te just has a different system built of the external rules/facts for logical activities.
Otoh. You do seem a Te type, you don't seem to internally modify (no modification of it in the Logical area, anyway) the system you took from those experts. Contrast that with me, over time I will modify the organization of ideas, facts, work with all parts of the system and compare to other systems to go a bit further beyond what's been presented on the surface. And, it all has to match my own observations or fit other systems/views of mine that I already hold or I'm not even interested in the first place.
Last edited by Myst; 03-27-2017 at 01:57 AM.
Fe-Demonstrative fits much better than Te-Demonstrative. He's way too provocative for an Fe-Mobilizing type. I think his keen sense, and ability, of attracting & repulsing against people has brought him to where he is now (for better or worse).
I don't see any Fi creative tho'.
Hmm,I don't see any Ti. His focus is on the facts; using them in debates vs. maintaining a logical consistency. There's no laws, axioms, etc. that he uses to explain things but rather he uses face-value facts. Compared to someone like Quentin Tarantino (ILE).
**There's actually been a few videos where he would completely turn down any classification. I think this is a good case for Ti-Vulnerable
Last edited by Jake; 03-27-2017 at 01:44 AM.
I'm not against typing him as LIE. Definitely not going to type him Fi ego. Everything I've seen from him flies in the face of what Fi is about.Hmm,
**There's actually been a few videos where he would completely turn down any classification. I think this is a good case for Ti-Vulnerable
Ne/Fi Ego, I promise you
Well let me know if you ever found unrefutable proof of that and I'll pay for an extra drink for you =)
Sounds like a plan
Naah, that IF is a big IF.Sounds like a plan
Shh, one of these days I'll give you some proofNaah, that IF is a big IF.
IEI is labeled as the dreamer yeah?Shh, one of these days I'll give you some proof
I said 'shh'IEI is labeled as the dreamer yeah?
I didn't hear it. Too quiet.I said 'shh'
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
