# How many found their type?



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

So a hypothetical question. How many do you think, of those who visit this forum, got their type right? (not misstyped) No names pls


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

The MBTI has a test-restest reliability of about 70% depending on which sources you use, but I'm guessing a lot of the online tests people use aren't so reliable, so I'll go with 60%.

On second thought, most people here are probably more self-aware than the average test-taker, so I'll up it to 75%.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Hard to gain anything to draw any conclusion from this poll. I think many of the most active people are typed correctly. You have to assume people are correctly typed from the getgo. But some people who are not really into Socionics and just treat this as a community (which it is) are usually wrongly typed in a higher degree.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

I think a lot have correctly typed themselves per their current stage in life, that is, someone may very much be an ESI-like personality right now; however, this is not their TIM, and when they enter a new stage in their life, they will simply change to something different. For actual TIM, maybe 3-4 on here are accurately typed that I have seen.

Have regular intimacy, have kids, have career, have bills and responsibilities, and you will be significantly different than prior. You're perceived type will then be basically your TIM. Enter the macro-social level and have groups of people as your "children" and all the other stuff for these groups as well, and everything else will, again, be put into even greater perspective.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I think a lot have correctly typed themselves per their current stage in life, that is, someone may very much be an ESI-like personality right now; however, this is not their TIM, and when they enter a new stage in their life, they will simply change to something different. For actual TIM, maybe 3-4 on here are accurately typed that I have seen.
> 
> Have regular intimacy, have kids, have career, have bills and responsibilities, and you will be significantly different than prior. You're perceived type will then be basically your TIM. Enter the macro-social level and have groups of people as your "children" and all the other stuff for these groups as well, and everything else will, again, be put into even greater perspective.


I typed myself based on trends throughout my entire life. 

You are rather pessimistic here, lol, only 3-4 people out of how many? 50+?

I figure you type me as some gamma now but you are rather wrong with that guess.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I typed myself based on trends throughout my entire life.
> 
> You are rather pessimistic here, lol, only 3-4 people out of how many? 50+?
> 
> I figure you type me as some gamma now but you are rather wrong with that guess.


Trend isn't finished yet, so you're typing yourself part of the way there.

It's not pessimistic to consider people that are still growing up to be such. If anything, it's optimistic.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Trend isn't finished yet, so you're typing yourself part of the way there.
> 
> It's not pessimistic to consider people that are still growing up to be such. If anything, it's optimistic.


I am no longer a teenager. I do not believe in changing TIM between different life stages, anyhow.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I am no longer a teenager. I do not believe in changing TIM between different life stages, anyhow.


You don't change TIM. Your TIM is set. What part of your psyche you are operating in is something different.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> You don't change TIM. Your TIM is set. What part of your psyche you are operating in is something different.


My point is that I do not think I would change my opinion on my TIM just because I get into some different life stage. The only other one I'd ever consider is SLE but I have enough data to see that SLE is just something similar enough but not my actual TIM.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> My point is that I do not think I would change my opinion on my TIM just because I get into some different life stage. The only other one I'd ever consider is SLE but I have enough data to see that SLE is just something similar enough but not my actual TIM.


Don't think you will change when you get off the internet and get a husband and kids?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Don't think you will change when you get off the internet and get a husband and kids?


My cognition won't change. What's so complicated about this? :laughing:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> My cognition won't change. What's so complicated about this? :laughing:


What's so complicated about not knowing if it will change? The only people I know who have started a family and NOT changed, are the ones who didn't have such for long.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> What's so complicated about not knowing if it will change? The only people I know who have started a family and NOT changed, are the ones who didn't have such for long.


You said earlier that TIM doesn't change. Wtf are you talking about in this post?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Also, don't you realize that I see my TIM as unchanged from one previous life stage to another life stage. I've had enough life stages by now to see that. Meaning your idea that people will change their opinion on their type when they change from one life stage to another is wrong in my case and there is no guarantee that it is correct in the case of other people.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Have regular intimacy, have kids, have career, have bills and responsibilities, and you will be significantly different than prior. You're perceived type will then be basically your TIM. Enter the macro-social level and have groups of people as your "children" and all the other stuff for these groups as well, and everything else will, again, be put into even greater perspective.


I have had all of that already except kids.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

We still talking about Socionics? Socionics is for adults in the social sphere. Most of you on here sound like kids whining to adults that they "just don't understand, just don't know _me_." Notice @To_august, @The_Wanderer, and @Abraxas... These... Strike me as adults, and seem on a completely separate plane than most of you.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

It's very easy to mistype at first, and it can take a fair amount of research to be sure of one's type. This sort of thing usually takes time.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> We still talking about Socionics? Socionics is for adults in the social sphere. Most of you on here sound like kids whining to adults that they "just don't understand, just don't know _me_." Notice @To_august, @The_Wanderer, and @Abraxas... These... Strike me as adults, and seem on a completely separate plane than most of you.


Yes I am talking about Socionics. I'm not going to get off topic to respond to your ad hominem that involves even people ("most of you") who had nothing to do with this discussion.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Yes I am talking about Socionics. I'm not going to get off topic to respond to your ad hominem that involves even people ("most of you") who had nothing to do with this discussion.


It's not ad hominem, if I am referring to age in a discussion about something which takes age into account.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I dunno how I should process that.
My guess from having met a bunch of randoms over the years isn't worth much.
I know what my type is and that is what matters to me.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's not ad hominem, if I am referring to age in a discussion about something which takes age into account.


OK I don't know if you genuinely don't see it.....


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> It's very easy to mistype at first, and it can take a fair amount of research to be sure of one's type. This sort of thing usually takes time.


...time that I'd rather put towards something pleasurable or useful. Why not both? :wink:

I guess that the number of mistypes(oh lol lawd t3h irony!) is around 50%. It's got to be.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> OK I don't know if you genuinely don't see it.....


Okay, I don't know if you genuinely don't realize that you use terms without knowing their meaning.

Socionics has TIM's that are based upon a frame of reference of a certain point in your life. You are a child. The TIM's are not based upon that timeframe in your life. Your cognition is always changing. You are always changing. Where you are now in your cognition growth is not where you will be when you reach the frame of reference that Socionics applies to. TIM is a cognitive model based with placement in such being relative to your stage in life; therefore, me telling you that you are still a child in a discussion on your ability to place yourself in a model that is for a stage in life, which you have not reached yet, is not a fallacy. "Insulting" or "hurting your feelings" or you "taking offense" to being called what you are, does not constitute "ad hominem." Ad hominem is a fallacy. Learn your words.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> ...time that I'd rather put towards something pleasurable or useful. Why not both? :wink:
> 
> I guess that the number of mistypes(oh lol lawd t3h irony!) is around 50%. It's got to be.


Well, chances are, you're less likely to mistype than most on here.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Ixim said:


> ...time that I'd rather put towards something pleasurable or useful. *Why not both?* :wink:
> 
> I guess that the number of mistypes(oh lol lawd t3h irony!) is around 50%. It's got to be.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


>


What's that from?


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Ixim said:


> ...time that I'd rather put towards something pleasurable or useful. Why not both? :wink:
> 
> I guess that the number of mistypes(oh lol lawd t3h irony!) is around 50%. It's got to be.


That's very optimistic all considering.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> What's that from?


I love that ad.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Okay, I don't know if you genuinely don't realize that you use terms without knowing their meaning.


Nah, you are just nitpicking on word usage. When I said "cognition", I meant TIM. I was using that word inside a clear context there. You should have seen that that's how my sentences make sense.




> TIM is a cognitive model


No. TIM = Type of Information Metabolism, that is, sociotype. Then there is a model of TIM which is what you started talking about. 




> TIM is a cognitive model based with placement in such being relative to your stage in life; therefore, me telling you that you are still a child in a discussion on your ability to place yourself in a model that is for a stage in life, which you have not reached yet, is not a fallacy. "Insulting" or "hurting your feelings" or you "taking offense" to being called what you are, does not constitute "ad hominem." Ad hominem is a fallacy. Learn your words.


You are utterly wrong about my ability or lack of ability to place myself in a model. It is worse than just a fallacy, it's an outright delusion from your part.

And ad hominem means you involve personal aspects where they have no place in a logical argument. So you thought I thought ad hominem just means an insulting phrase, lol that's ridiculous.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Nah, you are just nitpicking on word usage. When I said "cognition", I meant TIM. I was using that word inside a clear context there. You should have seen that that's how my sentences make sense.
> 
> No. TIM = Type of Information Metabolism, that is, sociotype. Then there is a model of TIM which is what you started talking about.
> 
> ...


They do have place in the logical argument.

You clearly have no knowledge of socionics whatsoever, and I am done arguing with a child who is content to talk out their rear on a subject in which they know nothing about.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> That's very optimistic all considering.


50% is optimistic? It's as neutral as it gets-at least imo.

But I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower. but not below 25% imo.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> They do have place in the logical argument.


Are you for real?

Btw, after this statement of yours, no one should type you Ti-base.




> You clearly have no knowledge of socionics whatsoever, and I am done arguing with a child who is content to talk out their rear on a subject in which they know nothing about.


Baseless statement here, lol. If only you could prove it - but you can't.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Ixim said:


> 50% is optimistic? It's as neutral as it gets-at least imo.
> 
> But I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower. but not below 25% imo.


It's generally a good thing to be optimistic. Not complaining, just stating.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> So a hypothetical question. How many do you think, of those who visit this forum, got their type right? (not misstyped) No names pls


Ahahahaha lol @ Jeremy8419, Jeremy admitted that he's an INFP in MBTI and EII in socionics on this post here http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/590098-truth-about-estps-istps-infjs-enfjs-5.html That guy IS a mistype. The context is that he's been commenting on every single thread on personality cafe making real INFJs unsure of themselves and passive agressively bullying them. So yeah, it's a big deal that I got him to admit he's an INFP. Oh and he got banned (finally) by his ENFP moderator buddy.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Ahahahaha lol @ Jeremy8419, Jeremy admitted that he's an INFP in MBTI and EII in socionics on this post here http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/590098-truth-about-estps-istps-infjs-enfjs-5.html That guy IS a mistype. The context is that he's been commenting on every single thread on personality cafe making real INFJs unsure of themselves and passive agressively bullying them. So yeah, it's a big deal that I got him to admit he's an INFP. Oh and he got banned (finally) by his ENFP moderator buddy.


Looks like he was quite confused back then about socionics. Becoming a self proclaimed expert real fast, hm hm.

What do you mean by him being a mistype still, though? He's been sticking to EII since then.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Looks like he was quite confused back then about socionics. Becoming a self proclaimed expert real fast, hm hm.
> 
> What do you mean by him being a mistype still, though? He's been sticking to EII since then.


Yep, he's an expert alright.....

He was a mistype because he had on his profile "INFJ". He was trying to convince himself that INFJ in MBTI and EII in socionics are the same thing. I linked him official socionics website showing how to convert such as How to convert MBTI® type to Myers-Briggs. type. I showed him Youtube videos such as Michael Pierce, EJarandee, virtually every single Youtube video ever was unamious that EII is INFP in socionics (Introverted feeling lead, extraverted intuition auxilary). It's really not that hard. 

He commented on my posts calling me an INFP and was very blunt and rude with others calling real INFJs, INFPs. Obviously considering his track record, it's nice that I got him to admit he's an INFP. His passive agression aligned perfectly with Inferior Te. He admitted himself that MBTIs INFP suited him the best. He said EII was him to a tee. So across socionics, MBTI, and original jungian, he was the literal definition of an INFP.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Yep, he's an expert alright.....
> 
> He was a mistype because he had on his profile "INFJ". He was trying to convince himself that INFJ in MBTI and EII in socionics are the same thing. I linked him official socionics website showing how to convert such as How to convert MBTI® type to Myers-Briggs. type. I showed him Youtube videos such as Michael Pierce, EJarandee, virtually every single Youtube video ever was unamious that EII is INFP in socionics (Introverted feeling lead, extraverted intuition auxilary). It's really not that hard.
> 
> He commented on my posts calling me an INFP and was very blunt and rude with others calling real INFJs, INFPs. Obviously considering his track record, it's nice that I got him to admit he's an INFP. His passive agression aligned perfectly with Inferior Te. He admitted himself that MBTIs INFP suited him the best. He said EII was him to a tee. So across socionics, MBTI, and original jungian, he was the literal definition of an INFP.


Why does passive aggressive behavior match inferior Te?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Why does passive aggressive behavior match inferior Te?


"IXFP: passive agression. extremely subdued expression of feelings that underhandely coherses and controls others. Unhealthy unconscious and very fearful need to dominante the environment as the IXFP considers other people are thinking about them, it must be nasty evil rumours or conspiracys against them. Thus, attempts to counterplot just as caftily and thus retake their environment."

-Carl Jung, Psychological Types


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> "IXFP: passive agression. extremely subdued expression of feelings that underhandely coherses and controls others. Unhealthy unconscious and very fearful need to dominante the environment as the IXFP considers other people are thinking about them, it must be nasty evil rumours or conspiracys against them. Thus, attempts to counterplot just as caftily and thus retake their environment."
> 
> -Carl Jung, Psychological Types


I am not sure you understand the application of what this means; this kind of passive aggression Jung is speaking of is more akin to this:






Notice how Dany as an ISFP becomes inflexible in her attempts to assert logical authority concerning ranks and standards and at some point expects people to obey/adhere to them "just because that's how things are and I value this". In comparison, the Spice King's Te as an ESTJ is flexible because he understands different contexts and situations and how standards change depending on a multitude of factors. Hers operate on a baseline level of experience only and expects everything to be like that because that's what she's familiar with. This is why Jung also refers to inferior Te as tyrannical, because it imposes its values as global standards and expects everyone to adhere to them without considering whether this is actually feasible or remotely effective.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I am not sure you understand the application of what this means; this kind of passive aggression Jung is speaking of is more akin to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know any of the characters in this film so when you say Dany and Spice King I have no clue what you're talking about. Though I _can_ see how this is all Te stuff. You as an INTJ understand the power dynamics and degree of control an individual holds over this function. I do not have such refinment. I only know inferior Te when I see it and I would guess the fat white guy would be an example of it. If you truly want to see an example of inferior Te in action, watch this: 






This is true INFP inferior Te I have witnessed all throughout my life. Tangling themselves in a web of lies, being so obvious when they're lying, but doing all they can to convince others of their, superiority, similiar to the fat white guy in the video.

Note: an ISFP would not lie about being strong, powerful, volitonal, tough, because they are all these things. An ISFP would most likely lie about something to cover their Polr Ne. I.e this guy in your video being so certain of the future, and what it hold for him, his people, and the outsiders. the INFP on the other hand would lie to cover his inferior Se. Notice how Steven Seagal keeps saying "he has a good eye". He literally has no Se. He keeps trying to portray himself as 'dangerous', deity, best of all time. He denies being choked out by Gene Lebell. He literally shat his pants. This is all hugely embarassing for the INFP.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

@Entropic

I notice this principle everywhere I go. Look at this Johnny Depp poster.
View attachment 433370
Look at the way he squints. Mimicking an STP. If you look really closely you can kind of see that his direction of focus is still internally focused. Look really closely. Another example is Joe Rogan the INTP. 





 Look at 4:30. That look on his face is so bizzare and unnatural. Like a devil child. Notice Joe Rogan also spent his lifetime dedicated to martial arts just as Steven Seagal did. Both share Se Polr.

I wouldn't state that either of us does not understand the description. I think the way we apply it is different. Fe vs Te. I'm applying it to _people_ first and foremost. Not their words. Peoples facial expressions, the mood they're in while they speak, their direction in life. Differnces in application lie in our creative function.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I don't know any of the characters in this film so when you say Dany and Spice King I have no clue what you're talking about. Though I _can_ see how this is all Te stuff. You as an INTJ understand the power dynamics and degree of control an individual holds over this function. I do not have such refinment. I only know inferior Te when I see it and I would guess the fat white guy would be an example of it. If you truly want to see an example of inferior Te in action, watch this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't have to know anything about the characters; all you need to know is to observe their type interaction as evidenced in this video. If you think the fat man is the ISFP even though he is called the Spice *King* (suggests it's a male character), then you severely misunderstood the clip and you misunderstood the type interaction that was going on. Since you don't recognize the blatant inferiority of Dany's Te here and think it's the fat man who is manifesting it in an inferior position, then I really can't say that I trust your typing capabilities, especially how Dany's Te is so archetypally manifested. 

Also, what has lying got to do with inferior Te? You would have to point out exactly in the clip this instance occurs as I skimmed but I am too lazy to watch it all. If you want to link a long clip with a short dialogue piece you want to share, it is good to tell where it is so people know how to find it quickly. 



> Note: an ISFP would not lie about being strong, powerful, volitonal, tough, because they are all these things. An ISFP would most likely lie about something to cover their Polr Ne. I.e this guy in your video being so certain of the future, and what it hold for him, his people, and the outsiders. the INFP on the other hand would lie to cover his inferior Se. Notice how Steven Seagal keeps saying "he has a good eye". He literally has no Se. He keeps trying to portray himself as 'dangerous', deity, best of all time. He denies being choked out by Gene Lebell. He literally shat his pants. This is all hugely embarassing for the INFP.


And this is a serious misunderstanding of type mechanics; of course an ISFP can lie about being strong, powerful etc. for their own reasons. Hell, they don't even have to lie about it as they can genuinely believe and see themselves as weak-willed or having a weak character. 

I kind of get the impression that your understanding of type mechanics is overly simplified.



Freeflowingthoughts said:


> @Entropic
> 
> I notice this principle everywhere I go. Look at this Johnny Depp poster.
> View attachment 433370
> ...


Tbh, I don't see you applying it much to people as much as you seem to simplify a fairly abstract system into something overly simplistic and concrete. Also, that image link doesn't work nor does that video because it's blocked due to copyright violation.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Yep, he's an expert alright.....
> 
> He was a mistype because he had on his profile "INFJ". He was trying to convince himself that INFJ in MBTI and EII in socionics are the same thing. I linked him official socionics website showing how to convert such as How to convert MBTI® type to Myers-Briggs. type. I showed him Youtube videos such as Michael Pierce, EJarandee, virtually every single Youtube video ever was unamious that EII is INFP in socionics (Introverted feeling lead, extraverted intuition auxilary). It's really not that hard.
> 
> He commented on my posts calling me an INFP and was very blunt and rude with others calling real INFJs, INFPs. Obviously considering his track record, it's nice that I got him to admit he's an INFP. His passive agression aligned perfectly with Inferior Te. He admitted himself that MBTIs INFP suited him the best. He said EII was him to a tee. So across socionics, MBTI, and original jungian, he was the literal definition of an INFP.


Yes, I can see the inferior Te. This post exemplifies it very well: http://personalitycafe.com/infj-for...ligent-infjs-translation-between-systems.html


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

I dont think its reliable to let people here guess each others type. If we are saying some personality types of bias they are going to type people something different since A.They dont want to be associated with you B.They dislike you so you must be a type they hate. Which often tends to be the case with things like this. I think its easier to tell the difference from types when you are comparing two people to each other and outline the differences vs making up a model and saying "You dont fit it". Since a lot of times when people say "You dont fit" its a subjective not a objective assessment. I think its easier when we simply outline the behavior overall and than try to guess vs saying "You cant be INTJ, INFJ, ESTJ, ENFP since I SAY SO! Which is really just a representation of peoples arrogance and that kind of thing is obnoxious really. However a few of the tests do seem to be rather stereotypical but there are a lot of tests to correct the previous tests and I think if you take enough of them and they all consistently give you ONE TYPE overall that it should prove to be consistent. Regardless of anyone else pushing that "You cant be this type since you a big POOPYHEAD!"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LittleDicky said:


> I dont think its reliable to let people here guess each others type. If we are saying some personality types of bias they are going to type people something different since A.They dont want to be associated with you B.They dislike you so you must be a type they hate. Which often tends to be the case with things like this. I think its easier to tell the difference from types when you are comparing two people to each other and outline the differences vs making up a model and saying "You dont fit it". Since a lot of times when people say "You dont fit" its a subjective not a objective assessment. I think its easier when we simply outline the behavior overall and than try to guess vs saying "You cant be INTJ, INFJ, ESTJ, ENFP since I SAY SO! Which is really just a representation of peoples arrogance and that kind of thing is obnoxious really. However a few of the tests do seem to be rather stereotypical but there are a lot of tests to correct the previous tests and I think if you take enough of them and they all consistently give you ONE TYPE overall that it should prove to be consistent. Regardless of anyone else pushing that "You cant be this type since you a big POOPYHEAD!"


Consistent test results only measure the fact that the person is consistent in their self-image, but it does not suggest that the result itself is accurate.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Consistent test results only measure the fact that the person is consistent in their self-image, but it does not suggest that the result itself is accurate.


If you design a test correctly you can get around that. Which some tests have tried to do. By asking questions which indicate something without the person taking it understanding what it means. Also we cant say that people are more consistent if a lot of times they are just going to throw bias at people. You cant be INFJ since I am INFJ and I dont like you. So you must be ENTP. Since I hate ENTP. You cant make someone into something they are not since you dont like them. That is simply a lie.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LittleDicky said:


> If you design a test correctly you can get around that.


There is no 100% accurate or correct type test to date. 



> Which some tests have tried to do. By asking questions which indicate something without the person taking it understanding what it means.


People can understand what something means and the test may still turn out with an inaccurate result simply because the test is bad and cannot or does not actually measure what it attempts to measure. 



> Also we cant say that people are more consistent if a lot of times they are just going to throw bias at people. You cant be INFJ since I am INFJ and I dont like you. So you must be ENTP. Since I hate ENTP. You cant make someone into something they are not since you dont like them. That is simply a lie.


Sounds like you are doing a lot of projection, tbh, assuming everyone think like you on this subject. I'd say most people are able to remain neutral to the people they are typing. Liking or disliking types over individuals is silly in the first place; a person is not just their type so disliking a person for simply being that type is quite immature as an attitude, I'd say. It's also typist. There are wonderful and bad people of every type and combination, since being a good or a bad person is not type related.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

LittleDicky said:


> If you design a test correctly you can get around that. Which some tests have tried to do. By asking questions which indicate something without the person taking it understanding what it means. Also we cant say that people are more consistent if a lot of times they are just going to throw bias at people. You cant be INFJ since I am INFJ and I dont like you. So you must be ENTP. Since I hate ENTP. You cant make someone into something they are not since you dont like them. That is simply a lie.


But if you test over and over in various ways and get the same result that means the result is consistent. Which means that has a higher chance of being correct over everything else. That is how they preform lab experiments. Why if you can do something once but cant replicate the results or the experiment that means the results are not considered valuable even if it was able to happen once. Why does it make more sense to say that everything else is more consistent than something that has been tested in 1000 different ways and got similar results vs something that has been all over the place? That doesn't seem very rational. 

If you say this is 90 percent and this is 4 percent, why would you go with the 4 since that 90 is not 100?

We testing for conclusion A in 10 different ways and got A 9/10 
We tested for conclusion B and its been all over the place 

What logical reason is there to go for B when its clearly not consistent?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LittleDicky said:


> But if you test over and over in various ways and get the same result that means the result is consistent. *Which means that has a higher chance of being correct over everything else*.


Nope that's flawed logic and doesn't follow. A consistent result is not necessarily more or less accurate, since the purpose of a test is not to achieve consistency, but accuracy. An accurate result relies on several factors, some of those entirely outside the test taker's control such as self-awareness, self-honesty and so on. Even if we assume that the test taker is not causing input error though everyone will because humans are too complex and it's impossible to account for every variation causing a deviation, the accuracy of the result relies on the test's overall design. Because personality type tests test abstract and complex concepts such as cognitive functions that are impossible to verify, achieving a specific test result actually means nothing. 



> That is how they preform lab experiments.


The point of creating experiments is not the consistency but the ability to reproduce the result. Scientific tests operate very differently from a personality type test, because a personality type test becomes less and less reliable the more person takes the test because knowledge of the test and its variables will make it possible for the test taker to skew the result even if unconsciously so. The consistency of a scientific test is that you can reproduce the same result under the same condition but including differing variables; what you are testing is actually not the result, but the hypothesis. In other words, you are attempting to prove an assumption in order to validate it as true or false e.g. does an egg crack if I drop it from X height? I can go and test this by dropping eggs from the height I assume is going to make it crack. I can then keep doing this under numerous different settings like dropping it on a concrete floor vs. a mattress. Personality tests do not measure personality in terms of true/false; it is not true nor false that you are X type. 



> Why if you can do something once but cant replicate the results or the experiment that means the results are not considered valuable even if it was able to happen once.


And you cannot replicate personality type test results because the variables are too complex and outside of the individual user's control. Scientific experiments show that people will answer very differently on personality type questions depending on their current mood; people who are angry will for example be more prone to pick options that suggest assertiveness, aggression, decisiveness, risk-taking and violence. 



> Why does it make more sense to say that everything else is more consistent than something that has been tested in 1000 different ways and got similar results vs something that has been all over the place? That doesn't seem very rational.


Because your statement does not logically follow. Consistent results only suggest your consistent self-image but self-image is not necessarily in line with or accurate with the actual type that you are. Tests cannot measure who you are objectively but the result is entirely reliant on the input that you provide; the result is therefore subjective. 



> If you say this is 90 percent and this is 4 percent, why would you go with the 4 since that 90 is not 100?


The problem is that that 100 is actually not necessarily reflective of anything outside of the result in and of itself. To simplify; a person consists of several layers just like an onion. There are the inner layers only you can see and are known to you, then there are outer layers only others can see and known to them. 

An objective assessment of a person's character must include considering both the inner and outer layers of someone's personality but a personality type test cannot do that, at least not when they are attempting to measure such abstract items as cognitive functions. 

Furthermore, then there is the interpretation of all this data which must be converted back into the system you are attempting to type yourself within. This is exactly why other personality and temperament tests such as Big 5 deal with something that is measurable and reproducible; are you an outgoing person? Yes/no. It doesn't try to measure some abstract idea of how people experience the world by looking at data objectively or subjectively; you can directly observe and measure how outgoing someone is but you cannot measure how cognitively introverted someone is.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Nope that's flawed logic and doesn't follow. A consistent result is not necessarily more or less accurate, since the purpose of a test is not to achieve consistency, but accuracy. An accurate result relies on several factors, some of those entirely outside the test taker's control such as self-awareness, self-honesty and so on. Even if we assume that the test taker is not causing input error though everyone will because humans are too complex and it's impossible to account for every variation causing a deviation, the accuracy of the result relies on the test's overall design. Because personality type tests test abstract and complex concepts such as cognitive functions that are impossible to verify, achieving a specific test result actually means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is the entire foundation of experimentation and science though. 

So you are saying even if you bet on a horse and win 9 out of ten it makes more sense to bet randomly and hope you win. Even if you lose every single time? I dont see how you think it makes more sense to go for a shot in the dark.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LittleDicky said:


> That is the entire foundation of experimentation and science though.
> 
> So you are saying even if you bet on a horse and win 9 out of ten it makes more sense to bet randomly and hope you win. Even if you lose every single time? I dont see how you think it makes more sense to go for a shot in the dark.


I don't understand how you don't understand that a type test is not the same as a scientific experiment? Horse betting is for example a matter of probability and cannot be reproduced either. It's an abstract action, making future predictions of events yet to happen. As such there is always a margin of error because we cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy (yet), because there are simply too many variables involved. 

Would we turn your example of horse betting into a scientific experiment, we would have to pose a hypothesis which is "I believe horse X wins because of Y variable(s)". We can then begin to investigate these variables by changing the conditions; a sick horse is more likely to lose than a healthy horse, for example, and a horse with a broken leg cannot compete at all so therefore it will always automatically lose. 

Type tests don't operate this way because you do not test existing variables by changing the conditions. Rather, type tests operate on the hypothesis that every person has a type and their type will be revealed by measuring a certain number of more or less testable variables input into the system. The entire process is inductive over deductive. Scientific experiments are deductive, not inductive.

We could turn test results into a scientific experiment, testing for reliability e.g. a person should achieve the same type no matter of different variables such as a particular mood. You should therefore not achieve a different result when taking the rest after breaking up with your spouse as you do when winning the lottery; yet psychological experiments factually show that when people self-report their personality traits, this is exactly what happens. Self-perception is not objective or even remotely reliable. A narcissist will for example think of themselves very highly, even if this attitude is very superficial and rooted in a strong sense of poor self-esteem. Yet a narcissist will consistently score in ways that suggest that they are confident etc., even though they are actually the very opposite. In this case, their score is a result of a compensatory mechanism where their self-perception goes contrary to how they actually feel in order to cope with their feelings.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> You don't have to know anything about the characters; all you need to know is to observe their type interaction as evidenced in this video. If you think the fat man is the ISFP even though he is called the Spice *King* (suggests it's a male character), then you severely misunderstood the clip and you misunderstood the type interaction that was going on. Since you don't recognize the blatant inferiority of Dany's Te here and think it's the fat man who is manifesting it in an inferior position, then I really can't say that I trust your typing capabilities, especially how Dany's Te is so archetypally manifested.
> 
> Also, what has lying got to do with inferior Te? You would have to point out exactly in the clip this instance occurs as I skimmed but I am too lazy to watch it all. If you want to link a long clip with a short dialogue piece you want to share, it is good to tell where it is so people know how to find it quickly.
> 
> ...


I'm not here to have a fight. You need to stop projecting, I told you, I'm not Te creative. You need to stop assuming everybody looks through your Te lens. Hasn't typology tought you anything? Everybodys mental processes are different.

I wouldn't expect you to pass an emotional intellegence test by figuring out how people are feeling based on their facial expressions. I don't project, I've actually applied typology.

Of the Steven Seagal video, 0:23 -1:20, 8:20-10:00, perhaps the most blatant one, 12:45-end. There, all is spelt out. 

If you type in "Johnny Depp sauvage" into google images you will see the image. If you type in "Joe Rogan on Vegans" and skip to 1:38 you will see exactly what I'm talking about.

Whatever, I don't appreciate someone being described as a 'cafe legend' trying to assert his authority, and insulting a fellow forum member, when I had absolutely no quelm with you.

Our application of the Jung paragraph is different because of our *creative function*.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Whatever, I don't appreciate someone being described as a 'cafe legend' trying to assert his authority, and insulting a fellow forum member, when I had absolutely no quelm with you.


If you're not here to have a fight, you should stop assuming that somebodies attacking you when they aren't. You need to stop projecting, and assuming everybody looks through your lens. Hasn't typology taught you anything?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> And this is a serious misunderstanding of type mechanics; of course an ISFP can lie about being strong, powerful etc. for their own reasons. Hell, they don't even have to lie about it as they can genuinely believe and see themselves as weak-willed or having a weak character.
> 
> I kind of get the impression that your understanding of type mechanics is overly simplified.


Eh, Of course any type can lie about being strong and powerful. ESTPs do it all the time. They are the embodiment of strength. My only point is that the motivation behind an INFP and INTP to do it as exemplified by Joe Rogans bizzare facial expressions, Johnny Depps fake squint, and Steven Seagals entire lifetime of lies, is in perfect alignment with their Polr position. An ESTP would never go to such lengths to prove their Se. They are the living of embodiment of Se. They might lie in key moments, but they would never so blatantly lie, and be infactual mainly because they would see that when they do, those _with_ Se would see them for what they are. They usually lie, like Donald Trump does, about how many people love them. How he has such a 'great relationship with people'. How he 'has a great relationship with the mexican people'. 

Every type has a hidden agenda. Type and the hidden agenda I'm merely observing how INFP/INTP life path have been shaped by this hidden agenda. Steven Seagal's a fraud bro.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> I'm not here to have a fight. You need to stop projecting, I told you, I'm not Te creative. You need to stop assuming everybody looks through your Te lens. Hasn't typology tought you anything? Everybodys mental processes are different.
> 
> I wouldn't expect you to pass an emotional intellegence test by figuring out how people are feeling based on their facial expressions. I don't project, I've actually applied typology.
> 
> ...


I don't think our application is different because of our Te creative function; I just think you really understand it poorly and I pointed out how I think so and honestly, I think it's weak to justify lack of understanding of a subject by brushing it off as being type related. So does it mean it's suddenly all right for me to be an emotional asshole to people just because I'm Fe PoLR? Of course not. I need to own up to my own weaknesses and deficiencies just like everyone else and I wouldn't blame my lack personal weaknesses on my type. That's just a growing ground for avoiding taking responsibility. 

You began the fight when you needlessly attacked another forum member for being a mistype and harassing other members; you could have taken it to the mods but instead you wrote a post where you unsolicited typed him. I challenged your claims about the basis on which you assumed he is mistyped by attacking the claims you made about the type you think he is, finding that your reasons were weak and very unjustified. 

I mean, really, you misidentified the Spice King as the Fi dom even though I wrote that he is the Te dom which should have been clear from the context of my post, even if you were unclear of everything else. It makes me wonder if you even bothered to read my post and understand it at all.

I wasn't looking to have a fight, but I am honestly expressing my opinions about your competencies because I see room for improvement in those areas. That's just me expressing my type, too right? Yet you complain I express myself in this way, thinking I expect you to be like me. So where do we go from here then, if we cannot escape the bindings of our programming? 

I was blunt, perhaps, but I was certainly not looking to pick a fight, nor was I insulting you.



Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Eh, Of course any type can lie about being strong and powerful. ESTPs do it all the time. They are the embodiment of strength. My only point is that the motivation behind an INFP and INTP to do it as exemplified by Joe Rogans bizzare facial expressions, Johnny Depps fake squint, and Steven Seagals entire lifetime of lies, is in perfect alignment with their Polr position. An ESTP would never go to such lengths to prove their Se. They are the living of embodiment of Se. They might lie in key moments, but they would never so blatantly lie, and be infactual mainly because they would see that when they do, those _with_ Se would see them for what they are. They usually lie, like Donald Trump does, about how many people love them. How he has such a 'great relationship with people'. How he 'has a great relationship with the mexican people'.
> 
> Every type has a hidden agenda. Type and the hidden agenda I'm merely observing how INFP/INTP life path have been shaped by this hidden agenda. Steven Seagal's a fraud bro.


What has Seagal's attitude of lying got anything to do with his type? Of course Trump would lie about how many people love him because he's making a career as a politician; a career that requires you to be respected, popular and well-liked. 

And people's perception of Se can vary across time and space. In one social context Se is entirely devalued and as such, the person can doubt they are an Se type because they've adopted the values of devalued Se from their environment in order to fit in. I think you exaggerate the clarity of self-perception in people. People are much more foggy in their minds and awareness than you seem to think they really are.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

@Entropic

*"I don't think our application is different because of our Te creative function; I just think you really understand it poorly and I pointed out how I think so and honestly, I think it's weak to justify lack of understanding of a subject by brushing it off as being type related."*

Of course not understanding the exact information metabloite that you reference, that is in my Polr position, and vice versa, is fundamental to our misunderstanding. To not think so, means you really don't consider typology in the first place as a real applicable principle to the human mind.

*"So does it mean it's suddenly all right for me to be an emotional asshole to people just because I'm Fe PoLR? Of course not."*

Of course not. Obviously, trying to conquer the Polr position for any type hasn't worked out well in the long term. Also, there _has_ been INTJ real life examples that come to mind that have embarked on this journey. People who _have_ been emotional assholes because of Fe Polr if you need real life examples. Youtube Nick Kyrgios, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, and Bobby Fischer toward the end of his life. As I said, I see these principles everywhere. Please keep an open mind.

*"I need to own up to my own weaknesses and deficiencies just like everyone else and I wouldn't blame my lack personal weaknesses on my type. That's just a growing ground for avoiding taking responsibility. "
*

I agree, none of us should try to be Conquering our Polr position and acknolwedge it for what it is.

*"You began the fight when you needlessly attacked another forum member for being a mistype and harassing other members... I challenged your claims about the basis on which you assumed he is mistyped by attacking the claims you made about the type you think he is, finding that your reasons were weak and very unjustified."*

I was completely justified and I did not harass a single other person so that is an outright lie that was only used to conflate your position. That particular forum member hijacked every single one of my personal threads 'type bullying' me and countless other INFJs through his time here at personality cafe.You didn't challenge anything substantial and legitimate that was the basis for my claim because my basis was that there is physical evidence on a thread where he admits he is an INFP. It's not an insult to point out the irony a member railing against mistypes if he himself is a very prominent one. [/I]

*"I mean, really, you misidentified the Spice King" *

I told you, I don't watch game of thrones.

*"It makes me wonder if you even bothered to read my post and understand it at all."*

This is actually an interesting insight, Tbh the writing material did seem to be very hard to read. I find the exact same problem when I read Nietschze vs Schopenhauer. (INTJvsINFJ) I imagine what I wrote was easy to brush off too and I also had the feeling you did not read it either, or if you did, you dismissed it rather easily.

"*But I was certainly not looking to pick a fight, nor was I insulting you"*

Look, I wasn't looking to insult you either. I'm sorry for being overly reactive. All of my prior threads were hijacked by that guy, and I was accused of being a different type than I was, when it was ot even relevant to the conversation. Thus, seeing you defend him this man with no knowledge of any of this this, made me enter into that negative mindset. I would encourage you to view even his most recent posts on other peoples threads. In the future, I'd hope you do this prior to embarking on a mission to defend a mans honour when you don't know his legacy.

*"What has Seagal's attitude of lying got anything to do with his type? Of course Trump would lie about how many people love him because he's making a career as a politician; a career that requires you to be respected, popular and well-liked. "*

The Seagal video was put there simply because he is an INFP and was lying. Anyway, I don't wanna keep talking about that guy. The Trump point is a very sound one. However, no other politician does it the way in which he does. Other politicians that get equal, or bigger crowds i.e Bernie Sanders, Hilary Clinton but they are humble about it. So if I one candidate keeps bringing up how he has 'yugeeee crowds', 'great friendships with mexican people', how he has such a big 'heart', how he 'understands people and what makes them tick', I take notice. It is all perfectly in alignment with his hidden agenda function.

*"And people's perception of Se can vary across time and space. In one social context Se is entirely devalued and as such, the person can doubt they are an Se type because they've adopted the values of devalued Se from their environment in order to fit in."*

You're right. Se is very respected in times of war, in martial arts, in the school yard, in layman jobs. I'm sure there are plenty more. In philosophy (Ne/Ni), in office environments (Si), they are not.


----------



## Handsome Jack (May 31, 2015)

50%. Idealization of one's personality leads to most mistyping.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> @Entropic
> 
> *"I don't think our application is different because of our Te creative function; I just think you really understand it poorly and I pointed out how I think so and honestly, I think it's weak to justify lack of understanding of a subject by brushing it off as being type related."*
> 
> Of course not understanding the exact information metabloite that you reference, that is in my Polr position, and vice versa, is fundamental to our misunderstanding. To not think so, means you really don't consider typology in the first place as a real applicable principle to the human mind.


I honestly don't think so, because again, should I justify my lack of tact on my Fe PoLR and say sorry but just my PoLR? No, then I'm not owning up to the fact I made an error and should seek to correct it instead of blaming it on my type. 



> *"So does it mean it's suddenly all right for me to be an emotional asshole to people just because I'm Fe PoLR? Of course not."*
> 
> Of course not. Obviously, trying to conquer the Polr position for any type hasn't worked out well in the long term. Also, there _has_ been INTJ real life examples that come to mind that have embarked on this journey. People who _have_ been emotional assholes because of Fe Polr if you need real life examples. Youtube Nick Kyrgios, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, and Bobby Fischer toward the end of his life. As I said, I see these principles everywhere. Please keep an open mind.


But are they assholes because of their types, or are they assholes just because they are assholes? Again, don't justify shitty behavior in people because of type mechanics. That is not making people own up to their deficiencies but one can always blame a shitty attitude "because type". 

I'm not saying people should try to conquer their PoLR; I'm saying that everyone got weaknesses in their personality they need to work on, and those weaknesses should not excused by saying "cuz PoLR". That's the difference. 



> *"I need to own up to my own weaknesses and deficiencies just like everyone else and I wouldn't blame my lack personal weaknesses on my type. That's just a growing ground for avoiding taking responsibility. "
> *
> 
> I agree, none of us should try to be Conquering our Polr position and acknolwedge it for what it is.


You entirely misunderstood the entire purpose of what I wrote if you think this is what I wrote. I actually suggested the very opposite. 



> *"You began the fight when you needlessly attacked another forum member for being a mistype and harassing other members... I challenged your claims about the basis on which you assumed he is mistyped by attacking the claims you made about the type you think he is, finding that your reasons were weak and very unjustified."*
> 
> I was completely justified and I did not harass a single other person so that is an outright lie that was only used to conflate your position. That particular forum member hijacked every single one of my personal threads 'type bullying' me and countless other INFJs through his time here at personality cafe.You didn't challenge anything substantial and legitimate that was the basis for my claim because my basis was that there is physical evidence on a thread where he admits he is an INFP. It's not an insult to point out the irony a member railing against mistypes if he himself is a very prominent one. [/I]


No, it was not completely justified. If you have a problem with another member and you think they are harassing others, you report it to the mods and let them handle it, instead of talking shit behind their backs in a public environment where they are likely to see it. That's pretty petty behavior and it doesn't matter how bad that person is; at least give them the basic level of respect they deserve as a human being and be treated with some level of dignity. What you did broke several forum rules which means that it is NOT ok, no matter how you think it is justified. 

Yes, he openly admits to being an INFP, BUT that was not the challenge of the claim. The challenge of the claim was that you claim he is a mistype and you provided several reasons why so; one of them which I challenged because I found it seriously unfounded. 



> *"I mean, really, you misidentified the Spice King" *
> 
> I told you, I don't watch game of thrones.


And I told you that you don't need to know or watch anything outside of that particular clip; all you need to observe is the type interaction that is taking place. I don't know Seagal either, yet you insist he's a perpetual liar. Why should I take the time to watch that video you linked despite not being into Segal or caring for his person in order to understand your reasoning process if you cannot do the same courtesy back? 



> *"It makes me wonder if you even bothered to read my post and understand it at all."*
> 
> This is actually an interesting insight, Tbh the writing material did seem to be very hard to read. I find the exact same problem when I read Nietschze vs Schopenhauer. (INTJvsINFJ) I imagine what I wrote was easy to brush off too and I also had the feeling you did not read it either, or if you did, you dismissed it rather easily.


I do read everything you wrote and try to see the perspective you are coming from; in this case, however, I do not believe the difference lies type. I got a couple of IEI friends and I've interacted with several others but they don't struggle in the same way you do. 



> "*But I was certainly not looking to pick a fight, nor was I insulting you"*
> 
> Look, I wasn't looking to insult you either. I'm sorry for being overly reactive. All of my prior threads were hijacked by that guy, and I was accused of being a different type than I was, when it was ot even relevant to the conversation. Thus, seeing you defend him this man with no knowledge of any of this this, made me enter into that negative mindset. I would encourage you to view even his most recent posts on other peoples threads. In the future, I'd hope you do this prior to embarking on a mission to defend a mans honour when you don't know his legacy.


I thoroughly dislike Jeremy and we've fought a lot in the past especially over how he thinks I'm a mistype, but it doesn't justify the fact that your post was completely out of line and was a personal attack on him that went against several forum rules. 



> *"What has Seagal's attitude of lying got anything to do with his type? Of course Trump would lie about how many people love him because he's making a career as a politician; a career that requires you to be respected, popular and well-liked. "*
> 
> The Seagal video was put there simply because he is an INFP and was lying. Anyway, I don't wanna keep talking about that guy. The Trump point is a very sound one. However, no other politician does it the way in which he does. Other politicians that get equal, or bigger crowds i.e Bernie Sanders, Hilary Clinton but they are humble about it. So if I one candidate keeps bringing up how he has 'yugeeee crowds', 'great friendships with mexican people', how he has such a big 'heart', how he 'understands people and what makes them tick', I take notice. It is all perfectly in alignment with his hidden agenda function.


Sure, but I could also justify that with him being a type 8 in the enneagram. You see Jeremy doing that stuff as well and you think he's an INFP or inferior Te. I could provide actual sources where he's made claims exactly like that. Making claims like that goes back to people's self-perception; again I think you are reducing an abstract concept into something too simplistic. 



> *"And people's perception of Se can vary across time and space. In one social context Se is entirely devalued and as such, the person can doubt they are an Se type because they've adopted the values of devalued Se from their environment in order to fit in."*
> 
> You're right. Se is very respected in times of war, in martial arts, in the school yard, in layman jobs. I'm sure there are plenty more. In philosophy (Ne/Ni), in office environments (Si), they are not.


Yeah, so what does that make an Se dom raised in an Ne PoLR culture? Do you seriously think they will experience themselves to be confident as an Se dom and immediately identify as such upon reading on the Se description? I doubt it because they will see those traits in a negative light within themselves and may try to disidentify with it, because they think it's not the acceptable way to be.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Put me on the "almost there" list. 

No one can 100% sure. If you are a Monk who has attained nibbana, then I guess you have the highest level of self-realization and can now rest assured you know your MBTI type as you are totally self aware and certain of your being.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> But are they assholes because of their types, or are they assholes just because they are assholes? Again, don't justify shitty behavior in people because of type mechanics. That is not making people own up to their deficiencies but one can always blame a shitty attitude "because type".


At the end of the day every type has freewill. I'm pointing out that Nick Kyrgios, Zlatan, and Bobby Fischer are all behaving hyper emotionally which they usually don't do. They're making very unnatural public displays of emotion because it's so frightening/badass to them, whereas to a Beta type, this would be nothing. It is their ultimate goal/hidden agenda, and when a dual relationship is not there, they begin to self supply both Se and Fe, their Duals two strongest functions.



Entropic said:


> I'm not saying people should try to conquer their PoLR; I'm saying that everyone got weaknesses in their personality they need to work on, and those weaknesses should not excused by saying "cuz PoLR". That's the difference.


Lmfao, 'cuz Polr' is actually a very legitimate reason. Side note, I have often thought that IXTJs have the easiest time overcoming their Polr. All they have to do is smile in social interaction. That's literally it. There is so much more to the function obviously, but as far as people sensing the weakness in them, it is the most easy to hide away. Te is much more obvious as you have pointed out.



Entropic said:


> You entirely misunderstood the entire purpose of what I wrote if you think this is what I wrote. I actually suggested the very opposite.


Fine, thanks for the clarification.



Entropic said:


> No, it was not completely justified. If you have a problem with another member and you think they are harassing others, you report it to the mods and let them handle it, instead of talking shit behind their backs in a public environment where they are likely to see it. That's pretty petty behavior and it doesn't matter how bad that person is; at least give them the basic level of respect they deserve as a human being and be treated with some level of dignity. What you did broke several forum rules which means that it is NOT ok, no matter how you think it is justified.


Here's where you're wrong. I wasn't talking shit behind his back. I was laughing about the fact that a self-proclaimed mistype was insulting others for being mistyped. I found it ironic and felt like retribution because of the ban. I know I should have taken it to the bots, I'm fairly new, plus I'm into Fe, so when people do ethically wrong, I objectively/outwardly shame them.



Entropic said:


> Yes, he openly admits to being an INFP, BUT that was not the challenge of the claim. The challenge of the claim was that you claim he is a mistype and you provided several reasons why so; one of them which I challenged because I found it seriously unfounded.


He doesn't openly admit it. This is what I said. He _hijacked all of my personal threads_ and countless others, declaring all of us to be the wrong type.



Entropic said:


> And I told you that you don't need to know or watch anything outside of that particular clip; all you need to observe is the type interaction that is taking place. I don't know Seagal either, yet you insist he's a perpetual liar. Why should I take the time to watch that video you linked despite not being into Segal or caring for his person in order to understand your reasoning process if you cannot do the same courtesy back?


I observed the type interaction that took place. All I observed was the look on their faces, and felt annoyed because of how dead and cold they seemed, frustrated that they were going to let this girl with her children die, and was stunned by their logic, whilst not fully comprehending it. I don't insist he's a perpetual liar, he is _established as a perpetual liar_ in his business, both martial arts, and acting, from people who have known/worked with them throughout his life. One does not have to be into Seagal, to watch, I was not into Game of Thrones and I still took the time to watch it. The lack of ethical courtesy is on you.



Entropic said:


> I do read everything you wrote and try to see the perspective you are coming from; in this case, however, I do not believe the difference lies type. I got a couple of IEI friends and I've interacted with several others but they don't struggle in the same way you do.


There we go with the insults. First of all I doubt you've interacted irl with IEIs as we're not common. Second, you're a cafe legend stating that I'm dumb, if I were you my Fi would be crying in self pity and I'd dob you into the bots. FYI I have a 130 IQ in Wechesler which is the highest classification labeled as "Very Superior" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification. Third, in person INTJ and INFJ get along very, very well. I know I do with my INTJ bestfriend. I can sense in his voice that he's sure of his words, and it is coloured by personal enthusiasm and inner conviction or when it's a true insight in the moment, vague spaced out coldness in the tone. We're also on the same wavelength and depth of thought and self involvment/introspection. Contrast, when it is written down cold on paper, it is very hard to read. So, you too experienced the hard to understand



Entropic said:


> I thoroughly dislike Jeremy and we've fought a lot in the past especially over how he thinks I'm a mistype, but it doesn't justify the fact that your post was completely out of line and was a personal attack on him that went against several forum rules.


Lol @ him calling you a mistype. He calls everyone one, when he labeled himself an INFJ, don't you find it ironic that the perpetual accuser of others, turned out to be the mistype himself. How is this not sinking in.... Sure, it went against a rule. Fine, but contrast him being banned to me, I am not who you should be directing your anger and moral outrage toward. 



Entropic said:


> Sure, but I could also justify that with him being a type 8 in the enneagram.


So Eneagram is okay to use justfying ones behaviour but not Typlogy?



Entropic said:


> Yeah, so what does that make an Se dom raised in an Ne PoLR culture? Do you seriously think they will experience themselves to be confident as an Se dom and immediately identify as such upon reading on the Se description? I doubt it because they will see those traits in a negative light within themselves and may try to disidentify with it, because they think it's not the acceptable way to be.


This was a bizzare example. An Se Dom has Ne. An Se dom has sufficient Ne just as both you and I have sufficient Si. Perhaps you meant to write Se Polr culture? If you were that would make sense. I sometimes feel like we live in a Ni Polr culture and indeed, I too, disassociated myself with Ni and tried to go become an ESTP before I learnt about typology. This propensity to argue is the lingering remenants of this long period in my life, and you as an INTJ, I imagine may have experienced something similiar. To your point, it only succeeded in making me miserable and this is exactly what the Se dom would experience.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

So... On topic: Without any real evidence to the contrary, I'd assume that people are about 50% on the mark, most of the time people are in the right ball park (quadra, or temperament, etc.). It's _far_ easier to accurately type in a non-IM/Cog. Functions system like MBTI or Keirsey than in Socionics, in my mind.

@_Freeflowingthoughts_ Holy *********** ****** son! You've been here five minutes and you're already more annoying than @_Jeremy8419_, you deserve a goddamn medal. Or at least a pat on the head. Good effort! :kitteh:


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> So... On topic: Without any real evidence to the contrary, I'd assume that people are about 50% on the mark, most of the time people are in the right ball park (quadra, or temperament, etc.). It's _far_ easier to accurately type in a non-IM/Cog. Functions system like MBTI or Keirsey than in Socionics, in my mind.
> 
> @_Freeflowingthoughts_ Holy *********** ****** son! You've been here five minutes and you're already more annoying than @_Jeremy8419_, you deserve a goddamn medal. Or at least a pat on the head. Good effort! :kitteh:


I've responded in the exact same format as your beloved.

On topic: I think people are usually right, if they're dominant judgers, then the S/N may vary. so the LSI may think he's an INTP. The ENFJ may confuse herself with ESFJ, so on. Dominant percievers will mistype through the T/F function. INFJ will mistype as INTJ and vice versa. 

It is worth noting that every single type will often mistype their last letter in Myers briggs. Especially for introverts, ISTP is labeled as a perciever even though his dominant function, Introverted thinking, is a judging function. Common mistypes for ISTP is ISTJ, INTJ, INTP, for these reasons. Youtuber Celebok confirms this in his videos.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Ahahaha, I've responded in the exact same format as your beloved.


Them INFJs, huh?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> Them INFJs, huh?


Thanks for your deep intellectual insight.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> At the end of the day every type has freewill. I'm pointing out that Nick Kyrgios, Zlatan, and Bobby Fischer are all behaving hyper emotionally which they usually don't do. They're making very unnatural public displays of emotion because it's so frightening/badass to them, whereas to a Beta type, this would be nothing. It is their ultimate goal/hidden agenda, and when a dual relationship is not there, they begin to self supply both Se and Fe, their Duals two strongest functions.


What? How does emotional expression equal to Fi HA? I saw the movie Braveheart again not too long time ago, and there is one scene with Robert the Bruce that is extremely exemplary of Fi HA; not because of his expression, but _why_ he's doing and what he is actually saying:






That one line, "I don't want to lose heart!" is spot on. That's how Fi HA reasons. 



> *Lmfao, 'cuz Polr' is actually a very legitimate reason.* Side note, I have often thought that IXTJs have the easiest time overcoming their Polr. All they have to do is smile in social interaction. That's literally it. There is so much more to the function obviously, but as far as people sensing the weakness in them, it is the most easy to hide away. Te is much more obvious as you have pointed out.


Nope, and it never will be. And no PoLR is better or worse than the other; they all have their strengths and weaknesses depending on the context you're in. 



> Here's where you're wrong. I wasn't talking shit behind his back. I was laughing about the fact that a self-proclaimed mistype was insulting others for being mistyped. I found it ironic and felt like retribution because of the ban. I know I should have taken it to the bots, I'm fairly new, *plus I'm into Fe, so when people do ethically wrong, I objectively/outwardly shame them.*


The bolded is a shitty justification for crappy behavior. Being new is excusable, blaming one's bad behavior on type is not. And yes, you are talking ill about him behind is back because you are not saying it to him in person but still defaming his character in public. 



> He doesn't openly admit it. This is what I said. He _hijacked all of my personal threads_ and countless others, declaring all of us to be the wrong type.


So? That has nothing to do with what I claimed or why I began posting to you. You made weird assertions about what inferior Te is like and claim this is because Jung wrote such; I think you misunderstood what that meant so I went to challenge that claim. 



> I observed the type interaction that took place. All I observed was the look on their faces, and felt annoyed because of how dead and cold they seemed, frustrated that they were going to let this girl with her children die, and was stunned by their logic, whilst not fully comprehending it.


Yeah, so you didn't actually focus on their type mechanics and the ITR aspect of the clip which was the point. I didn't show you the clip because "funny faces" or something along those lines, but I did it specifically to demonstrate how inferior Te is like in a person in a very archetypal way. 



> I don't insist he's a perpetual liar, he is _established as a perpetual liar_ in his business, both martial arts, and acting, from people who have known/worked with them throughout his life. One does not have to be into Seagal, to watch, I was not into Game of Thrones and I still took the time to watch it. The lack of ethical courtesy is on you.


So? I don't care if he's a liar or not; that's honestly beyond the point. The point is why you think he is one. 



> There we go with the insults. First of all I doubt you've interacted irl with IEIs as we're not common.


Certainly more common than statistics claim, shrug. I keep running into them pretty much everywhere I go. There's one at my job, I have two as friends, my former psychologist was one and the list goes on, really.



> Second, you're a cafe legend stating that I'm dumb,


Nope. I am stating I think you misunderstand the theory and how you apply it, hence this discussion, but I am not claiming you are dumb. 



> if I were you my Fi would be crying in self pity and I'd dob you into the bots. FYI I have a 130 IQ in Wechesler which is the highest classification labeled as "Very Superior" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification. Third, in person INTJ and INFJ get along very, very well.


Ok, and I took WAIS earlier this year while sorely sleep deprived and got above average as a score which is far from surprising because I already knew I would, so what's your point? My point is that you keep excusing this communication problem in Te/Fe but IEI/ILI are kindred and usually communicate decently well so why don't we? I don't think that's purely due to Fe/Te because again, kindred isn't that difficult of an ITR. 



> I know I do with my INTJ bestfriend. I can sense in his voice that he's sure of his words, and it is coloured by personal enthusiasm and inner conviction or when it's a true insight in the moment, vague spaced out coldness in the tone. We're also on the same wavelength and depth of thought and self involvment/introspection. Contrast, when it is written down cold on paper, it is very hard to read. So, you too experienced the hard to understand


I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has or what you are trying to claim. 



> Lol @ him calling you a mistype. He calls everyone one, when he labeled himself an INFJ, don't you find it ironic that the perpetual accuser of others, turned out to be the mistype himself. How is this not sinking in.... Sure, it went against a rule. Fine, but contrast him being banned to me, I am not who you should be directing your anger and moral outrage toward.


Sure is, because I do think he's a mistype, but I don't think INFP is the right type for him either but that's for another day. And I am not directing anger or moral outrage at you; you have yet to see me angry, lol. I do however think the basis on which you type on is wrong. 



> So Eneagram is okay to use justfying ones behaviour but not Typlogy?


Nope, typology in general is not justified. I used to support the argument that there could be other variables or factors to consider as to why that is so, which could be explained using different models than socionics. 



> This was a bizzare example. An Se Dom has Ne. An Se dom has sufficient Ne just as both you and I have sufficient Si. Perhaps you meant to write Se Polr culture? If you were that would make sense. I sometimes feel like we live in a Ni Polr culture and indeed, I too, disassociated myself with Ni and tried to go become an ESTP before I learnt about typology. This propensity to argue is the lingering remenants of this long period in my life, and you as an INTJ, I imagine may have experienced something similiar. To your point, it only succeeded in making me miserable and this is exactly what the Se dom would experience.


I wouldn't say it's bizarre at all, seeing how I've run into this quite a few times. There are a few members on this very forum who's been struggling with this very problem. And yes, sorry, I meant Se PoLR culture. 

And yes, it makes people miserable but it doesn't change the fact that it may have a severe negative effect on their self-image and ability to properly identify with the traits you attribute to Se, in this situation.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

@Entropic

Look, I'm done with this, we can continue it over private message. Lets stop derailing this guys thread. I contributed to it above. Personal egos to the side. Lets be considerate.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> @Entropic
> 
> Look, I'm done with this, we can continue it over private message. Lets stop derailing this guys thread. I contributed to it above. Personal egos to the side. Lets be considerate.


Can't say I'm interested. There wasn't much to contribute to, in terms of the OP in the first place without steering into wild type accusations. Frankly, I find the thread more created as a way to stir up drama than to create meaningful discussion.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> So... On topic: Without any real evidence to the contrary, I'd assume that people are about 50% on the mark, most of the time people are in the right ball park (quadra, or temperament, etc.). It's _far_ easier to accurately type in a non-IM/Cog. Functions system like MBTI or Keirsey than in Socionics, in my mind.


Hm well no, I found my type in socionics and not in MBTI and keirsey is the worst of all of them in terms of this.




> @_Freeflowingthoughts_ Holy *********** ****** son! You've been here five minutes and you're already more annoying than @_Jeremy8419_, you deserve a goddamn medal. Or at least a pat on the head. Good effort! :kitteh:


Jeremy was far more annoying than @Freeflowingthoughts. To me.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> It is worth noting that every single type will often mistype their last letter in Myers briggs. Especially for introverts, ISTP is labeled as a perciever even though his dominant function, Introverted thinking, is a judging function. Common mistypes for ISTP is ISTJ, INTJ, INTP, for these reasons. Youtuber Celebok confirms this in his videos.


I do not have a "last letter" in MBTI.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> What? How does emotional expression equal to Fi HA?


That's not what he stated. Reread.




> > Lmfao, 'cuz Polr' is actually a very legitimate reason.
> 
> 
> Nope, and it never will be. And no PoLR is better or worse than the other; they all have their strengths and weaknesses depending on the context you're in.


So why do you keep using the idea of Fe PoLR to justify your Fe hate. :tongue:

You preach the opposite of what you are actually doing.

Anyway, I agree with him, in terms of information processing, PoLR is not going to magically become that much better even with lots of practice at it.




> Yeah, so what does that make an Se dom raised in an Se PoLR culture? Do you seriously think they will experience themselves to be confident as an Se dom and immediately identify as such upon reading on the Se description? I doubt it because they will see those traits in a negative light within themselves and may try to disidentify with it, because they think it's not the acceptable way to be.


Nice unfalsifiable theory you are building there in your own head. Pat on the back.


OK, I'll stop here, as it's getting too off topic indeed. It's just kinda hard to keep my mouth shut when I see so much idiocy going on.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Can't say I'm interested. There wasn't much to contribute to, in terms of the OP in the first place without steering into wild type accusations. Frankly, I find the thread more created as a way to stir up drama than to create meaningful discussion.


Everything you write is slimy, subtly evasive, and self-satisfying. I'm done.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myst91 said:


> That's not what he stated. Reread.


I did, and I still fail to see what is being said beyond "to me as a beta, the way xLIs express themselves in relation to HA doesn't look as badass as beta Fe does which is actually genuine/true/authentic because it's valued". 



> So why do you keep using the idea of Fe PoLR to justify your Fe hate. :tongue:


I don't; I do however, have a strong innate gut reaction whenever I run into something that can be identified as Fe. Yes, I devalue Fe over Fi, but I don't justify myself using my PoLR to hate on Fe. 



> You preach the opposite of what you are actually doing.


No; if you think I do that you honestly sorely misunderstand my character and my intentions. Try again. 



> Anyway, I agree with him, in terms of information processing, PoLR is not going to magically become that much better even with lots of practice at it.


Nor did I ever claim that either. I do agree with that as well, but it doesn't justify having a poor character and a poor attitude. People need to own up to their weaknesses and deficiencies, like I wrote. 



> Nice unfalsifiable theory you are building there in your own head. Pat on the back.


Go ask @selena87 about it then, or @Night Huntress, though I know she won't respond if you would bother. :tongue: I wouldn't make the claim if it wasn't for the fact that I've run into several people who were unsure of being Se lead and later changed to being an Se lead because they were raised in a culture that devalued Se.



> OK, I'll stop here, as it's getting too off topic indeed. It's just kinda hard to keep my mouth shut when I see so much idiocy going on.


You can take your baseless accusations somewhere else, thanks.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

@myst91 

Don't bother. Truth is not welcome in an Fi dominated forum. You're hurting their _feeeeeeels_. 

Lol @ the fact that the SEE has nothing to say to her supervisor, and the ILI is obviously shaken up by your comment as your beneficiary, and even trying to befriend you in his response.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Go ask @selena87 about it then, or @Night Huntress


Or me. I was raised by an LSE and an SEI. My Se was not appreciated.



Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Don't bother. You're hurting their _feeeeeeels_ with the opposite function, Ti.
> 
> Lol @ the fact that the SEE has nothing to say to her supervisor, and the ILI is obviously shaken up by your comment as your beneficiary, and even trying to befriend you in his response. - and they say that information metabolism plays no part.


Do you make stuff up all the time? I mean, we're already kinda exasperated by people who do that.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> Or me. I was raised by an LSE and an SEI. My Se was not appreciated.
> 
> 
> Do you make stuff up all the time? I mean, we're already kinda exasperated by people who do that.


The SEE hasn't said anything to the supervisor. The ILI _was_ being very respectful considering the weight of the accusations. Nothing I have said is a lie or even up for debate for that matter. It's there for you to see.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I did, and I still fail to see what is being said beyond "to me as a beta, the way xLIs express themselves in relation to HA doesn't look as badass as beta Fe does which is actually genuine/true/authentic because it's valued".


That's not how I interpreted it. But this is a small point, beyond the real point so I'm dropping it here.




> I don't; I do however, have a strong innate gut reaction whenever I run into something that can be identified as Fe. Yes, I devalue Fe over Fi, but I don't justify myself using my PoLR to hate on Fe.


You justify yourself a lot actually on this forum with Fe PoLR.




> No; if you think I do that you honestly sorely misunderstand my character and my intentions. Try again.


I was not making a character evaluation here. I was simply pointing out what you do.




> Nor did I ever claim that either. I do agree with that as well, but it doesn't justify having a poor character and a poor attitude. People need to own up to their weaknesses and deficiencies, like I wrote.


Sure, that's fine.




> Go ask @selena87 about it then, or @Night Huntress, though I know she won't respond if you would bother. :tongue: I wouldn't make the claim if it wasn't for the fact that I've run into several people who were unsure of being Se lead and later changed to being an Se lead because they were raised in a culture that devalued Se.


The problem is that you can pull a lot of stuff out of your ass to justify typings this way. This was just one good example of it. Though, you are not the only person doing that. I mentioned you because you are at the same time quite closed to new information, you do not even attempt to evaluate it, the two together is a pretty bad combination. And yes it's rather frustrating communicating with you because of your tendency to get evasive and bullshitting without giving much reasoning for it. You just keep saying "This is clearly X" without ever reasoning for it.

I don't really care about Night Huntress.




> You can take your baseless accusations somewhere else, thanks.


Except it's not baseless to state there is too much idiocy when there is. I gave my reasons above. 

Anyway I'm done detailing my opinion.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> @myst91
> 
> Don't bother. Truth is not welcome in an Fi dominated forum. You're hurting their _feeeeeeels_.
> 
> Lol @ the fact that the SEE has nothing to say to her supervisor, and the ILI is obviously shaken up by your comment as your beneficiary, and even trying to befriend you in his response.


lol, you are reading way too much into this without knowing any of the details and justifying your conclusion with ITR, which is exactly my issue with your reasoning process and has been this whole time. Hint: the reason the SEE isn't responding to myst has nothing to do with supervision.

@myst91 Again if you think I do that, you are reading something into my intentions that is not there. Find an example and I don't mean from like, 2 or even 1 years ago, but a recent example, where I tried to justify my actions with Fe PoLR. You won't find any.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> The SEE hasn't said anything to the supervisor. The ILI _was_ being very respectful considering the weight of the accusations. Nothing I have said is a lie or even up for debate for that matter. It's there for you to see.


This post is observable reality. Your other posts are not.

This is precisely what you did:



Entropic said:


> lol, you are reading way too much into this without knowing any of the details and justifying your conclusion with ITR


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> lol, you are reading way too much into this without knowing any of the details and justifying your conclusion with ITR, which is exactly my issue with your reasoning process and has been this whole time. Hint: the reason the SEE isn't responding to myst has nothing to do with supervision.


The SEE is not "responding" because I did not ask her anything.




> Again if you think I do that, you are reading something into my intentions that is not there. Find an example and I don't mean from like, 2 or even 1 years ago, but a recent example, where I tried to justify my actions with Fe PoLR. You won't find any.


You do this with Fe, you complain you hate Fe, you say you are annoyed by certain posters here asking about their types because they must be xxFJs, you type them xxFJ because they annoy you in that way, etc.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

You win some, you lose some, boys.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Ahaha, that need to apologize for Ni. No judgment here dude. 100%







> Abstract is all introverted functions as they are abstracted from reality within the mind. That's what Jung says. Socionics, says that Abstract functions are all intuitive functions, and all feeling functions. extraverted intuition and feeling, while being based on reality, are still abstracted within the mind. Thinking and sensing, even if they're introverted, are still concrete according to socionics. Just a little difference.


Yep exactly what I was getting at - and MBTI says N is what is abstract and S is concrete while Jung had what you say. I do think socionics got this nailed down  Don't forget how socionics also emphasizes the difference between fields (I) and bodies (E), which is another aspect of "abstract/concrete" in a sense and it matches Jung.




> I just said the definition of psychology "the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context" is perfectly aligned with typology, as I was rebutting Wanderers comment that MBTI has little to do with psychology. We've already established the functions thing


Yes, this is what I was asking you about. And MBTI btw actually uses official / academically accepted psychometric methods.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

myst91 said:


> I actually want to get a motorcycle myself.


Do it.



myst91 said:


> I do get your analogy, though, that that's what you meant. Is this the Ti PoLR?


Yes. Lol. Not a huge fan of Psychology either, not as a science, but at least the academic stuff is _trying_ to be empirical. 



myst91 said:


> What are you getting at here?


Differentiating between words and actions; I don't really see that much cognitive functions in official MBTI, although they make mention of using them.



myst91 said:


> Yeah 2D Ti is no question for him. And it does resemble what other EIIs I know do when they try to Ti something. The 1D Te also adds into it, I think.


He had me typed as an ILE forever, then said we got along so well that I was his mirror. I think he tries really hard to be a good typist, but he never seems on the mark. Maybe I've gotten used to him after taking him off ignore a few months ago, as he irritates me far less than he used to.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I'm not sure what you meant by Se-Ni axis being laid back? Do you mean when it's an Irrational Se/Ni type?


They're laid back. Judging dom types are generally laid back much more than percieving doms from the outset. Mix in Ni into their loop, and Si into their Demonstrative, Fi in the role, and you have one chill (Si) deep (Ni), dude. Se subtype would obviously be a little bit more energetic. Also, they have weak Extraverted feeling which has been translated to the element 'energy' in socionics, so everything culminates to a chilled out person.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myst91 said:


> The SEE is not "responding" because I did not ask her anything.


No, you didn't, but it doesn't mean that's the basis why she won't respond. 



> You do this with Fe, you complain you hate Fe, you say you are annoyed by certain posters here asking about their types because they must be xxFJs, you type them xxFJ because they annoy you in that way, etc.


Yeah, because you can be annoyed by a trait without justifying your annoyance with a type system as a way to validate your annoyance. I am not saying it is ok for me to be annoyed with those people because Fe PoLR and it also justifies being an asshole; I'd never fucking do such a thing so don't even suggest that I do it. That you think I do sounds more like a bias of interpretation you have because you interpret actions that way, but I certainly don't. I separate the system away from how I operate.

Do I happen to dislike that trait? Yes. I also disliked that trait before calling it Fe PoLR, so in actuality it doesn't change anything about my attitude towards that particular character trait. That I dislike that trait also doesn't change the fact that I still try to view the people objectively and treat them as equals even if they possess traits, call them whatever you like, that happen to annoy me. Sometimes I cannot get along with these people, sometimes I cannot communicate with them, sometimes their entire presentation irks me out so badly I just rather go fuck it because I really cba to even try. I have a stronger reaction to it than most people, seemingly. 

I mean, seriously, look at this convo. I can't follow @Freeflowingthoughts; I could say yeah, that's probably because of Fe and I do think that plays a role, but do I think it's the only role? No, I don't. I'm not the one in this conversation who is trying to justify our inability to communicate on type and this means that our communication henceforth will be hopeless and we cannot ever get along; *he is*. He is the one reacting emotionally and trying to justify the occurrences in this thread utilizing ITR. I moved beyond that attitude long time ago so again find a recent example where I do what you accuse me of and you have a right to accuse me of failure; you won't find it because it's something I decided to improve and I know I have in fact improved on it. This thread is a testament to it. 

So yes, I act as I preach since people are dynamic and change over time. You won't find someone who is perfectly consistent throughout their entire life; that's not growth then, but being stagnant. You aren't moving anywhere in terms of development which sounds more like a robot to me, than a human being.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> @Freeflowingthoughts is advocating for, and something I find weak and immature as an attitude to take. It is never ok to justify your weaknesses by a personality type theory; the part of the theory is to show you these weaknesses so you can work on overcoming them like I try to work on improving my emotional awareness; not to succumb and justify your weaknesses and by throwing your hands in the air and say, "that's hopeless anyway, once a sensortard, always a sensortard, so I'm not even gonna try to bother doing these physical tasks". I mean, seriously? What kind of defeatist attitude is that? Doesn't motivate personal growth that socionics is really big on, anyway.


Even now you're twisting the facts. I never advocated anybody give up in the fight for life, because of their Polr function. I just stated that I was justified to not grasp a Te interaction as quickly or effortlessly as you were as an INTJ. Is this such a complex concept to grasp? I find myself wondering whether you even believe in typology at all


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> So yes, I act as I preach since people are dynamic and change over time. You won't find someone who is perfectly consistent throughout their entire life; that's not growth then, but being stagnant. Y*ou aren't moving anywhere in terms of development which sounds more like a robot to me, than a human being.*


You're so hypocritical, going on a crusade after me for simply pointing out a fact about which a type self admitted, and here you are being outright condescending, insulting, inflamatory, and at the end of the day stating an untruth because we do not know each other in real life. 

The irony is not lost when an IXTJ calls me a robot. Even funnier when I'm an Fe user.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Freeflowingthoughts

1. Edit or delete your first post since I actually edited so it's kind of a moot thing to quote something I decided to change;
2. I am not even sure you know wtf lying means.
3. Go ahead, call me a robot, I was in retrospect considering adding a self-depreciating commentary about how I'm thankfully not one. 
4. No, I'm not crusading against you; drop the victim complex please. I am however pointing out how in this thread, I am doing the very opposite of what I was being accused of. You were simply used as an example to illustrate the point here, to create a contrast. 



> Even now you're twisting the facts. I never advocated anybody give up in the fight for life, because of their Polr function. I just stated that I was justified to not grasp a Te interaction as quickly or effortlessly as you were as an INTJ. Is this such a complex concept to grasp? I find myself wondering whether you even believe in typology at all


That is not the logical conclusion of what you've been suggesting thus far and what you've been doing in this thread, but I'll let you believe this is what you are doing.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> @Freeflowingthoughts
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Do it.


It's in the plans so yes I will get there as soon as the time is right for it 




> Yes. Lol. Not a huge fan of Psychology either, not as a science, but at least the academic stuff is _trying_ to be empirical.


I'm a fan of psychology actually, I just don't accept things that don't make enough sense in the right way and I have high standards in that way.

MBTI is also trying to be empirical, as I said above, it uses the same psychometric methods as any academic psychologist would. (Well, the ones that do research via self reports in questionnaires, which yes, does happen.)

Even the ethical guidelines for MBTI are up to standard if compared with academic psychology. Those guidelines get ignored often... another long topic.




> Differentiating between words and actions; I don't really see that much cognitive functions in official MBTI, although they make mention of using them.


Oh that's just the INFP thing as mentioned above in terms of creating a coherent system. :tongue:

I don't think that anyone here or MBTI organization itself ever gave the wrong facts like Clinton did, aka lying, which is why your analogy didn't make sense. 




> He had me typed as an ILE forever, then said we got along so well that I was his mirror. I think he tries really hard to be a good typist, but he never seems on the mark. Maybe I've gotten used to him after taking him off ignore a few months ago, as he irritates me far less than he used to.


Lol right a few months ago he seemed pretty clueless still before becoming the crazy socionics evangelist.




Freeflowingthoughts said:


> They're laid back. Judging dom types are generally laid back much more than percieving doms from the outset. Mix in Ni into their loop, and Si into their Demonstrative, Fi in the role, and you have one chill (Si) deep (Ni), dude. Se subtype would obviously be a little bit more energetic. Also, they have weak Extraverted feeling which has been translated to the element 'energy' in socionics, so everything culminates to a chilled out person.


I'm absolutely not following you here on J-doms being more laid back than P-doms.

The rest depends on how we interpret "chill"




Entropic said:


> No, you didn't, but it doesn't mean that's the basis why she won't respond.


If by "responding" you mean she isn't getting involved in this thread, I don't really care as to why she isn't doing so.

Though, I see now that she did make a post, heh.




> Yeah, because you can be annoyed by a trait without justifying your annoyance with a type system as a way to validate your annoyance. I am not saying it is ok for me to be annoyed with those people because Fe PoLR and it also justifies being an asshole; I'd never fucking do such a thing so don't even suggest that I do it. That you think I do sounds more like a bias of interpretation you have because you interpret actions that way, but I certainly don't. I separate the system away from how I operate.


OK if you mean justifying in that sense. What I meant was more like, explaining your annoyance by using the theory, with your typing. Which is not the same as making an actual excuse in a moral sense.

I don't think then that you were any different from @Freeflowingthoughts in terms of expressing how PoLR means that one has trouble processing the information on PoLR. 

This is what he meant originally and you misunderstood that. You assumed he meant to justify things in this sense (the moralistic one) via attributing them to PoLR. I think you were very Fi there and he was very Ti.

His point was an entirely cognitive viewpoint of information processing (Ti) and you made it into an area of personal decisions (Fi). You should agree with the theory that PoLR information processing is weak, it does not follow that anyone's going to justify things in the way you brought it up. He didn't claim it follows (logically it certainly does not) and you didn't think it would be OK to jump there either (so it doesn't follow in a Fi sense either). So. That's all.


See:

He said (Ti): _"Our application of the Jung paragraph is different because of our creative function."_

You then misunderstood and morphed it into Fi: 

_"I don't think our application is different because of our Te creative function; I just think you really understand it poorly and I pointed out how I think so and honestly, I think it's weak to justify lack of understanding of a subject by brushing it off as being type related. So does it mean it's suddenly all right for me to be an emotional asshole to people just because I'm Fe PoLR? Of course not. I need to own up to my own weaknesses and deficiencies just like everyone else and I wouldn't blame my lack personal weaknesses on my type."_

He was not disagreeing with your point and he understood the whole picture:

_"(Your original line to which he's responding to): "So does it mean it's suddenly all right for me to be an emotional asshole to people just because I'm Fe PoLR? Of course not."

(His response): "*Of course not.* Obviously, trying to conquer the Polr position for any type hasn't worked out well in the long term.""_ 

See the bolded.

Then you responded missing the Ti point and going into Fi again:

_"I honestly don't think so, because again, should I justify my lack of tact on my Fe PoLR and say sorry but just my PoLR? No, then I'm not owning up to the fact I made an error and should seek to correct it instead of blaming it on my type."_




> I mean, seriously, look at this convo. I can't follow @Freeflowingthoughts; I could say yeah, that's probably because of Fe and I do think that plays a role, but do I think it's the only role? No, I don't.


Seems like due to you devaluing Ti, yes.




> I'm not the one in this conversation who is trying to justify our inability to communicate on type


Again we mean something different by "justify". See above.




> and this means that our communication henceforth will be hopeless and we cannot ever get along


Well on a superficial level I am sure the communication can be agreeable with some extra effort put into it. This would be more along the lines of what socionics says.

I don't think anyone here suggested that it's hopeless etc.




> He is the one reacting emotionally and trying to justify the occurrences in this thread utilizing ITR. I moved beyond that attitude long time ago so again find a recent example where I do what you accuse me of and you have a right to accuse me of failure; you won't find it because it's something I decided to improve and I know I have in fact improved on it. This thread is a testament to it.


Yeah see the above about differing interpretations of "justify". If you mean you improved on Fe, cool.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> You're so hypocritical, going on a crusade after me for simply pointing out a fact about which a type self admitted, and here you are being outright condescending, insulting, inflamatory, and at the end of the day stating an untruth because we do not know each other in real life.
> 
> The irony is not lost when an IXTJ calls you a robot. Even funnier that I'm an Fe user.


I don't think he was personally calling you a robot. It was a general statement about how people are/should be.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Seeing how my MBTI type directly translates into Socionics, it is pretty much a given. ENTP=ILE=ENTp


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I don't think he was personally calling you a robot. It was a general statement about how people are/should be.


His premise is still wrong. If you can't tell that I'm in a constant state of introspection and evaluation, then that is reflecting poorly on his judgment. If you can't see the product of what I'm writing is the result of said evaluation, then again. Calling me static, would mean, in practice, that I was content with the basic, stock standard MBTI description on personalitypage and never questioned beyond that. Topics such as ITR, Dario Nardi, Information elements and metabolism from Socionics, Keirsey, Jung, and its application into all manner of things would not have been mentioned. I would simply be content with the most basic formulaic prescribed text and never question again. It's utterly ridiculous.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

mine is dead on, 100%
when i first read jung's thinking type introvert
it was dead on it not only described me but my existence as well
several years later i came across myers/briggs book and took the test
which accurately id'ed me as INTJ
the description is also accurate


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> If you can't tell that I'm in a constant state of introspection and evaluation, then there is his the sum total of his judgment. If you can't see the product of what I'm writing is the result of said evaluation, then again, props to the judgment.
> 
> Calling me static, would mean, that I was content with the basic stock standard MBTI description on personalitypage and never questioned beyond that. Topics such as ITR, Dario Nardi, Information elements and metabolism from Socionics, Keirsey, Jung, would not be mentioned.


Do you understand he was not talking about YOU there?

Also check post #109 by me where I analysed your interactions. Ti vs Fi issue is what I emphasized there though I see the Te vs Fe aspect throughout the thread as well.

So then you two get into an argument where both you think the other party has bad intentions. Interesting to see socionics play out in practice.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Vinniebob said:


> mine is dead on, 100%
> when i first read jung's thinking type introvert
> it was dead on it not only described me but my existence as well
> several years later i came across myers/briggs book and took the test
> ...


So do you type as LII in socionics? MBTI INTJ description is not exactly about a jungian Ti-dom.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

myst91 said:


> So do you type as LII in socionics? MBTI INTJ description is not exactly about a jungian Ti-dom.


i never took that test
i am a sp 5w6
those description's describe me well


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Do you understand he was not talking about YOU there?
> 
> Also check post #109 by me where I analysed your interactions. Ti vs Fi issue is what I emphasized there though I see the Te vs Fe aspect throughout the thread as well.
> 
> So then you two get into an argument where both you think the other party has bad intentions. Interesting to see socionics play out in practice.


Yeah I edited it, I realised he wasn't calling me personally, but still, the premise by which he accuses me of is still fundamentally untrue.

That analysis was awesome. He's definetely self-referential in incoming information. Like you said, it's socionics playing out in real life, so I can't begrudge him for it. It's the way he was born, just as we were. It can get frustrating because from my perspective I'm trying to have an honest and open dialogue, and it's met with personal biase colouring said data, and if it does not align with his self image or hurts his feelings, he swiftly manouvers and insults people without explaination.


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I'm not the one in this conversation who is trying to justify our inability to communicate on type and this means that our communication henceforth will be hopeless and we cannot ever get along; *he is*.


I never said our communication is hopeless. Again, an exageration of my statement aswell as being removed from its context. I was only talking about the video. Not our entire future communication. Chill, you're making much out of nothing. 

I stated before that I feel you have a lot of wisdom to contribute, and I wish we could move past this bullshit and discuss things of substance.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Another Lost Cause said:


> The MBTI has a test-restest reliability of about 70% depending on which sources you use, but I'm guessing a lot of the online tests people use aren't so reliable, so I'll go with 60%.
> 
> On second thought, most people here are probably more self-aware than the average test-taker, so I'll up it to 75%.


Reliability has not been a strong point for MBTI. Depending on the study, results of personality typing errors have typically been in the 50-75% - far from the 25% you've guessed.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Vinniebob said:


> i never took that test
> i am a sp 5w6
> those description's describe me well


MBTI INTP doesn't work?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Freeflowingthoughts said:


> Yeah I edited it, I realised he wasn't calling me personally, but still, the premise by which he accuses me of is still fundamentally untrue.
> 
> That analysis was awesome. He's definetely self-referential in incoming information. Like you said, it's socionics playing out in real life, so I can't begrudge him for it. It's the way he was born, just as we were. It can get frustrating because from my perspective I'm trying to have an honest and open dialogue, and it's met with personal biase colouring said data, and if it does not align with his self image or hurts his feeling, he swiftly manouvers around the information and just insults people without explaining his reason.


Glad if the analysis helped =)

Yeah the premise wasn't correct.

And yeah, it can get frustrating due to such differences even when both parties do have good intentions originally.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

myst91 said:


> MBTI INTP doesn't work?


INTP:shocked:
NOOOOOOOO
i be a J
i ain't no steeenking P:laughing:


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Vinniebob said:


> INTP:shocked:
> NOOOOOOOO
> i be a J
> i ain't no steeenking P:laughing:


INTPs rock (until they catch you generalising and pick flaws in your arguments ad-infinitum and all you've got is "it's the vibe of the thing" left as an argument). But seriously, INTJs in MBTI translate as INTp (ILI) mostly.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

bethdeth said:


> INTPs rock (until they catch you generalising and pick flaws in your arguments ad-infinitum and all you've got is "it's the vibe of the thing" left as an argument). But seriously, INTJs in MBTI translate as INTp (ILI) mostly.


so in essence
a INTP is just a very gassy J
sort of like a INTJ is a severly constipated ENFP:laughing:


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Vinniebob said:


> so in essence
> a INTP is just a very gassy J
> sort of like a INTJ is a severly constipated ENFP:laughing:


Nope.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Vinniebob said:


> INTP:shocked:
> NOOOOOOOO
> i be a J
> i ain't no steeenking P:laughing:


 Ignore the P part, does the rest of the description work?


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

I've edited this, peace and love.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Nah, you are just nitpicking on word usage. When I said "cognition", I meant TIM. I was using that word inside a clear context there. You should have seen that that's how my sentences make sense.


Check the ban boards for your validation. I revel in the fact that I brought upon one of the seven infractions because his behavior toward me and others has been frequently incendiary and is usually rooted in some _Socionics Dick-Measuring Contest._


----------



## Freeflowingthoughts (Jun 23, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> Check the ban boards for your validation. I revel in the fact that I brought upon one of the seven infractions because his behavior toward me and others has been frequently incendiary and is usually rooted in some _Socionics Dick-Measuring Contest._


My niggaaa:ninja: ^


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

I tend to type myself as a mix between cognition, behavior and relations to other people whom I've typed, and since sometimes relations can go sour, this means I'm changing between several types because there doesn't seem to be any real pattern behind my relations with certain types. Though maybe I'm missing something, I'm not far from thinking socionics intertype relations is bullshit.


----------

