With his permission: Johannes Bloem

[DaftPunk]

Thank god you're not making the choices then, lol

Don't you want to answer the rest of my post which is more interesting than what you quoted. I even said I could see you as IEE.

You really are the epitome of a glasscanon

[Narc]

I wouldn´t call it coherence more a lack of energy, to go into full arguments.

Fair enough.

A textbook understanding of is not the same as a native understanding which you clearly lack if you need to put that up. What you just described was the Jungian PoLR version good luck with that. does not disable , does that because it is also a rational Extraverted function.

What does mean "reliable" information anyway it is so without context, very weird for contextual Logic.

I put the information up because this argument is starting to make me feel like I can't provide any point as a given, particularly to Johannes who uses his own system that he refuses to explain properly apart from tiny little sections where he thinks he's snared me in his trap. If you want to make your own value judgements on my level of understanding, that's your choice. Doesn't change anything, though.

Utilising 'reliable' information might be like using peer-reviewed journals only to ensure that strictness of information, or asking a reliable person that has been previously confirmed as adequately knowledgeable either by yourself or a combination of yourself and others. A source that has been assessed a number of times to confirm usefulness. A source that is otherwise reliable that betrays that 'trust' would possibly be cast aside immediately or done so over time, after an overall drop in quality is noted.

[blackburry]

Weak/Strong logic
Good/Bad Ethic (impulse decision viewed as weak)



burn the Witches at the stake burn them! burn them!!!

you are aware that you are out of arguments and now it´s time too use brute force, very democratic I must say

My "arguments" are complaints that he just nitpicks what he will answer back to and ignores the rest... it's fucking stupid. also, I dislike both of you. There's nothing wrong with me stating that.

[Zero11]

I put the information up because this argument is starting to make me feel like I can't provide any point as a given, particularly to Johannes who uses his own system that he refuses to explain properly apart from tiny little sections where he thinks he's snared me in his trap. If you want to make your own value judgements on my level of understanding, that's your choice. Doesn't change anything, though.

You really have a problem with Systems do you? His version isn´t really that complicated infact it is easier than the really senseless and complex Socionic descriptions that reek in total. / and / are about relations, / and / are about Objects based on the extraverted functions.

Utilising 'reliable' information might be like using peer-reviewed journals only to ensure that strictness of information, or asking a reliable person that has been previously confirmed as adequately knowledgeable either by yourself or a combination of yourself and others. A source that has been assessed a number of times to confirm usefulness. A source that is otherwise reliable that betrays that 'trust' would possibly be cast aside immediately or done so over time, after an overall drop in quality is noted.

nice logical breakdown I wouldn´t be able to put something like that up

and again the textbook nah to whom am I talking to how could you know? The keyword is context here just because something is "reliable" through sources anchoring in superficial Systems does not make it valid. A source could be a number of times useful used by any devaluer at any time. wants to be convinced not just logical confirmed so if > is the case does not really makes it own System it rather goes into confusion or simply breaks the rules to ensure isn´t used.

@blackburry

It´s not strategic so it is kinda opposed to me.

[Zero11]

I just want to point out that there is no way in hell that this Johannes Bloem guy is Te-valuing.

ILIs have demonstrative also I think he is Enneagram 5 so making your own System is not exclusive to

[Olduvai]

Just did it again.

It's not that I'm not processing your posts, it's that your posts have nothing to process.

No, it just means someone is using Ti. Don't forget that all types have access to it, whether it's valued/unvalued and strong/weak.

Back to my original question, then:

So anytime anyone says anything remotely scientific or philosophical, they're using Ti?

This isn't true at all. Many people are totally indifferent to redundancies. For example, I can read them and not have a stomping little autist tantrum.

lol @ "many people" = "just me"

You're using MBTI. Te utilises consenses pertaining to facts or at least uses utilises a group of proven reliable information sources before believing something.

No, dipshit. "Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics". "Te" = "what objects do". Tell me, what is your guitar doing when it makes noise?

Yes, I've been doing that. Try reading the posts in between spitting steam of your ears.

All you've done is provide me with the *official* Myers-Briggs and Model A definitions of functions. Actually, you haven't even done that. You merely told me that my definitions differ from theirs like I wasn't already aware of it, and stumped for the importance of "proper jargon", all while spewing vague, 100-level descriptions of Te and Ti. Here, I can do that too:

"Te" collects objectively verifiable facts, creating a massive mental database that can be drawn from at any time. It extracts raw data from nearly every situation, which enables it to chart the most efficient course of action. If presently-available facts are inadequate, the mind can turn to its library of facts for guidance.
"Ti" perceives the logical connections inherent in the underlying fabric of objective existence but, as an introverted function, it does so from a strictly subjective standpoint. It categorizes things according to shared logical structures, creating a logically unified 'picture' of reality in the mind. Each mind possesses its own unique 'picture'.

I already considered IEI ages ago. It was one of the first types I ever crossed off.

lol, you really ought to reconsider.

Christ, how can you possibly be Te valuing if you don't understand what I just said there?

I understand what you said just fine, but I fail to see how you stating the obvious constitutes a point.

I'm listening to what you say, but that doesn't mean I accept it. And generally, I don't like fighting unnecessarily. You're the one that dragged me into this, and you're getting hysterical.

You made the first accusation, not me:

Ding ding ding. Closet MBTIer located.

Look at Model A. Every type is able to use logic and ethics to a certain extent. That sort of 'confession' or 'acceptance' of being ethical is a waste of time. I considered both ethical and logical types and didn't really attach any preference to being one or the other. They all get by in life anyway, so it's a non-issue.

I'm glad you feel that way, it should make it easier for you to accept being ethical.

Just because you think my logic is faulty (and let's note your 'sore thumb level' obvious bias here), doesn't mean it's not my base IE. Attacking a person's logic is extremely common in arguments as a way of attempting to discredit them. It doesn't mean a person is not a base or creative IE logical type. Logical types can display and be motivated by emotion. Ethical types are able to display competence in areas of logic.

Nor does me using what you mistakenly consider "Ti" necessarily make me a Ti-dom. You're not following your own rules.

Sensing and ethics are the areas I take suggestions on-board with, meaning I am confident enough with intuition and logic that I don't need further help in most cases. This would make me an NT type, despite your present tantrum.

lol, one day you'll meet a real LIE and he/she will supervise the shit out of you.

[Olduvai]

Soupman, I want to answer the first question you posed because I require instant gratification, but I plan on answering all of your questions in time.

@Johannes Bloem, lets take your argument that @Narc is an IEI how do you further develop your justification that he is that?

Ding ding ding. Closet MBTIer located.

Exhibit A is "Implied Object Dynamics" or "Ni". If he had said, "secret MBTI fanboy detected", that would've been "Implied Object Statics" or "Fi". Notice how in Narc's statement the subject "does" whereas in mine the subject "is".

Typical Beta NF: "you must follow EVERY SINGLE RULE of system, even the INSIGNIFICANT or INEXPEDIENT ones." Since they suck at figuring out what to do on their own because of their weak Te, they seek systems for guidance and clarity.

You're IEI. LIE "goes skydiving" and "builds businesses", not "plays guitar" and "looks soulful".

I'm just going to go ahead and ignore your insignificant and/or inexpedient stereotyping.

Isn't "Explicit Relation Statics" or "Ne" the ignoring function of IEI? He then says:

Narrow-minded? I don't think it counts as narrow-minded when you drop a limited system that characterises and types people based heavily upon stereotypes. That's just good decision making.

When he says "limited system", he means "explicit system".

Socionics is different enough from MBTI that it's actually useful, but MBTI is still the system touted around in offices and administered by doofy HR people that post their magic Forer effect stories on LinkedIn.

The first bolded portion of the text is "Explicit Relation Dynamics" or "Fe", as the "office" is a "social environment" or a "system of social relations". The second bolded portion is "Implicit Object Dynamics" or "Ni".

A "cognitive process" is just the process of thinking. Do thought processes drive behaviour? Perhaps they do. More often they catalyse a separate decision to undertake action.

The bolded portion of the text is "Implicit Object Dynamics" or "Ni".

But it was the shedding of some stereotypes that made it far easier for me to type myself and others without having to rely on stupid generalisations like "goes skydiving".

"Builds businesses", "goes skydiving", "plays guitar", and "looks soulful" are all "Explicit Object Dynamics" or "Te". They are connected by a system of "Explicit Static Relations" or "Ne". Notice how Narc disparages these constructs, calling them "stupid generalizations".

Yeah, this kind of hair-splitting Ti babble is not interesting to me. There is nothing practical to be learned from a discussion of 'cognitive processes', it serves to dot the i's and cross the t's and philosophise. I don't really care for it. I can see that you do, which points excruciatingly towards Ne + Ti.

The bolded section is Narc pathetically attempting to explain what an object "does". What the fuck does "serves to dot the i's and cross the t's and philosophise" mean? That statement provides us with no insight as to the "Explicit Dynamics" of an "Object", which in this case is a "discussion of cognitive processes". Why is a "discussion of cognitive processes" so unprofitable, Narc?

　

I made a decision. Something I doubt you'll be able to do properly over the next few months. I considered a number of types, as did basically everyone else here. It happens when you attempt to make a choice from a rather incomplete knowledge base (something you're extensively doing right now).

The first bolded section is "Explicit Relation Dynamics" or "Fe". The second bolded section is "Implicit Object Dynamics" or "Ni".

you're arguing desperately with incomplete information and then getting upset and having a little sook when someone gives you a smack on the wrist for it.

This passage is "Explicit Relation Dynamics" or "Fe".

　

You clearly don't know shit from clay.

This statement is ironic because it is "Implicit Object Dynamics" or "Ni". "Clearly" you don't either, Narc.
　
I could've kept going, Soupman, but only finding "Ni" and "Fe" was getting a little repetitive.

[Narc]

It's not that I'm not processing your posts, it's that your posts have nothing to process.

That's clearly not true. You're arguing like a child.

lol @ "many people" = "just me"

Do you sincerely believe that to be true? Go and talk to a few people and see what they think. Get a wide sample of people from various backgrounds and ask them whether they genuienly care about redundancies.

No, dipshit. "Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics". "Te" = "what objects do". Tell me, what is your guitar doing when it makes noise?

All you've done is provide me with the *official* Myers-Briggs and Model A definitions of functions. Actually, you haven't even done that. You merely told me that my definitions differ from theirs like I wasn't already aware of it, and stumped for the importance of "proper jargon", all while spewing vague, 100-level descriptions of Te and Ti.

They're not required to be more complex than "100 level" to be to be correct within Socionics. Given that Te is external, objective and dynamic, both of my explanations perfectly fit that classification. I find it cute that you can't accept that, though.

Te

Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions.The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects.

Since perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.

Ti

is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty. It is like common sense, in that it builds on one's expectations of reality, through a somewhat personal, though explicable, understanding of general truths and how they are manifested.

Types that value naturally question the consistency of beliefs that are taken for granted in everyday life. They strongly prefer to make decisions based on their own experience and judgement, as opposed to relying on external authorities for knowledge, which they use only as a last resort. They also have respect for people with clearly defined and internally consistent opinions, believing that a sense of internal certainty is necessary for orienting oneself in life. To these types, one's personal standards of truth are more reliable than public consensus.
They see overly pragmatic views as shallow, and try to limit public discussion of mundane practical matters. They are especially sensitive to redundant information.

See in bold for things relevant to the way you've been acting, just within this thread.

I understand what you said just fine, but I fail to see how you stating the obvious constitutes a point.

If it's 'obvious' then it means it's accepted. Which means it constitutes a point. Do you not see this?

You made the first accusation, not me:

Sorry, I wasn't to know that you'd be so upset by that. Tissue?

lol, one day you'll meet a real LIE and he/she will supervise the shit out of you.

My two best friends are both Ni-ENTj. I don't see the supervision happening, to be quite honest, considering we're too busy agreeing and coming from near identical angles on issues. Also, I've come across several on here and experienced a similar thing. I think you'd be more likely to be supervised by one than me, if I'm honest.

[Azure Flame]

@Johannes Bloem

if you could pick a type as your absolute favorite, what would it be?

[Olduvai]

That's clearly not true. You're arguing like a child.

If one person claims another person is arguing like a child, the person making the claim is actually the one arguing like a child.

Do you sincerely believe that to be true? Go and talk to a few people and see what they think. Get a wide sample of people from various backgrounds and ask them whether they genuienly care about redundancies.

No, that is too much work. Not that you would know.

They're not required to be more complex than "100 level" to be to be correct within Socionics. Given that Te is external, objective and dynamic, both of my explanations perfectly fit that classification. I find it cute that you can't accept that, though.

What's "objective" mean?

Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions.

The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects.

Or how about this: "Te" = "what things do" = "Explicit Object Dynamics". "The how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions" is completely and utterly vague.

See in bold for things relevant to the way you've been acting, just within this thread.

You only bolded more text in the Ti box than in the Te box because you couldn't spot Te if it was staring you in the face.

If it's 'obvious' then it means it's accepted. Which means it constitutes a point. Do you not see this?

A point is made only after a dispute, and if something is obvious then there is no dispute.

Sorry, I wasn't to know that you'd be so upset by that. Tissue?

The point is you started this whole debate, not me:

I'm listening to what you say, but that doesn't mean I accept it. And generally, I don't like fighting unnecessarily. You're the one that dragged me into this, and you're getting hysterical.

One thing I've noticed about SEI and IEI is they have a hard time recollecting their actions.

My two best friends are both Ni-ENTj. I don't see the supervision happening, to be quite honest, considering we're too busy agreeing and coming from near identical angles on issues. Also, I've come across several on here and experienced a similar thing. I think you'd be more likely to be supervised by one than me, if I'm honest.

Attachment 2829

[Olduvai]

@Johannes Bloem

if you could pick a type as your absolute favorite, what would it be?

Probably EIE. Not because I'd rather be one, but because they're good company.

[Azure Flame]

ok but more specifically, if you thought one of them was the coolest, and you wanted to be that personality, what would it be?

[Olduvai]

If the definition of Te doesn't make sense to you, perhaps it's because Te is not a conscious or valued function for you.

"The how, what and where of events" could be talking about something as miniscule as how subatomic particles interact or about something as massive as how superclusters form, or anything in between. Way. Too. Vague.

"Activity or work" could be talking about something as miniscule as how subatomic particles interact or about something as massive as how superclusters form, or anything in between. Way. Too. Vague.

"Behavior" could be mean human behavior, cat behavior, rat behavior, or tectonic plate behavior, just to name a few. Here's the a snippet from the Wikipedia entry for "Behavior":

Behavior or behaviour is the range of actions and mannerisms made by organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the physical environment.

I don't think I really need say much more. What's funny is that I never even claimed that Te "doesn't make sense" to me. I claimed that Narc's definitions were vague, which I just demonstrated here.

[Olduvai]

ok but more specifically, if you thought one of them was the coolest, and you wanted to be that personality, what would it be?

The personality I think is the coolest is LIE. If I could be a different personality I would be ILI or EII.

[Soupman]

Probably EIE. Not because I'd rather be one, but because they're good company.

I find this to be true too, my sister and another friend at university are both EIE I do enjoy their energy and zest for life.

I don't want to divert your attention I was just surprised you saw the same phenomenon as me. Don't feel interrupted continue your responses.

[Zero11]

Honestly, the way I see it - at the time of this post, you have 119 posts on this forum. The only people who seem to be on your side are Zero11, with only 51 posts on the forum, and Soupman, with 70 posts on the forum. All 3 of you have joined January 2012 or sooner. There's not a perfect correlation with time spent on this forum and # of posts with the knowledge someone has for the theory (a couple 10,000+ post people are still confused), but there's definitely a positive correlation, especially among new people still learning.

hit me are you sure you are LSE?

[Scapegrace]

I dare say "annoying as fuck"

Hahaha.

He actually reminds me quite a lot of you. It's the over confidence.

[Olduvai]

Hahaha.

He actually reminds me quite a lot of you. It's the over confidence.

You can only be over-confident if you don't know what you're doing, and that is not the case with me.

[Scapegrace]

You can only be over-confident if you don't know what you're doing, and that is not the case with me.

lolz

[Olduvai]

They are NOT Narc's definitions, they are official definitions. The only person making up their own definitions for the functions here is you.

They are Narc's definitions insofar as he is the one who provided them.

What I don't understand is if the "official" definition is this:

Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects

Then how is my definition, "Explicit Object Dynamics", so much of a stretch for you? Do you realize that "the external activity of objects" could be explained in terms of relationships?

Look. I'm not debating definitions with you. It doesn't seem you're getting it. At this point in the conversation, after someone has already linked things for you, and you still refuse them and nitpick at them, there's no point in arguing the theory with you, since it seems you won't accept an answer that doesn't make sense to you right now.

That's because I've read it all before and while there might be some truth to those definitions, I don't think they are specific enough to be very helpful. Each function constructs language in a particular way, and I think my definitions best describe the linguistic forms that the functions make use of.

Honestly, the way I see it - at the time of this post, you have 119 posts on this forum. The only people who seem to be on your side are Zero11, with only 51 posts on the forum, and Soupman, with 70 posts on the forum. All 3 of you have joined January 2012 or sooner. There's not a perfect correlation with time spent on this forum and # of posts with the knowledge someone has for the theory (a couple 10,000+ post people are still confused), but there's definitely a positive correlation, especially among new people still learning.

I have been reading voraciously about socionics for a good two years now, and have also spent much time lurking on this forum. I've still got a lot to learn, but I am very, very confident in my ability to type and also in the correctness of my definitions.

I've already posted some of my reasoning in this thread explaining why I think you're Alpha. I haven't given a full analysis - I don't give a full analysis or give my time to everyone. But the way you're refusing and nitpicking at Narc's official definitions shows me that you're not able to be reasoned with right now, and posting a full analysis for you isn't worth my time.

Just because someone comes up with their own definitions does not make them Alpha.

But just consider what you just did, even in this post I quoted. You're nitpicking at definitions. You've constructed your own definitions. That is incredibly Ti.

How the fuck am I "nitpicking"? "Nitpicking" means "unjustified faultfinding", but I justified the faults I found. Furthermore, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE COMES UP WITH THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALPHA OR THAT THEY VALUE TI OR THAT THEY ARE EVEN USING TI. You're making me start to think that one's understanding of socionics is inversely related to one's post count. Not that post count has anything to do with a proper understanding of socionics, of course. I would never believe a silly idea like that.

And the manner in which you design the definitions to make more sense to you is very Ne as well. It comes across very Alpha NT. Others have suggested LSI Beta for you, which could be a possibility. You definitely seem to show & value Ti. And your arguments that the definitions for Te are vague and/or incomprehensible just adds fuel to the fire that you don't value Te.

The manner in which I distill the commonly-accepted definitions to make more sense to me is Ti- and Fe-devaluing, "Ti" meaning "Implicit Relation Statics" and "Fe" meaning "Explicit Relation Dynamics".
Here is my thought process:
"FUCK THESE DEFINITIONS THEY R GAY" = minus-Ne, "Ne" meaning "Explicit Relation Statics". I saw no obvious relation between the definitions and and anything in the real world.
"TI IS DIS, TE IS DAT, FI IS DIS, FE IS DAT" = plus-Fi, "Fi" meaning "Implicit Object Statics". I assigned definitions to the functions based on what I thought they "meant" or "equalled" or "represented".
I displayed a blatant disregard for Ti by completely rejecting the "official definitions", and I showed my contempt for Fe by not caring what effect my actions had on others while I was defending my views (Fi > Fe).

Debate that all you want. Have fun debating yourself though. I just don't find this conversation a productive use of time.

Then why are you furthering it with this post?

I say this to almost every new person - just kick back, stick around and continue to post, and your natural thought process will come out. Over time, your type possibilities converge and your true type becomes obvious.

I appreciate your welcoming attitude, but I know what type I am. I've known since I first took the MBTI test in high school AP Psych, even though back then I replaced the "F" with a "T", just as I think many others have done in some way or another.

Your type is NOT something that you will debate others into believing you are. There is no real discussion here, at least between you and me.

People can believe me to be whatever type they wish. Just know that I will continue to laugh at any moron who thinks I am anything but IEE.

If this post is unsatisfying to you, and you want more meaningful definitions and explanations of the theory, I will be happy to post some links to resources so you can read up on the theory more and study. But at this time, I am NOT discussing it with you. Is that clear?

Your post was a complete joke, and I don't need to read up on shit.

If you're not discussing this with me, then why are you discussing this with me? When you asked "Is that clear?" you basically invited me to respond.

[Olduvai]

lolz

stop being a butt

[Zero11]

hit me are you sure you are ILI?

I take this as a No.

but to answer your fake Question

Balzac (Bal', Bal'ka, ILI, INTp)

Lazy autistic cynics, dwelling alone in their dismal hovels and earning a living by stock market speculations. Always stooping their shoulders and washing their hands. Fairly common type in virtual space.

fits me very well

[Zero11]

Do you speak German? Wohnst du auf Deutschland? Was machst du für spaß?

Whats the purpose of your gibberish? Of course I speak german, it´s my mother tongue.

[Olduvai]

I disagree with this post.

LOLWUT.jpg

[DaftPunk]

There was only one person on the board whose self-typing I really misstrusted.

Concerning Reinin Dichotomies I think JB is most likely obstinate. Ti PoLR is way more likely than Ti-creative so why not IEE

[consentingadult]

There was only one person on the board whose self-typing I really misstrusted.

Concerning Reinin Dichotomies I think JB is most likely obstinate. Ti PoLR is way more likely than Ti-creative so why not IEE

He uses too much Ti, which is not very-IEEish. In fact, he swears by his own SYSTEM. Ti-Role or Ti-Mobilizing is more likely. Think along the lines of She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named...

[Olduvai]

He uses too much Ti, which is not very-IEEish. In fact, he swears by his own SYSTEM. Ti-Role or Ti-Mobilizing is more likely. Think along the lines of She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named...

damn u dumb bro

[DaftPunk]

He uses too much Ti, which is not very-IEEish. In fact, he swears by his own SYSTEM. Ti-Role or Ti-Mobilizing is more likely. Think along the lines of She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named...

If you want to type yourself in socionics you're forced to use Ti because it's a Ti system. what I see could be Ti PoLR.

[Olduvai]

If you want to type yourself in socionics you're forced to use Ti because it's a Ti system. what I see could be Ti PoLR.

But it isn't a Ti system. Here is LII explaining a so-called "Ti system":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLJa6RoCAhw

[consentingadult]

If you want to type yourself in socionics you're forced to use Ti because it's a Ti system. what I see could be Ti PoLR.

Classical Socionics is a Ti- system because Augusta was ILE. Any other type is inclined to rephrase Socionics in terms of their own cognitive attitudes, which are largely determined by their ego and super-id (i.e. valued) functions.

That being said about Ti, I personally believe that a PoLR is actually a blind spot, something you're not inclined to use unless forced to. It is more likely for someone to use their mobilizing function in an attempt to explain their views. In the process, it becomes obvious to onlookers that by using the mobilizing function, the principles of the PoLR function are being violated, but the person themselves is not very conscious of that:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...-and-polr.html

[DaftPunk]

But it isn't a Ti system. Here is LII explaining a so-called "Ti system":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLJa6RoCAhw

what else is it then?

Classical Socionics is a Ti- system because Augusta was ILE. Any other type is inclined to rephrase Socionics in terms of their own cognitive attitudes, which are largely determined by their ego and super-id (i.e. valued) functions.

That being said about Ti, I personally believe that a PoLR is actually a blind spot, something you're not inclined to use unless forced to. It is more likely for someone to use their mobilizing function in an attempt to explain their views. In the process, it becomes obvious to onlookers that by using the mobilizing function, the principles of the PoLR function are being violated, but the person themselves is not very conscious of that:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...-and-polr.html

I agree with you on that and it's the way I experience Ni-PoLR.

Edit: I like your blog bring some more LSE stuff

[Beautiful sky]

He uses too much Ti, which is not very-IEEish. In fact, he swears by his own SYSTEM. Ti-Role or Ti-Mobilizing is more likely. Think along the lines of She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named...

lol who is "she-who-must-not-be-named"

[Joy]

I haven't read any of this topic, but I wanted to say two things:

JoBlo, inventing your own version of Socionics and talking about it almost constantly is a surefire way to become the target of ridicule and scorn in this community. You are not the first person to do this. You are, of course, free to do as you please. I just wanted to share this with you in case the perception is of any value to you.

Secondly, as I've said before, whatever your type, you are extremely Ti focused. The structure of Socionics is Ti in nature, and I've seen Ti PoLR types here either successfully intuit others' types or unsuccessfully try to type others with detailed analysis. The two seem to be mutually exclusive. If you are IEE, you're on a rough patch of road, and it won't get any smoother until you back off the studying the structure of Socionics, whether it's ones developed by others or (more so) yourself.

[Olduvai]

lol who is "she-who-must-not-be-named"

"Voldemaritsa"?

[Joy]

As for your type, you haven't revealed much of yourself in what I've read of you or talked about with you so far. My impression is that you generally seem like a nice guy from your manner when not arguing Socionics, though if I'm thinking of the right person, you did complain about the banality of Gamma/Delta small talk at one point. (Was that someone else?)

[Olduvai]

I haven't read any of this topic, but I wanted to say two things:

JoBlo, inventing your own version of Socionics and talking about it almost constantly is a surefire way to become the target of ridicule and scorn in this community. You are not the first person to do this. You are, of course, free to do as you please. I just wanted to share this with you in case the perception is of any value to you.

Secondly, as I've said before, whatever your type, you are extremely Ti focused. The structure of Socionics is Ti in nature, and I've seen Ti PoLR types here either successfully intuit others' types or unsuccessfully try to type others with detailed analysis. The two seem to be mutually exclusive. If you are IEE, you're on a rough patch of road, and it won't get any smoother until you back off the studying the structure of Socionics, whether it's ones developed by others or (more so) yourself.

The annoying part about inductive reasoning is having to substantiate a claim with detailed analysis. You just know you're right, and it's such a chore to go back and painstakingly point out what led you to believe such-and-such, but you have to if you want to be taken seriously, and even then it's doubtful that people will understand.

[Joy]

What's wrong with just saying, "This is my impression/gut feeling"? @Kim, @woofwoofl, and @Slacker Mom, for example, always did that, and I don't recall anyone ever saying, "BULLSHIT, PROVE IT OR GTFO!" to them. They didn't worry about who agreed them, and eventually their track record led people to give more or less (depending on who it was I'm sure) weight their typings. They may have stated which basic traits about a person stood out to them as relevant to their typing, but that's about it.

Think of it this way: It's not their logical analysis that their duals (or anyone in their quadras) value them for. In fact, their duals would probably say, "Stop that; you're just makinga mess. Who even cares about that stuff anyways?" Our duals help us take our focus off o?r super ego block by covering it themselves and by needing input from our ego block.

Were you raised in a heavily Ti environment by any chance?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

What's wrong with just saying, "This is my impression/gut feeling"? Kim, woof, and SlackerMom, for example, always did that, and I don't recall anyone ever saying, "BULLSHIT, PROVE IT OR GTFO!" to them. They didn't worry about who agreed them, and eventually their track record led people to give more or less (depending on who it was I'm sure) weight their typings. They may have stated which basic traits about a person stood out to them as relevant to their typing, but that's about it.

I can only speak for myself, but there is a huge difference between quantifying one's statement as merely a gut feeling (which is a surface-level analysis) and expecting said gut feeling to be taken just as seriously as a carefully thought out and well-defended analysis (or throwing around that gut feeling like it's absolute truth and should be seen as such, especially when they cannot and/or will not justify it). If someone expects an intuitive insight to be taken as a solid argument, it should be defendable/explainable.

[consentingadult]

What's wrong with just saying, "This is my impression/gut feeling"?

It is not wrong in itself as a way of understanding, but it is wrong as a way of transferring knowledge or providing evidence. Nobody actually learns something from such statements.

I perfectly understand statements such as are being made by Kim or SlackerMom, because gut feeling, or to put it more scientifically, by means of transference, is the way IEEs (and I assume SEEs as well) operate when they are trying to understand other people. But when transferiing such understanding without substantiating it, it is also a lack of effort on behalf of the IEE making such statements, especially because with a little bit of effort, IEEs are usually quite capable of explaining their points of view, although they can't do this in a positivistic way (hence the Ti-PoLR). IEEs (social) knowlegde is based on Verstehen, and as such anti-positivist. But that does not mean their knowledge is some kind of spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo.

[consentingadult]

lol who is "she-who-must-not-be-named"

I love you anyway ;-)