# 4d unvalued demonstrative



## Captain Mclain

so i basically use the definitions from here.



> Four-Dimensionality (4D) – Very Strong. These kinds of information are so prevalent in us that they strongly dictate how we move and communicate in the world. People can easily be recognised by the IM Elements assigned to these strongest functions.


So I imagine this is what is processed in our heads when we can not sleep late at night. When saying it out loud it is garbage because we do not value it. ILI for example have Ti as their demonstrative. They have worked out the worlds logic pretty well but they are not like LII whom which try always to use their Ti function. It is the background logic that ILI use Te to flourish on. IEI got Fi there which work out relations and all that Fi stuff to later be safe Fe it. 

For the extroverts ESE and LSE actually got full blown Se and reduce all that goody stuff to Si.  This make me believe that the creative function for extroverts think their demonstrative function is kinda boring and nitpick out the good stuff for them.

It seem it is very essential to consider the demonstrative function when thinking of type.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Demonstrative is close range, one of your two personality cores, works as the static/dynamic counterpart smoothly with leading, and is used to irrevocably state one's personality type.

EII: Warns of impending human doom similar to a prophet that rarely speaks.


----------



## tangosthenes

It's love/hate, I think. You feel like you control it but 4D valuers don't really get it, that they use it excessively. You don't really appreciate its use by others unless it matches yours. I agree that it works smoothly with leading, and that what you see as its excesses are a good way to pinpoint type, since you'll know these excesses very intimately, and probably point them if you have the right situation.


----------



## Jeremy8419

More examples:

Fi: Usually very emotionally warm and expressive, give air of no regards for Fi, but occasionally affirmatively express right/wrong morality of situation. E.g., Fe atmosphere is great, but says "this doesn't seem right" or "well what about this person."
Si: Usually maintain control, give air of lack of attention to Si, but occasionally forcefully express concerns on health. E.g., dresses for hard work and ignores health issues, but says "you're going to make yourself sick!" or "what happens when you hurt yourself?!"


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> More examples:
> 
> Fi: Usually very emotionally warm and expressive, give air of no regards for Fi, but occasionally affirmatively express right/wrong morality of situation. E.g., Fe atmosphere is great, but says "this doesn't seem right" or "well what about this person."
> Si: Usually maintain control, give air of lack of attention to Si, but occasionally forcefully express concerns on health. E.g., dresses for hard work and ignores health issues, but says "you're going to make yourself sick!" or "what happens when you hurt yourself?!"


you can use these 
Gulenko's symbols for the IEs are as follows:
S = sensus/sensing (Si)
I = intueor/intuition (Ne)
L = lex/law/logic (Ti)
E = emoveo/emotion (Fe)
T = tempus/time (Ni) 
F = factor/force (Se)
R = relatio/relations (Fi)
P = profiteor/profit/production (Te)


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> you can use these
> Gulenko's symbols for the IEs are as follows:
> S = sensus/sensing (Si)
> I = intueor/intuition (Ne)
> L = lex/law/logic (Ti)
> E = emoveo/emotion (Fe)
> T = tempus/time (Ni)
> F = factor/force (Se)
> R = relatio/relations (Fi)
> P = profiteor/profit/production (Te)


People on here usually go by the MBTI lingo. P is actually "Praxis" or "Practice"


----------



## Jeremy8419

tangosthenes said:


> It's love/hate, I think. You feel like you control it but 4D valuers don't really get it, that they use it excessively. You don't really appreciate its use by others unless it matches yours. I agree that it works smoothly with leading, and that what you see as its excesses are a good way to pinpoint type, since you'll know these excesses very intimately, and probably point them if you have the right situation.


Well, you usually won't give a damn about it period. Why? Because it is automatic 4D. Even if you encounter someone with conscious 4D, you still won't care for it. Why? Because why sit and enter a conscious discussion on something you're already doing without conscious effort?

Ni- for me... Why? Why do anything with it? I don't have to sit there and IEI or ILI it, nor LIE or EIE it. It's already going on as strong as possible. It automatically grows just by using my Ego. Why do anything with it at all, when it is an automatic byproduct of my Fi? It demonstrates itself sometimes; e.g., in a discussion with someone considering going against morality for monetary gain, while looking them directly in the eye with no emotion nor force, "everything has it's price. be careful. the price is far greater than you think, and nothing in this world can ever return it to you." This is "close range," and reserved for those who I let into my personal realm (as Ni- is the "personality type flag" I previously mentioned), while Fi is far psychological distance and present openly as long as I am not in my Role function due to perceived threats. When alone, and legitimately troubled, I use Ni- to enter a trance-like state and "audit" what has gone on with my Fi.
@Word Dispenser
You may find this helpful as well


----------



## tangosthenes

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, you usually won't give a damn about it period. Why? Because it is automatic 4D. Even if you encounter someone with conscious 4D, you still won't care for it. Why? Because why sit and enter a conscious discussion on something you're already doing without conscious effort?
> 
> Ni- for me... Why? Why do anything with it? I don't have to sit there and IEI or ILI it, nor LIE or EIE it. It's already going on as strong as possible. It automatically grows just by using my Ego. Why do anything with it at all, when it is an automatic byproduct of my Fi? It demonstrates itself sometimes; e.g., in a discussion with someone considering going against morality for monetary gain, while looking them directly in the eye with no emotion nor force, "everything has it's price. be careful. the price is far greater than you think, and nothing in this world can ever return it to you." This is "close range," and reserved for those who I let into my personal realm (as Ni- is the "personality type flag" I previously mentioned), while Fi is far psychological distance and present openly as long as I am not in my Role function due to perceived threats. When alone, and legitimately troubled, I use Ni- to enter a trance-like state and "audit" what has gone on with my Fi.
> @_Word Dispenser_
> You may find this helpful as well


If it is an automatic byproduct and you don't want to be a hypocrite you have to value it in others to some extent. So sure, actively using it, no damns, but with someone who is using it in a similar way, damns.


----------



## Captain Mclain

tangosthenes said:


> If it is an automatic byproduct and you don't want to be a hypocrite you have to value it in others to some extent. So sure, actively using it, no damns, but with someone who is using it in a similar way, damns.


Valuing IE is not the same to what value something is in general. Everything that brings progress in the world is in some way valued. Dimension 4D and 3D is easy to use. 1D and 2D are hard to use. 

I guess, we naturally value IE that support our ego and super-id. Also we find our dual's Demonstrative very helpful. Your dual will not blame you for being weak in this area but will bust your ass helping you getting it right.


----------



## Jeremy8419

tangosthenes said:


> If it is an automatic byproduct and you don't want to be a hypocrite you have to value it in others to some extent. So sure, actively using it, no damns, but with someone who is using it in a similar way, damns.


Someone who uses it similarly is your business relation, so it is good for short-term projects, but after that, the Leadings clash too much.


----------



## tangosthenes

Captain Mclain said:


> Valuing IE is not the same to what value something is in general. Everything that brings progress in the world is in some way valued. Dimension 4D and 3D is easy to use. 1D and 2D are hard to use.
> 
> I guess, we naturally value IE that support our ego and super-id. Also we find our dual's Demonstrative very helpful. Your dual will not blame you for being weak in this area but will bust your ass helping you getting it right.


You sort of missed the point. If you are espousing a way of thinking and someone else follows that way of thinking and you bust their balls for it, you're being a hypocrite. If you don't at least accept their solutions to some extent, you are being a hypocrite.


----------



## Captain Mclain

tangosthenes said:


> You sort of missed the point. If you are espousing a way of thinking and someone else follows that way of thinking and you bust their balls for it, you're being a hypocrite. If you don't at least accept their solutions to some extent, you are being a hypocrite.


Who is the hypocrite?


----------



## tangosthenes

Captain Mclain said:


> Who is the hypocrite?


Are we going there already? If you think you're right argue your point to counter mine, this isn't personal.


----------



## Jeremy8419

tangosthenes said:


> Are we going there already? If you think you're right argue your point to counter mine, this isn't personal.


He's talking about you and he having 4D Ni, you goober lol.


----------



## tangosthenes

Jeremy8419 said:


> He's talking about you and he having 4D Ni, you goober lol.


He has it valued, though. I have it unvalued. My point is that say, I'll call bullshit on the 4D Ni of IEIs and ILIs but not on LIIs and EIIs. And I have to admit I won't ALWAYS call bullshit, because sometimes, someone is just right.


----------



## Ixim

Jeremy8419 said:


> Someone who uses it similarly is your business relation, so it is good for short-term projects, but after that, the Leadings clash too much.


Actually, it is quasi-identity relation, not business. Q.ident would be ESI and SEI meanwhile business relations would be ESI and LSI. Q.ident uses your demo and ign functions. Business uses your role and shares the creative functions.

Don't spread misinformation.


----------



## Valtire

Ixim said:


> Actually, it is quasi-identity relation, not business. Q.ident would be ESI and SEI meanwhile business relations would be ESI and LSI. Q.ident uses your demo and ign functions. Business uses your role and shares the creative functions.
> 
> Don't spread misinformation.


Business would be ESI and LSI, both have Demonstrative Si.


----------



## Ixim

Fried Eggz said:


> Business would be ESI and LSI, both have Demonstrative Si.


Didn't I say just that? ?


----------



## Valtire

Ixim said:


> Didn't I say just that? ?


No you didn't. I have no idea what you were trying to say but this is how I saw it:

Jeremy: Business relations share their 4D Demonstrative.
You: It's actually quasi-identities, not Business.


----------



## Captain Mclain

tangosthenes said:


> He has it valued, though. I have it unvalued. My point is that say, I'll call bullshit on the 4D Ni of IEIs and ILIs but not on LIIs and EIIs. And I have to admit I won't ALWAYS call bullshit, because sometimes, someone is just right.


So you call out bullshit with your demonstrative and that is it? Is that what you are trying to communicate?


----------



## Vermillion

This is some next level shit lol. People come to Socionics cause MBTI is too basic, and they _still_ get a kick out of writing text walls to show how they disproved someone's INTJ/ILI typing to reduce some of their authority. Things never change.

Shake it up a little guys! :sighlol:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> This is some next level shit lol. People come to Socionics cause MBTI is too basic, and they _still_ get a kick out of writing text walls to show how they disproved someone's INTJ/ILI typing to reduce some of their authority. Things never change.
> 
> Shake it up a little guys! :sighlol:


Well, factual evidence is there lol.

/scoots you next to abraxas


----------



## Vermillion

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, factual evidence is there lol.
> 
> /scoots you next to abraxas


You think? I think all the Ti vs Te differentiation in the last page is conceptually solid but applied completely incorrectly. It ignores the reality of the situation. Too steeped in the _concept_ of something to see how it really applies to people and situations.

Also, a lot of obvious Enneagram bias.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> You think? I think all the Ti vs Te differentiation in the last page is conceptually solid but applied completely incorrectly. It ignores the reality of the situation. Too steeped in the _concept_ of something to see how it really applies to people and situations.
> 
> Also, a lot of obvious Enneagram bias.


Except for the fact that almost every one of their posts is a giant wall of holographic Ti, lol.

It's too late... Abraxas's Ni charm has already taken hold of you... No SEE may resist the powers of his existential sexual beastliness...
Is that a harmonica in his pocket, or...? Doesn't matter. You know you want it.

JOIIIIIIIIN USSSSSSSSS O_O


----------



## Vermillion

Jeremy8419 said:


> Except for the fact that almost every one of their posts is a giant wall of holographic Ti, lol.


Whose?



> It's too late... Abraxas's Ni charm has already taken hold of you... No SEE may resist the powers of his existential sexual beastliness...
> Is that a harmonica in his pocket, or...? Doesn't matter. You know you want it.
> 
> JOIIIIIIIIN USSSSSSSSS O_O


You got a lot to learn about sexual attraction if you think a bunch of posts on the internet can turn me on. Also, I'm way too out of his league


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> Whose?


Except for Abraxas, Blue Soul, and Emberfly, all the ILIs on here lol.




> You got a lot to learn about sexual attraction if you think a bunch of posts on the internet can turn me on. Also, I'm way too out of his league


You're Se just gave all ILIs an e-boner LOL. That just means you want to dominate him lol. I'd offer to let you borrow my cuffs, but you probably already have them


----------



## Vermillion

Jeremy8419 said:


> Except for Abraxas, Blue Soul, and Emberfly, all the ILIs on here lol.


So that implies you too. Well well. 



> You're Se just gave all ILIs an e-boner LOL. That just means you want to dominate him lol. I'd offer to let you borrow my cuffs, but you probably already have them


Oh stop shoving every SEE into his face. It's creepy.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> So that implies you too. Well well.


I don't call myself ILI, and my logic isn't holographic, so, no. Lol.



> Oh stop shoving every SEE into his face. It's creepy.


But he's my benefactor and I wanna help lol

P.s., tricked you into talking to me again LOL.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

lol @Jeremy8419 you actually started to remind of those obnoxious SLE's around. Especially with implying *weird* sexual mentions everywhere.

Also @ forum , how the heck agreeing with people around you, adhering to group thinking is Te ? People can be concerned as things like that when it comes ethical stuff/Fe; but what value it has for Te if 7-8 (or whatever) people are saying the same thing ? Since when people's opinions become facts which Te actually adheres to ?

@Abraxas


> I would rather be wrong and be included in the group, than be wrong and isolate myself, or be ostracized for going my own way.


How is this not Fe but Te ?


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> So they are beta or delta. It occurs to me, that since you have issues with finding your place, that your ego is in a conflict of interest with theirs. This conflict of interest has created a fracture in your appropriate and healthy worldview; although you attempt to do what is supposedly the right way to exist, it is inherently in conflict with your natural program, and when you fulfill your program, it is met with criticism. I am sure that you can follow this, and say, "oh I see" or "of course;" however, that is not "the reality of the situation," because such existing also creates an inversion between your perceptions of the self and your primary influences.
> 
> When I was growing up, what I now know is called Fi was very important to myself. My parents were largely into Fi as well. However, there was always an inherent conflict. No matter what I did, everything seemed F'd. I would think I did a good job with Fi, but had negativity come towards me in return. I would abstain Fi and go for Ti and Se, and receive praise. I would go for Fe and Ni, and receive praise. This was very negative, even though it was praise, for it was praise for the rejection of the self, for the rejection of Fi. Eventually, I grew up, moved away, and came to realize... My parents were full of shit. They had no care for Fi whatsoever. They were Beta all along. Their supposed Fi was nothing more than their Social Control, a mask worn and easily visible, while their Egos were very much on Ti and Fe.
> 
> You face a conflict of interest, which is evident by your discussions on your life. This has caused an unconscious inversion between your perceptions of yourself, your primary influences, and the world in general, and has done so out of necessity due to the requirement to maintain your proximity to them. In short, your primary influences are "full of shit," and your adherence to them not being so is keeping you from self-actualization. You have confused their Social Control for their Ego, and, as such, are forcing the same upon yourself. Funny thing about Quadras is, everyone wants you to be in theirs, yet are most happy when you are in your own and a healthy version of yourself.


For starters I'm sure they are from different quadras: one is Beta, the other one Delta. I don't type people through MBTI so as to later translate letters to Socionics and get their type. It doesn't make any sense to me. MBTI is poorly known in place where I live, unlike Socionics anyway.

I moved away from them long ago and notwithstanding I had many clashes with both, my "fitting in" issues where not so much connected with them as they were with the outside environment. Also I think it just had more to do with maturity and acceptance that people differ and I can not be accepted in each and every environment, as well as I can not accept each and every of them. Something will be "me" and something else will never come close to become "me". 

One doesn't have to necessarily adhere to others to maintain proximity to them. There's been a lot of clashing, misunderstandings, fights etc, but it never implied some negativity. It's like there was mutual understanding that we're family, we love and back up each other and all these quarreling stuff is trifles. I don't know how to put it more clearly. We clashed exactly _because _we _couldn't _adhere to each other and each of us had their own understanding of what was "the right way to exist".


----------



## Captain Mclain

quentyn said:


> It's threads like this that make me question what I'm even doing here...


this thread left topic long time ago. 



To_august said:


> For starters I'm sure they are from different quadras: one is Beta, the other one Delta. I don't type people through MBTI so as to later translate letters to Socionics and get their type. It doesn't make any sense to me. MBTI is poorly known in place where I live, unlike Socionics anyway.
> 
> I moved away from them long ago and notwithstanding I had many clashes with both, my "fitting in" issues where not so much connected with them as they were with the outside environment. Also I think it just had more to do with maturity and acceptance that people differ and I can not be accepted in each and every environment, as well as I can not accept each and every of them. Something will be "me" and something else will never come close to become "me".
> 
> One doesn't have to necessarily adhere to others to maintain proximity to them. There's been a lot of clashing, misunderstandings, fights etc, but it never implied some negativity. It's like there was mutual understanding that we're family, we love and back up each other and all these quarreling stuff is trifles. I don't know how to put it more clearly. We clashed exactly _because _we _couldn't _adhere to each other and each of us had their own understanding of what was "the right way to exist".


Just for some clarity. MBTI typing is I/E, F/T, N/S, J/P and a test. Socionics typing is IE in this structure.


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> lol @Jeremy8419 you actually started to remind of those obnoxious SLE's around. Especially with implying *weird* sexual mentions everywhere.
> 
> Also @ forum , how the heck agreeing with people around you, adhering to group thinking is Te ? People can be concerned as things like that when it comes ethical stuff/Fe; but what value it has for Te if 7-8 (or whatever) people are saying the same thing ? Since when people's opinions become facts which Te actually adheres to ?
> 
> @Abraxas
> 
> How is this not Fe but Te ?


Because Ti is bodily groupings. Valued Fi is related to Te. Valued Fi is mental groupings.


----------



## To_august

Captain Mclain said:


> Just for some clarity. MBTI typing is I/E, F/T, N/S, J/P and a test. Socionics typing is IE in this structure.


I'm well aware of that. 

I referred to Jeremy's idea that INFP=INFp (IEI), ISTJ=ISTj (LSI) etc.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

It makes me lol that Ti has become a label that one uses to discredit another now. lol. Everyone is throwing Ti accusations at each other. You want to discredit somebody, accuse them of using Ti. How did it come to this? I don't even know what to hate anymore. 

I think Jeremy is using Ti though too. lol. That Schwarzenegger video; yeah something like that. It is like a Chan Buddhist slap. But leave it that. You take that slap and break down the anatomy of it. Rationalize it to the point it is no longer a slap. Sounds like a Ti conspiracy theory too. You have fleshed out this conspiracy theory about why people are doing this. lol. Why people are doing it is more vague to me. Your story is funny though.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because Ti is bodily groupings. Valued Fi is related to Te. Valued Fi is mental groupings.


Can you give examples ? I dont really know what to understand from bodily groupings. :rolleyes-new:


----------



## Captain Mclain

something something back on topic. I think Se demonstrative kinda use it when planing stuff to do.


----------



## Pinina

Captain Mclain said:


> something something back on topic. I think Se demonstrative kinda use it when planing stuff to do.


What do you mean? I'm "supposed" to be Se demonstrative, though I'm considering LIE as well, so it'd be usefull knowledge.


----------



## Vermillion

crashbandicoot said:


> @_Abraxas_
> 
> How is this not Fe but Te ?


It's neither. It's wanting a sense of group belonging and commonly associated with type 6 or type 9. That entire post was basically @_Abraxas_ disliking the type 8 style of thinking and declaring his support for type 9 values. Sloth and peacemaking vs power and truth.


----------



## Entropic

@Jeremy8419 contrary to your claims, I've grown up in a primary Fe valuing home environment somewhat skewed towards alpha, including ESE grandmother, LII father, SEI aunt, ESE husband to aunt, likely LII grandfather, SLE cousin of my age, SLE father of the same cousin. Devoid of Fe is not what I'd say my holding environment was like. One reason I am utterly sure of being Fe PoLR is because of the continued clashes I have with my grandmother, the ESE one, and how I always found everything she tried to tell me a) irrelevant, b) boring, c) too detail focused in the wrong way d) annoying e) that she never listens to me and understands me. If in doubt whether she is an ESE or not, she's a walking caricature of one and fits every description of it, including the MBTI ESFJ ones, to such a T it's honestly sad and hilarious at the same time.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Pinina said:


> What do you mean? I'm "supposed" to be Se demonstrative, though I'm considering LIE as well, so it'd be usefull knowledge.


1.35-2.00. That process he does there how about that.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Irrelevant to the point. Reread my fleshed out post. My original question is such:


Yes. That's what deterministic reasoning is.



> Saying "it is what it is" does not answer the question. I am not interested in Augusta's intents. She may or may not very well have considered to make socionics into a grand theory. The system, as it is now, however, does not classify as such and I argue does not seek to be such.


Read more. Read the links. In it's current condition, it has far left Ashura's "my husband don't like me." It branches into multiple fields. The socionists are actively fleshing out the applications in those fields, and branching into new ones. It's like a root system.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yes. That's what deterministic reasoning is.
> 
> 
> Read more. Read the links. In it's current condition, it has far left Ashura's "my husband don't like me." It branches into multiple fields. The socionists are actively fleshing out the applications in those fields, and branching into new ones. It's like a root system.


Yeah, the same kind of root system the neurological system is in the human body. It is not, however, _the_ body, which is what you actually posit it is. It is a part of, not the entirety of. I really cba to argue the rest; it's a waste of my time since you don't even see wtf I'm trying to say.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Yeah, the same kind of root system the neurological system is in the human body. It is not, however, _the_ body, which is what you actually posit it is. It is a part of, not the entirety of. I really cba to argue the rest; it's a waste of my time since you don't even see wtf I'm trying to say.


Of course I see what you are saying lol. What I am saying is, look, your cognition style doesn't exactly "make sense" to me, and it doesn't have to. That's your cognition style, that's your personality type, and for whatever reason, it's supposed to exist. You're supposed to be you, I'm supposed to be me, and that's just how the world works. I actually don't mind INTJs at all. Hell, this forum is mostly INTJs, and I'm not exactly forced to be here, so if I just straight hated y'all, I just wouldn't get on here lol. You're going to keep doing your thing, I'm going to keep doing mine, and if it legitimately bothers us? We just log off and go play with our cats or phone a friend or something lol. Even if it seems like I dislike interactions with you, it is good brain-work for my cognition style, so I keep doing it. May as well do something or other when I have nothing else productive to do at the moment lol


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Of course I see what you are saying lol. What I am saying is, look, your cognition style doesn't exactly "make sense" to me, and it doesn't have to. That's your cognition style, that's your personality type, and for whatever reason, it's supposed to exist. You're supposed to be you, I'm supposed to be me, and that's just how the world works. I actually don't mind INTJs at all. Hell, this forum is mostly INTJs, and I'm not exactly forced to be here, so if I just straight hated y'all, I just wouldn't get on here lol. You're going to keep doing your thing, I'm going to keep doing mine, and if it legitimately bothers us? We just log off and go play with our cats or phone a friend or something lol. Even if it seems like I dislike interactions with you, it is good brain-work for my cognition style, so I keep doing it. May as well do something or other when I have nothing else productive to do at the moment lol


Since all Entropic said is the two personality models measure different things (in a nutshell, motivations vs cognition), you're basically saying you're incapable of understanding nuance because you're supposedly EII.

Man, I almost feel sorry for you and your sad self-imposed helplessness, but I'd have to like you a little for that to happen.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Since all Entropic said is the two personality models measure different things (in a nutshell, motivations vs cognition), you're basically saying you're incapable of understanding nuance because you're supposedly EII.
> 
> Man, I almost feel sorry for you and your sad self-imposed helplessness, but I'd have to like you a little for that to happen.


I could say the same thing for your Fi, but it's not like I really care lol. Kinda like talking to a mirror anyways.

Have to like me? I don't recall saying your landlord isn't an ass lol. Ima be pissed if they try and take my personal deposit because of my cats, after I already gave them a deposit specifically for the cats. Already have a house, should just move out in the middle of the night lol.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Jeremy8419 said:


> His long post WAS Ti. It was also very different than his regular postings. That was him _demonstrating_ unvalued 4D Ti to counter the valued 4D Ti. He even said, I can do this all day but I don't like this so goodbye.


then why did you disagree when I said it was Ti-Fe ?

or better, what were you trying to mean with your post #92 ?


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Have to like me? I don't recall saying your landlord isn't an ass lol. Ima be pissed if they try and take my personal deposit because of my cats, after I already gave them a deposit specifically for the cats. Already have a house, should just move out in the middle of the night lol.


Well yeah. If I don't like someone, I don't give a fuck about what happens to them. And you're definitely not someone I like. And I don't especially care if you relate to my story about the landlord differently. That's not going to earn brownie points with me or whatever, lol, so you can stop trying to get my acceptance already.

BTW, it's typist as fuck to claim that CD, and by extension ILEs, EIIs, SEEs and LSIs can't understand something as simple as the fact that one model explains one thing, and another explains something different. But hey, if you have a hard time understanding that geology and hydrodynamics are separate (though occasionally overlapping) areas of scientific study I'm sure there's a factory job somewhere you can do. Just don't project that shit onto everybody else.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Well yeah. If I don't like someone, I don't give a fuck about what happens to them. And you're definitely not someone I like. And I don't especially care if you relate to my story about the landlord differently. That's not going to earn brownie points with me or whatever, lol, so you can stop trying to get my acceptance already.
> 
> BTW, it's typist as fuck to claim that CD, and by extension ILEs, EIIs, SEEs and LSIs can't understand something as simple as the fact that one model explains one thing, and another explains something different. But hey, if you have a hard time understanding that geology and hydrodynamics are separate (though occasionally overlapping) areas of scientific study I'm sure there's a factory job somewhere you can do. Just don't project that shit onto everybody else.


Wth are you talking about? Lol. I understand exactly about the two systems. What you fail to realize, though, is that my program is to try and make it one. Does it sound stupid to you? Yes, of course it does lol. But your cognition style seems silly to me as well. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. It's your life, not mine lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> then why did you disagree when I said it was Ti-Fe ?
> 
> or better, what were you trying to mean with your post #92 ?


His post was a Ti-Fe reply to a Ti-Fe post. His Ti-Fe post, he said that he could Ti-Fe like that allllll day, but that he doesn't like Ti-Fe, and the other guy only wants to Ti-Fe, so he is leaving. He isn't Ti-Fe valuing, but he is strong in it. That means he is ILI.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wth are you talking about? Lol. I understand exactly about the two systems. *What you fail to realize, though, is that my program is to try and make it one.* Does it sound stupid to you? Yes, of course it does lol. But your cognition style seems silly to me as well. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. It's your life, not mine lol


No, you claimed that they already _were_ one. I quote;



> Enneagram exists within Socionics as the vector of individual focus for an individual's TIM.


and 



> Enneagram may be a different system, but Socionics is designed to not only rectify it into itself, but also to describe why it came to exist.


So which is it? Is Socionics inevitably something that includes all human behavior? Or is it something you're trying to turn into a theory of everything? Or is it a separate system? Do you even know what you think it is, or are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass moment by moment? Because you've said it's all three.

You claim this type of thinking is inevitable for CD cognition, but you started this topic by disagreeing with an SEE who reacted to your "Enneagram is socionics subtype" nonsense with this



Night Huntress said:


> Dafuq. That just shows you grasped neither Enneagram nor Socionics right.


so clearly, the way you think is not common to all determinists.

Further, you completely ignore the _fact_ that Socionics by its design only looks at TIM, and its more eclectic applications such as the "ethno science, integral types, cybernetic" that you mentioned are explanatory, not descriptive, looking first at the theory and then postulating a connection to outcomes after the fact. The Enneagram is a descriptive form of typology; aside from a few hypotheses about childhood formation it does not attempt to do anything more than to descriptively catalog 9 varieties of behavior. It looks first at the outcomes and then groups similar outcomes. That is a fundamentally different subject than the stuff covered by Socionics, arrived at through a fundamentally different approach.

Finally, nothing you said is inevitable. Regardless of the intention of some dead Lithuanian woman, it is easily demonstrated that socionics, with its focus on categories of information, is incapable of explaining many intertype variations that can easily be demonstrated outside of socionics, e.g. the difference between two SEEs of different enneagram types. Even if you can make the attempt to twist the facts to make them fit socionics, the question remains of whether that is the _best_ way of modeling reality, a question you don't even consider because you care far more about putting all of your eggs in one basket than actually getting good results. Do you really think neuroscience will defend Socionics' energy model? There is already available research that shows that a number of Socionics' claims are inconsistent with what we know, for a fact, about how the human mind works, and I can promise you socionics isn't going to look better as that field develops.

Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about, you can't even stay consistent with yourself, and you're taking an absurd all-or-nothing approach that defies both logic and reputable information on psychology. Keep your day job. If after I've put all of this in the simplest terms I can you still have trouble understanding this because your "4d Fi" means you can't understand the concept of separate disciplines if not spoon fed to you with your preferred type of cognition, I'm sure @Night Huntress, who shares this understanding of the two systems, will be more than happy to school you by repeating it all in CD.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> So which is it? Is Socionics inevitably something that includes all human behavior? Or is it something you're trying to turn into a theory of everything? Or is it a separate system? Do you even know what you think it is, or are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass moment by moment? Because you've said it's all three.


Oh, my.... I've said it's all three, did I? So, yet again, I am taking these three separate scenarios and saying they are all the same scenario, and that I will show how...

Night Huntress is the "material interests" one.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, my.... I've said it's all three, did I? So, yet again, I am taking these three separate scenarios and saying they are all the same scenario, and that I will show how...
> 
> Night Huntress is the "material interests" one.


If you are making something into something else, it's not that thing in the present. A plank is not a chair until someone makes it a chair. If you have to make it into the "same scenario", it is not currently the same scenario. You do understand how causality works, right?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

The only overlap that I could see between socionics and Enneagram would be DCNH, and to be honest I get far more from enneagram as that explains what drives me while DCNH seems to just be like group activity stuff, while socionics/Jung explains how I filter the information that I get. So mixing them helps me for understanding how I deal with issues, but I'm aware that their cores don't have the same focus.


----------



## Zamyatin

Blue Flare said:


> The only overlap that I could see between socionics and Enneagram would be DCNH, and to be honest I get far more from enneagram as that explains what drives me while DCNH seems to just be like group activity stuff, while socionics/Jung explains how I filter the information that I get. So mixing them helps me for understanding how I deal with issues, but I'm aware that their cores don't have the same focus.


Yeah, and DCNH doesn't even explain a lot of things. Night Huntress is Fi-SEE, N subtype. My girlfriend is Fi-SEE, N subtype. From my conversations with NH, she's very different from my girlfriend in many ways, largely revolving around Enneagram concerns (NH is a 6, my girlfriend is a 3). 

None of this is entailed in Socionics. While someone like Jeremy who doesn't care about making things reflect reality could probably keep building detached nonsensical models by adding even more subtypes to Socionics or whatever to try to explain that difference, it isn't currently explained by Socionics and there's no "inevitable" reason why it should be. In fact, it's probably a dumb idea to make the attempt, as the differences not explained by Socionics deserve their own explanations, even if it's just individualism, because that would be closer to the facts.

Not everything can or should be explained in some rigid model.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> If you are making something into something else, it's not that thing in the present. A plank is not a chair until someone makes it a chair. If you have to make it into the "same scenario", it is not currently the same scenario. You do understand how causality works, right?


Don't care. I'm Fi. Combinations of individual systems is my game. Wanna play?

You only think they are different. I am here to show the ways that they are actually the same, how they become one. You know, like love.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Don't care. I'm Fi.


No, you're just really bad at typology.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> No, you're just really bad at typology.


Nope. Your typology is just Ti.


----------



## Zamyatin

Jeremy8419 said:


> Nope. Your typology is just Ti.


And you're claiming to use 1d Te against someone with 3d Te and 4d Ti, lol.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Zamyatin said:


> Yeah, and DCNH doesn't even explain a lot of things. Night Huntress is Fi-SEE, N subtype. My girlfriend is Fi-SEE, N subtype. From my conversations with NH, she's very different from my girlfriend in many ways, largely revolving around Enneagram concerns (NH is a 6, my girlfriend is a 3).
> 
> None of this is entailed in Socionics. While someone like Jeremy who doesn't care about making things reflect reality could probably keep building detached nonsensical models by adding even more subtypes to Socionics or whatever to try to explain that difference, it isn't currently explained by Socionics and there's no "inevitable" reason why it should be. In fact, it's probably a dumb idea to make the attempt, as the differences not explained by Socionics deserve their own explanations, even if it's just individualism, because that would be closer to the facts.
> 
> Not everything can or should be explained in some rigid model.


Yeah, as socionics wasn't made with the purpose of explaining what drives someone, but how information flows. Heck, culture too plays an influence of how people deal with problems, and I've clearly noticed this while talking with a SEE that's Vietnamese and then contrast her ideals with the ideals of NH and The Perfect Storm. Still, my friend and The Perfect Storm aren't that different as both are type 7s, so their drives and issues aren't different deep down.

Now about mixing systems, some mixes work well (specially in natural sciences), while others would take a good while to merge properly without creating some clusterfuck.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> And you're claiming to use 1d Te against someone with 3d Te and 4d Ti, lol.


And none of this is Te lol.

You: Facade of sociology. Reality of deconstruction of logic.
Me: Facade of logic. Reality of construction of relations.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Blue Flare said:


> Yeah, as socionics wasn't made with the purpose of explaining what drives someone, but how information flows. Heck, culture too plays an influence of how people deal with problems, and I've clearly noticed this while talking with a SEE that's Vietnamese and then contrast her ideals with the ideals of NH and The Perfect Storm. Still, my friend and The Perfect Storm aren't that different as both are type 7s, so their drives and issues aren't different deep down.
> 
> Now about mixing systems, some mixes work well (specially in natural sciences), while others would take a good while to merge properly without creating some clusterfuck.


Isn't libido the "drive"?


----------



## Zamyatin

Blue Flare said:


> Yeah, as socionics wasn't made with the purpose of explaining what drives someone, but how information flows. Heck, culture too plays an influence of how people deal with problems, and I've clearly noticed this while talking with a SEE that's Vietnamese and then contrast her ideals with the ideals of NH and The Perfect Storm. Still, my friend and The Perfect Storm aren't that different as both are type 7s, so their drives and issues aren't different deep down.
> 
> Now about mixing systems, some mixes work well (specially in natural sciences), while others would take a good while to merge properly without creating some clusterfuck.


And for the most part, even when Socionics overextends itself, it's still doing it within that information flow lens rather than trying to explain things it recognizes as completely different. Claiming that a religion reflects a certain set of IEs or whatever is basically a socionist's version of "a feminist interpretation of colonialism", where an existing school of thought is applied to something with the goal of finding things other schools missed. It's not as if those feminist scholars are saying feminism is the only, or even the best, way to study that phenomenon, they just see it as a perspective that was overlooked and can contribute something new to the body of literature out there. It's only a problem if people constrain themselves to just using that particular lens, to the exclusion of all others.

It would be nice if the world was neat and tidy and could be explained by putting it into a big 2x2 grid, but that's not how it works.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Jeremy8419 said:


> Isn't libido the "drive"?


I only know that libido is related to extroversion and introversion, but I mean that socionics doesn't deal with what deeply motivates someone nor with defense mechanisms created for dealing with problems. That's why enneagram lets me understand why I run away of problems nor care about chasing boring stuff, basically why I should bother arguing when I won't be amused nor will understand something better. Logical debates tend to bore me to death, as most of the time is just mental masturbation (also why I get maths but can't bother to seriously learn the axioms unless they let me solve practical problems).



Zamyatin said:


> And for the most part, even when Socionics overextends itself, it's still doing it within that information flow lens rather than trying to explain things it recognizes as completely different. Claiming that a religion reflects a certain set of IEs or whatever is basically a socionist's version of "a feminist interpretation of colonialism", where an existing school of thought is applied to something with the goal of finding things other schools missed. It's not as if those feminist scholars are saying feminism is the only, or even the best, way to study that phenomenon, they just see it as a perspective that was overlooked and can contribute something new to the body of literature out there. It's only a problem if people constrain themselves to just using that particular lens, to the exclusion of all others.
> 
> It would be nice if the world was neat and tidy and could be explained by putting it into a big 2x2 grid, but that's not how it works.


Same for natural sciences, as you can study them by doing experiments, by creating a model or by picking that model and do different programs for simulating experiments that aren't practical, too expensive or dangerous. I'm currently dealing with biology stuff but from a chemical focus, and what I get will be influenced by that lens. However, I know that simulating a protein won't be the same than actually measuring it's real properties, as this depends of many variables that I may not take into account.

The thing is, my logic isn't a huge system that tries to explain all problems, but I adapt it by picking the concepts that I need for solving a problem. Therefore, for some issues I rely on socionics and for others Enneagram would let me find an answer. I just take a system, apply and then move on lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

Blue Flare said:


> I only know that libido is related to extroversion and introversion, but I mean that socionics doesn't deal with what deeply motivates someone nor with defense mechanisms created for dealing with problems.


Libido is what extroverts at long range barf out on objects to get information back. Introverts in the long range get hit by libido and give information back. This is mental (conscious effort) ring. Vital (automatic) is the opposite, including being at close range. This is what Model B shows. Libido is also called "desire" on occasions.

Defense mechanisms are described. Most is on Russian junk, though. The self-defense refers to all forms of information though, not just physical; e.g., health defense, comfort defense, logic defense, etc. You have right and wrong ways to metabolize, so if someone shoves the wrong thing in the wrong way down your throat, it triggers whatever "defense" response.


----------



## AdInfinitum

Zamyatin said:


> No, you claimed that they already _were_ one. I quote;
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> So which is it? Is Socionics inevitably something that includes all human behavior? Or is it something you're trying to turn into a theory of everything? Or is it a separate system? Do you even know what you think it is, or are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass moment by moment? Because you've said it's all three.
> 
> You claim this type of thinking is inevitable for CD cognition, but you started this topic by disagreeing with an SEE who reacted to your "Enneagram is socionics subtype" nonsense with this
> 
> 
> 
> so clearly, the way you think is not common to all determinists.
> 
> Further, you completely ignore the _fact_ that Socionics by its design only looks at TIM, and its more eclectic applications such as the "ethno science, integral types, cybernetic" that you mentioned are explanatory, not descriptive, looking first at the theory and then postulating a connection to outcomes after the fact. The Enneagram is a descriptive form of typology; aside from a few hypotheses about childhood formation it does not attempt to do anything more than to descriptively catalog 9 varieties of behavior. It looks first at the outcomes and then groups similar outcomes. That is a fundamentally different subject than the stuff covered by Socionics, arrived at through a fundamentally different approach.
> 
> Finally, nothing you said is inevitable. Regardless of the intention of some dead Lithuanian woman, it is easily demonstrated that socionics, with its focus on categories of information, is incapable of explaining many intertype variations that can easily be demonstrated outside of socionics, e.g. the difference between two SEEs of different enneagram types. Even if you can make the attempt to twist the facts to make them fit socionics, the question remains of whether that is the _best_ way of modeling reality, a question you don't even consider because you care far more about putting all of your eggs in one basket than actually getting good results. Do you really think neuroscience will defend Socionics' energy model? There is already available research that shows that a number of Socionics' claims are inconsistent with what we know, for a fact, about how the human mind works, and I can promise you socionics isn't going to look better as that field develops.
> 
> Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about, you can't even stay consistent with yourself, and you're taking an absurd all-or-nothing approach that defies both logic and reputable information on psychology. Keep your day job. If after I've put all of this in the simplest terms I can you still have trouble understanding this because your "4d Fi" means you can't understand the concept of separate disciplines if not spoon fed to you with your preferred type of cognition, I'm sure @Night Huntress, who shares this understanding of the two systems, will be more than happy to school you by repeating it all in CD.


This post sums up all the frustration I have been building up since I have started to frequent this forum. So much cluttered and misunderstood information, spreading confusion and lack of consideration for facts. Took me a block to clean out the subforum for myself.


----------



## Zamyatin

Blue Flare said:


> Same for natural sciences, as you can study them by doing experiments, by creating a model or by picking that model and do different programs for simulating experiments that aren't practical, too expensive or dangerous. I'm currently dealing with biology stuff but from a chemical focus, and what I get will be influenced by that lens. However, I know that simulating a protein won't be the same than actually measuring it's real properties, as this depends of many variables that I may not take into account.
> 
> The thing is, my logic isn't a huge system that tries to explain all problems, but I adapt it by picking the concepts that I need for solving a problem. Therefore, for some issues I rely on socionics and for others Enneagram would let me find an answer. I just take a system, apply and then move on lol


A old teacher of mine once explained this by saying "every theory is 90% right." Basically, what he meant is every (good) model, theory, or idea is mostly accurate in a certain context and does its job by taking the unfathomably complicated reality and putting it in a bite-sized piece we can work with. The thing is, that 10% error matters a lot when you use it outside of that context, and it adds up fast if you keep piling theory on your theory instead of recognizing its limits and starting from scratch once it's no longer as accurate as some alternative.

I worked in a stats-heavy field for several years and once you've spent hours fine-tuning a regression model, you really get an appreciation for the fact that the goal of science is not to get rid of all error, but to simply find the approximation of reality that's closest to what you need.


----------



## Jeremy8419

NobleRaven said:


> This post sums up all the frustration I have been building up since I have started to frequent this forum. So much cluttered and misunderstood information, spreading confusion and lack of consideration for facts. Took me a block to clean out the subforum for myself.


That whole post was a deconstruction of my logic. So, if you like it... Lol


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Blue Flare said:


> I only know that libido is related to extroversion and introversion, but I mean that socionics doesn't deal with what deeply motivates someone nor with defense mechanisms created for dealing with problems. That's why enneagram lets me understand why I run away of problems nor care about chasing boring stuff, basically why I should bother arguing when I won't be amused nor will understand something better. Logical debates tend to bore me to death, as most of the time is just mental masturbation (also why I get maths but can't bother to seriously learn the axioms unless they let me solve practical problems).
> 
> 
> 
> Same for natural sciences, as you can study them by doing experiments, by creating a model or by picking that model and do different programs for simulating experiments that aren't practical, too expensive or dangerous. I'm currently dealing with biology stuff but from a chemical focus, and what I get will be influenced by that lens. However, I know that simulating a protein won't be the same than actually measuring it's real properties, as this depends of many variables that I may not take into account.
> 
> The thing is, my logic isn't a huge system that tries to explain all problems, but I adapt it by picking the concepts that I need for solving a problem. Therefore, for some issues I rely on socionics and for others Enneagram would let me find an answer. I just take a system, apply and then move on lol


I think Abraxas's critique of this being a Ti heavy system with no basis in reality holds for these reasons. Nobody is checking the drops. The famous conservation experiments between Skinner and Piaget. Conservation of liquid. Move the same amount of fluid from one beaker to a different shaped one. Are they conserved? Is is it the same amount of fluid? Skinner was actually wrong here, he doesn't think that kids can create an abstraction that "carries over". A conservation idea. But they can. Skinner is actually right though empirically. Are the two amounts of fluid actually the same empirically? No. Nobody checks every last drop, they are "covered" by theory. Those drops add up outside the very narrow range of any science or theory. I had a professor who referred to all theories as doing things "with our eyes closed".

There is no Skinner here. Where is Skinner's side? 

I said that science actually creates a metaphorical world because of this. It isn't reality, it is an abstraction from it. Ti thinks it is reality, Jung said so. It is just like religion in that it is metaphor that people take literally. What that guy just said is what William James said 100 years ago. One shouldn't need to actually experiment for years to figure such a thing out. It is quite clear from the start that any theory or science starts with chosen ends and stays within them. It isn't revealing truth, it is revealing our intentions. That Garbage song: What you need, is what you get.


----------



## Abraxas

Typhon said:


> What you describe as Te sounds alot, to me, like Fe. Neither Te nor Ti is concerned with pleasing people. Fear of ostracism? That sounds like E-6 fear to me, and has nothing to do with Te. Yes, Te will look outside itself for information but what does that have to do with ostracism? Ostracism is an ethical thing. The idea that ostacism is a logical quality makes no sense to me.


I'm making statements that bring up the similarity between Te and Fe, because what you're catching on to is the fact that both Te and Fe are extraverted judgment - Je. Both have in common the fact that they defer as much as possible to the consensus of the majority - in the case of Fe, to what a humanitarian would feel, and in the case of Te, the majority of scientific experts. In both cases, the determination depends upon what the public consensus of quality is - it _always_ depends upon what the majority have deemed to be the standard of excellence, never upon one's own, internalized, subjective standard of excellence, because the "self" is never the measuring stick for the determination of _anything_. Always something external is the quantified measurement of any idea, opinion, or value, regardless of it being Fe or Te.

And there's my point. You say, "sounds like to me" - and my response is, "so what?" I'm referencing a source, not my own opinion, and not yours.

Psychological Types, by Carl Jung, on Te. That's extraverted thinking. As Jung puts it, "general consensus." As follows:



> Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, *it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education.* The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by which standard is its judgment governed—is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is afforded by the direction of the thinker's conclusion, namely, whether or no the thinking has a preferential direction outwards. It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since I may be engaging my thoughts with a concrete object, either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought with it. Even if I engage my thinking with concrete things, and to that extent could be described as extraverted, it yet remains both questionable and characteristic as regards the direction my thinking will take; namely, whether in its further course it leads back again to *objective data, external facts, and generally accepted ideas*, or not.


Source: Psychological Types - Wikisocion



Typhon said:


> The ironic thing about your post is that you claim to side with the majority and yet don't recognize Entropic as an "authority" (which is fine, in and of itself), while the majority of this forum seems to recongize @_Entropic_ as an authority. So you are basically thinking for yourself here, and this is dangerous, my friend!


Not ironic at all, because Entropic is not recognized as an authority by _experts._ He is not amongst peers, because he is an amateur and not qualified at all to speak on the subject, nor am I. As always, I maintain, that ANYONE who speaks on ANY of this - including me - MUST be ready to cite sources.

The acceptable behavior, at this point, if you are truly so interested in this subject, is to go out and get certified, get a degree in it, and get your worthless opinions *PUBLISHED* so that they can be *REVIEWED* by people who have established that they know the subject matter well enough to determine that you know it or not.


_*drops the microphone and walks off stage*_


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think Abraxas's critique of this being a Ti heavy system with no basis in reality holds for these reasons. Nobody is checking the drops. The famous conservation experiments between Skinner and Piaget. Conservation of liquid. Move the same amount of fluid from one beaker to a different shaped one. Are they conserved? Is is it the same amount of fluid? Skinner was actually wrong here, he doesn't think that kids can create an abstraction that "carries over". A conservation idea. But they can. Skinner is actually right though empirically. Are the two amounts of fluid actually the same empirically? No. Nobody checks every last drop, they are "covered" by theory. Those drops add up outside the very narrow range of any science or theory. I had a professor who referred to all theories as doing things "with our eyes closed".
> 
> There is no Skinner here. Where is Skinner's side?
> 
> I said that science actually creates a metaphorical world because of this. It isn't reality, it is an abstraction from it. Ti thinks it is reality, Jung said so. It is just like religion in that it is metaphor that people take literally. What that guy just said is what William James said 100 years ago. One shouldn't need to actually experiment for years to figure such a thing out. It is quite clear from the start that any theory or science starts with chosen ends and stays within them. It isn't revealing truth, it is revealing our intentions. That Garbage song: What you need, is what you get.


So, if I spend hours on here criticizing Ti, then I want?

* *




creation of relationships



If they spend hours on here supporting Fi, then they want?

* *




destruction of logic




* *




now, lets flip it all around... Oh damn. Once again, we still end up back at real life. /snaps fingers


----------



## Abraxas

Blue Flare said:


> The only overlap that I could see between socionics and Enneagram would be DCNH, and to be honest I get far more from enneagram as that explains what drives me while DCNH seems to just be like group activity stuff, while socionics/Jung explains how I filter the information that I get. So mixing them helps me for understanding how I deal with issues, but I'm aware that their cores don't have the same focus.


This is essentially how I see it as well. I like to keep the two separated, such that, when I am giving a socionics analysis of something, I restrict myself to socionics and Jung, that way, both what I am saying and my sources coincide and I can back things up more easily. If someone makes a counter-point to an analysis that I gave by saying something like, "that sounds more like Enneagram to me", what they are essentially saying, whether they realize this or not, is that Enneagram models whatever I analyzed "better", and honestly, that may very well be the case. However, that does not _invalidate_ the strictly socionic analysis I have given, if the analysis is backed up in the literature of socionics and Jung. If my analysis _follows_ strictly from the source material of Jung and Model A, then it is correct, insofar as Socionics goes, as long as we are restricting the analysis to Socionics.

Basically, it's a matter of perspective, something I think a lot of people lose track of quickly when they start mixing everything together in their heads to try and make sense of reality.

For example, you'll notice how @_Night Huntress_ discredits my analysis by saying "it's neither, it's enneagram". Then, in my response to Typhon, I went and quoted my source, Jung, and bolded the part where he gives the very same analysis I did, putting this discussion on point. This is why I maintain that it's important for people to get their facts straight before they say anything, otherwise they're just misleading people with their opinions and interpretations.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> So, if I spend hours on here criticizing Ti, then I want?
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation of relationships
> 
> 
> 
> If they spend hours on here supporting Fi, then they want?
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> destruction of logic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now, lets flip it all around... Oh damn. Once again, we still end up back at real life. /snaps fingers


I am not sure exactly what your point is, or mine either. I agree that these things can work together. I see it like a body. Organ systems. They are kind of specialized parts of a whole. Enneagram, Socionics, MBTI, etc. Like how the nervous system works on muscles. There are connections there. But we know of these connections from years of study, much of it very gooey and empirical. I was actually just thinking we are like Pythagoreans. lol. They don't think anything should actually be cut open. Flesh broken. Things get too messy when that happens. They are against surgery for that reason. They believe in the integrity of the flesh. Of the surface. It shouldn't be broken.

In a previous post you showed Enneagram permeates through Socionics. You are showing that connection. But it is a morass. It can be made logical but there is nothing I can really touch. I remember an episode of Futurama and robots are scared of humans because we are so messy and gooey on the inside. They don't like seeing humans cut open either. You need to get your hands in that goo. 

Even something simple like a function stack: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. Where did anybody even come up with that? It is treated as if it were an actual anatomical structure. Like the bones from my shoulder to my fingers. This part is distal to this, this is medial to that. Trying to connect all these things is like trying to sort how the body oxygenates blood through itself. 

It comes down to pragmatism too. You can make these things logically consistent, but only for that purpose you made them for. Like the geocentric version of the universe had similar predictive power to heliocentric. Why should one be considered superior? What answers that question, is what is important to us. Carl Sagan said we can choose to live in delusion. This is why James is a radical empiricist. No experience is superior or inferior to another. That is never in the experience. That preference. We decide that.


----------



## Zamyatin

FearAndTrembling said:


> I said that science actually creates a metaphorical world because of this. *It isn't reality, it is an abstraction from it. Ti thinks it is reality*, Jung said so. It is just like religion in that it is metaphor that people take literally. What that guy just said is what William James said 100 years ago. One shouldn't need to actually experiment for years to figure such a thing out. It is quite clear from the start that any theory or science starts with chosen ends and stays within them. It isn't revealing truth, it is revealing our intentions. That Garbage song: What you need, is what you get.


It's weird to say this to you of all people, but I agree.

Even at its most undirected, science is goal-oriented. I've been helping my girlfriend with her graduate work a lot lately, and one of the things I've been doing is skimming and summarizing some of her assigned readings on international institutions. Lately she's been studying the contrast between NATO and ASEAN since both serve similar roles, both were developed in the post-WWII political climate to oppose Soviet expansion, and both were founded by the US.

Basically, NATO is multilateral and European. It includes a lot of countries and shares responsibilities for common defense fairly equally. Negotiations involve all of those partners. All member countries contribute resources to NATO, proportionate to their country's capabilities.

Then there's ASEAN. ASEAN is basically a forum for bilateral negotiations based in Asia. If two countries in ASEAN need to resolve something, only those two countries talk to each other and work together. Responsibilities are shared only by those two countries, and other people outside of that bilateral talk don't have a say in the matter. Resources aren't shared.

One of bigger questions in political science is why the US went with multilateralism in Europe but bilateralism in Asia. And there's no one answer. Some well-established and successful models, such as the economic liberal model that says countries go with the most economically efficient policies, can't really explain why similar situations would lead to different outcomes. So people developed convincing arguments that explained the difference piece by piece. Perception of cultural similarity between the US and Europe that was absent in Asia, budget restrictions following WWII, different geopolitical realities that made bilateralism more attractive because it gives a superpower like the US more control in the area, fear of empowering Japan, etc etc etc.

Each of these explanations is well-reasoned, has a lot of evidence to support it, and succeeds at explaining something other models can't. Yet at the same time, none of them is exhaustive. Sure, it's true that the US saw Asia as this alien place filled with alien people while Europe was the land of Christians and democracy. But a lot more went into the decision than just that.

So what's the truth? It's a combination of them all. If you take all of these factors and use them to tell a bigger story, you can get a glimpse of the complicated reality that caused differing outcomes. In a sense, the truth exists in the penumbra of all these idiosyncratic explanations, and by contrasting them with each other the greater whole emerges. And yet even that answer you get by contrasting all of these explanations is still just 90%. There will always be a bunch of small factors that historians will never discover -- maybe one day the President was more aggressive because he had an argument with his wife, or maybe a persuasive general just really hated Asians. Small variables like those would have a near-negligible effect, but it's still there. It doesn't affect things when we focus on explaining things while they're near to the facts, but if we lose sight of the factual constant all theory should be built on, the error from those ignored factors will compound.

Basically, what drives research is the desire to resolve some specific question or to meet some specific need, and the things we find follow from that goal and become less useful or accurate the further we deviate from that goal. That's not a problem so long as we recognize the thing that matters, our own personal goals and what we personally feel matters, because that desire to resolve something concrete keeps orienting us towards reality.


----------



## Abraxas

@Zamyatin,

What you said reminds me of this:



> Reading is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Its chief purpose is to help towards filling in the framework which is made up of the talents and capabilities that each individual possesses. Thus each one procures for himself the implements and materials necessary for the fulfilment of his calling in life, no matter whether this be the elementary task of earning one's daily bread or a calling that responds to higher human aspirations. Such is the first purpose of reading. And the second purpose is to give a general knowledge of the world in which we live. In both cases, however, the material which one has acquired through reading must not be stored up in the memory on a plan that corresponds to the successive chapters of the book; but each little piece of knowledge thus gained must be treated as if it were a little stone to be inserted into a mosaic, so that it finds its proper place among all the other pieces and particles that help to form a general world-picture in the brain of the reader. Otherwise only a confused jumble of chaotic notions will result from all this reading. That jumble is not merely useless, but it also tends to make the unfortunate possessor of it conceited. For he seriously considers himself a well-educated person and thinks that he understands something of life. He believes that he has acquired knowledge, whereas the truth is that every increase in such 'knowledge' draws him more and more away from real life, until he finally ends up in some sanatorium or takes to politics and becomes a parliamentary deputy.
> 
> Such a person never succeeds in turning his knowledge to practical account when the opportune moment arrives; for his mental equipment is not ordered with a view to meeting the demands of everyday life. His knowledge is stored in his brain as a literal transcript of the books he has read and the order of succession in which he has read them. And if Fate should one day call upon him to use some of his book-knowledge for certain practical ends in life that very call will have to name the book and give the number of the page; for the poor noodle himself would never be able to find the spot where he gathered the information now called for. But if the page is not mentioned at the critical moment the widely-read intellectual will find himself in a state of hopeless embarrassment. In a high state of agitation he searches for analogous cases and it is almost a dead certainty that he will finally deliver the wrong prescription.


Popped into my head because I just recently read the book that I'm quoting.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I think that his how Synchronicity is actually true. lol. The world is connected by meaning. Jung was right about that. I like what Peirce said, "every thought must be interpreted in another, therefore all thought is in signs." exactly. lol. This is why Hegel is right too. Reality is rational. Things don't happen because of causes they happen because of reasons. That is where they start and end. And that is why it is wrong. lol. As Jung said, reason alone does not suffice.

http://www.expo98.msu.edu/people/james.htm

^^Pluralistic universe


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Abraxas said:


> @_Zamyatin_,
> 
> What you said reminds me of this:
> 
> 
> 
> Popped into my head because I just recently read the book that I'm quoting.


I am really trying to swear off of Bruce Lee but that was the message he was beating people over the head with for years. Like in the pluralistic universe of James nothing "reigns above all". Be like water. Be able to fit into any mold but don't get trapped in it. 

*A good JKD man does not oppose force or give way completely. He is pliable as a spring; he is the complement and not the opposition to his opponent’s strength. He has no technique; he makes his opponent's technique his technique. He has no design; he makes opportunity his design.
One should not respond to circumstance with artificial and "wooden" prearrangement. Your action should be like the immediacy of a shadow adapting to its moving object. Your task is simply to complete the other half of the oneness spontaneously.
In combat, spontaneity rules; rote performance of technique perishes.

Art is the expression of the self. The more complicated and restricted the method, the less the opportunity for expression of one's original sense of freedom. Though they play an important role in the early stage, the techniques should not be too mechanical, complex or restrictive. If we cling blindly to them, we shall eventually become bound by their limitations.

Learn the principle, abide by the principle, and dissolve the principle. In short, enter a mold without being caged in it. Obey the principle without being bound by it. LEARN, MASTER AND ACHIEVE!!! 


*And Lee's critique of martial arts is similar to a critique of typology. 

*Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth. 
To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.
*


----------



## FearAndTrembling

And one more point cuz I always forget shit. This one is important though. lol

"Self-actualisation is the important thing. And my personal message to people is that I hope they will go toward self-actualisation rather than self-image actualisation. I hope that they will search within themselves for honest self-expression.

Concepts vs. self-actualisation. - *Instead of dedicating your life to actualise a concept of what you should be like, ACTUALISE YOURSELF. The process of maturing does not mean to become a captive of conceptualisation. It is to come to the realisation of what lies in our innermost selves.
*
The meaning of life. - The meaning of life is that it is to be lived, and it is not to be traded and conceptualised and squeezed into a pattern of systems.

-Bruce Lee


----------



## Vermillion

Abraxas said:


> For example, you'll notice how @_Night Huntress_ discredits my analysis by saying "it's neither, it's enneagram". Then, in my response to Typhon, I went and quoted my source, Jung, and bolded the part where he gives the very same analysis I did, putting this discussion on point. This is why I maintain that it's important for people to get their facts straight before they say anything, otherwise they're just misleading people with their opinions and interpretations.


Nah. Your post was extremely biased towards your Enneatype. That whole thing about "I don't need to prove myself" and just surrendering to already established opinions so that you don't stick out like a sore thumb and "get along" -- that's the compulsive 9 tendency rearing its head. 

The whole thing about one person being in possession of the truth and being fit to lead and get things done -- that's type 8. 8s are convinced their interpretation of the world is correct, and they are the ones fit to lead the masses out of their rut. They don't value surrender and being dispassionate, like a 9 does.

The problem with your interpretation is that you confuse cognition with underlying motivations. Entropic doesn't have the same underlying motivations as you. It's clear he gives way more of a fuck for typology than you ever will, but you attribute that to "I don't like theorizing cuz I want my sources". Maybe the simple fact is he just... likes it more than you, and that's why he talks and argues so much more about it. Not everyone is just gonna kick back and let the world do the ground work for them. 

Everyone here knows that this stuff isn't empirically based. There's a lot of theorizing and relating back to personal experiences involved. The purpose of the theory is to be a logical model that is predictive of people and relationships. So yeah, people are inevitably gonna end up arguing whose interpretation is consistent. Hell, I do it all the time. So I'm a Ti dom too, now? You're looking at the "what", not the "how". Cognitive type is supposed to say "how" you do something or interpret some information. The funny thing is Entropic has actually cited sources quite often, but wtf is the point of a discussion forum if you just quote some old guys all the time and have no OPINION of your own? Is that how theory is advanced and understood, by laying out a bunch of quotes and saying "facts bro"? People also have to INTERPRET the facts. That's how you work with a model. You don't just lay it out there and let every interpretation of it float in the air, you explain how you understand it. 

Ironically you're doing the same thing. You lay out your opinion and your reasoning based on your interpretation of a "fact" of the theory. You just aren't rigorous and consistent with it in your post history, simply because you're not that interested in argumentatively defining the truth. You're not seeing HOW it's done, you just believe that amount of commitment is Ti in the first place.

You seem to think someone has to be published and accredited to even have the chance to be right. People can be right even before/without those criteria. This isn't a scientific community, it's an informal one, and we discuss shit based on our interpretations. The fact that you devalue any idea that isn't published and reviewed defeats the point of a discussion forum in the first place. Over here, people are evaluated on the merit of their ideas if they are clear, consistent, and applicable. In short, if they "make sense". 

The point of your recent slew of posts about Entropic seems to indicate you got some personal vendetta against him. You're more interested in talking about how biased he is and how he isn't an authority. Like... ok? You could say this shit is too boring for you to think that way, but after saying you won't log back on for another week, here you are again, the very next day. Seriously, what's bugging you, dude? You used to be pretty chill, and now you're throwing out unsolicited typing all over the place. I thought the infraction would tell you you need to take a breather. It's not cool, man.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> Nah. Your post was extremely biased towards your Enneatype. That whole thing about "I don't need to prove myself" and just surrendering to already established opinions so that you don't stick out like a sore thumb and "get along" -- that's the compulsive 9 tendency rearing its head.
> 
> The whole thing about one person being in possession of the truth and being fit to lead and get things done -- that's type 8. 8s are convinced their interpretation of the world is correct, and they are the ones fit to lead the masses out of their rut. They don't value surrender and being dispassionate, like a 9 does.
> 
> The problem with your interpretation is that you confuse cognition with underlying motivations. Entropic doesn't have the same underlying motivations as you. It's clear he gives way more of a fuck for typology than you ever will, but you attribute that to "I don't like theorizing cuz I want my sources". Maybe the simple fact is he just... likes it more than you, and that's why he talks and argues so much more about it. Not everyone is just gonna kick back and let the world do the ground work for them.
> 
> Everyone here knows that this stuff isn't empirically based. There's a lot of theorizing and relating back to personal experiences involved. The purpose of the theory is to be a logical model that is predictive of people and relationships. So yeah, people are inevitably gonna end up arguing whose interpretation is consistent. Hell, I do it all the time. So I'm a Ti dom too, now? You're looking at the "what", not the "how". Cognitive type is supposed to say "how" you do something or interpret some information. The funny thing is Entropic has actually cited sources quite often, but wtf is the point of a discussion forum if you just quote some old guys all the time and have no OPINION of your own? Is that how theory is advanced and understood, by laying out a bunch of quotes and saying "facts bro"? People also have to INTERPRET the facts. That's how you work with a model. You don't just lay it out there and let every interpretation of it float in the air, you explain how you understand it.
> 
> Ironically you're doing the same thing. You lay out your opinion and your reasoning based on your interpretation of a "fact" of the theory. You just aren't rigorous and consistent with it in your post history, simply because you're not that interested in argumentatively defining the truth. You're not seeing HOW it's done, you just believe that amount of commitment is Ti in the first place.
> 
> You seem to think someone has to be published and accredited to even have the chance to be right. People can be right even before/without those criteria. This isn't a scientific community, it's an informal one, and we discuss shit based on our interpretations. The fact that you devalue any idea that isn't published and reviewed defeats the point of a discussion forum in the first place. Over here, people are evaluated on the merit of their ideas if they are clear, consistent, and applicable. In short, if they "make sense".
> 
> The point of your recent slew of posts about Entropic seems to indicate you got some personal vendetta against him. You're more interested in talking about how biased he is and how he isn't an authority. Like... ok? You could say this shit is too boring for you to think that way, but after saying you won't log back on for another week, here you are again, the very next day. Seriously, what's bugging you, dude? You used to be pretty chill, and now you're throwing out unsolicited typing all over the place. I thought the infraction would tell you you need to take a breather. It's not cool, man.


It seems like you entire function here is to defend Entropic. You're a symbiant. Why don't you ever stop? Apply the same standards to Entropic you do to everyone else. Abraxas still has a long learning curve before he has reached that level of antisocial behavior, banned a bunch of times, and never learning or adjusting.


----------



## Vermillion

FearAndTrembling said:


> It seems like you entire function here is to defend Entropic. Why don't you ever stop? Apply the same standards to Entropic you do to everyone else. Abraxas still has a long learning curve before he has reached that level of antisocial behavior, banned a bunch of times, and never learning or adjusting.


I would defend anyone I knew who got relentlessly hounded like that. I don't make posts unless I'm sure I'm being impartial and I've evaluated both sides of a discussion. After all, I actually liked Abraxas quite a great deal before he started being petty and defeatist, and I've made this known to him as well. In this case, his reasoning doesn't hold up, and I have illustrated why. Therefore, kindly stop being disrespectful and condescending, and quote me only if you actually know to address the content I posted.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> I would defend anyone I knew who got relentlessly hounded like that. I don't make posts unless I'm sure I'm being impartial and I've evaluated both sides of a discussion. After all, I actually liked Abraxas quite a great deal before he started being petty and defeatist, and I've made this known to him as well. In this case, his reasoning doesn't hold up, and I have illustrated why. Therefore, kindly stop being disrespectful and condescending. If your only purpose was to put me down without even reading my post, you're not achieving anything significant towards your position.


We all know this isn't about disagreement in functions. lol

It always seems like he is fighting people 2 on 1. And that is unfair. Even this Jeremy guy. Yeah, he is annoying but lighten up. It is a hostile environment in here in general. We have to drain the swamp first. I can't trust any of you people to give it to me straight. There cannot be understanding with such resistance and underlying hostility.


----------



## Vermillion

FearAndTrembling said:


> We all know this isn't about disagreement in functions. lol


It's a mix of several things. Functional disagreement, Enneagram value disagreement, and needless personal vendettas. Cool it with the conspiracy theories, prophet :wink:



> It always seems like he is fighting people 2 on 1. And that is unfair. Even this Jeremy guy. Yeah, he is annoying but lighten up. It is a hostile environment in here in general. We have to drain the swamp first. I can't trust any of you people to give it to me straight. There cannot be understanding with such resistance and underlying hostility.


Humans are social beings. Right now you are defending Abraxas and Jeremy, which means you aren't exempt from this behavior either. You defend the guy typing people unsolicited because of his own frustrations, and you're complaining about "underlying hostility"? Funny.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> It's a mix of several things. Functional disagreement, Enneagram value disagreement, and needless personal vendettas. Cool it with the conspiracy theories, prophet :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are social beings. Right now you are defending Abraxas and Jeremy, which means you aren't exempt from this behavior either. You defend the guy typing people unsolicited because of his own frustrations, and you're complaining about "underlying hostility"? Funny.


You know that your link with Entropic is much stronger than mine with those guys. lol. They are just my pawns or tools in this particular game. They are disposable to me. j/k. somewhat.


----------



## Vermillion

FearAndTrembling said:


> You know that your link with Entropic is much stronger than mine with those guys. lol. They are just my pawns or tools in this particular game. They are disposable to me. j/k. somewhat.


Yeah, cause we're _in a relationship_, rofl. Nothing new there. What's your point? Fetch some of your homies if you think it's easier for you to counter the argument in numbers; no one stopped you. People stand up for and support others all the time. You're finding new criticisms every post, and none of them are related to the topic. Try not to derail so hard, you can PM me if you want to vent about your frustration.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> Yeah, cause we're _in a relationship_, rofl. Nothing new there. What's your point? Fetch some of your homies if you think it's easier for you to counter the argument in numbers; no one stopped you. People stand up for and support others all the time. You're finding new criticisms every post, and none of them are related to the topic. Try not to derail so hard, you can PM me if you want to vent about your frustration.


They underlie the topic. The point is it makes you totally biased in any situation dealing with him. It isn't the same relationship that others have in this forum. I don't need other people. I am your huckleberry. 


Comin round your corner with my uptown bunch
I bet your bottom dollar that you're bottom buck chumps
Give it up, it's a juice thing I'm steppin for the rep and
wreckin all the rest and, weapon testin on who's steppin
Ain't no bluff for the niggy nuff, for the rugged ruff stuff
***** if you're tough knuckle up
I'll cut your ass like class, then blast you by the trash
After I laugh then I'll dash
You can't handle the scandal of an uptown vandal
Shootin up your toes makin sandals
Somebody told me that you owe me, but can't nobody hold me​*I do my dirt all by my lonely

​*



*
​*


----------



## Vermillion

FearAndTrembling said:


> They underlie the topic. The point is it makes you totally biased in any situation dealing with him. It isn't the same relationship that others have in this forum.


Surprise, surprise: it's possible to be in a relationship without drowning in bias. To assume a strong friendship or relationship of any kind automatically leads to bias isn't even accurate. There are plenty of times I don't agree with or support people (yes, even Entropic) despite otherwise liking them a lot. Do you see those? No. You're simply here playing your conspiracy theorist self again, and it's not entertaining, mate.



> I don't need other people. I am your huckleberry.


Good for you. What an amazing quality, to _never_ admit to needing people. Strong and independent. The rest of us are just dumb pack animals, restrained by our mundane and useless emotions of love, loyalty, friendship, and trust.

Don't complain "it's unfair!" next time.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Night Huntress said:


> Surprise, surprise: it's possible to be in a relationship without drowning in bias. To assume a strong friendship or relationship of any kind automatically leads to bias isn't even accurate. There are plenty of times I don't agree with or support people (yes, even Entropic) despite otherwise liking them a lot. Do you see those? No. You're simply here playing your conspiracy theorist self again, and it's not entertaining, mate.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. What an amazing quality, to _never_ admit to needing people. Strong and independent. The rest of us are just dumb pack animals, restrained by our mundane and useless emotions of love, loyalty, friendship, and trust.
> 
> Don't complain "it's unfair!" next time.


It may be possible but you are a working theory against it. 

You were the one who started complaining. I intervened. I will intervene until you shape up. As long as you act like you do, I hope Abraxas keep its up. He balances you. You deserve it.

I do think he has been a little harsh btw but you two of all people have no right to complain about that.


----------



## Entropic

FearAndTrembling said:


> It may be possible but you are a working theory against it.
> 
> You were the one who started complaining. I intervened. I will intervene until you shape up. As long as you act like you do, I hope Abraxas keep its up. He balances you. You deserve it.
> 
> I do think he has been a little harsh btw but you two of all people have no right to complain about that.


lol. He began all this and I was overall for a long time friendly to him even when I probably shouldn't .. You aren't in any way intervening because you are essentially defending his lack of moral actions by justifying how I've acted worse in the past but that's somehow unfair ?? She hasn't stepped in until now and both of us actually support supported him before all this .. I never complained But he did. Also fuck perc api for Android ..


----------



## Vermillion

FearAndTrembling said:


> It may be possible but you are a working theory against it.
> 
> You were the one who started complaining. I intervened. I will intervene until you shape up. As long as you act like you do, I hope Abraxas keep its up. He balances you. You deserve it.
> 
> I do think he has been a little harsh btw but you two of all people have no right to complain about that.


Sure, prophet. Get over yourself.


----------



## Vermillion

Jeremy8419 said:


> Socionics is Ne-Ti, not Ti-Ne.


Same functions anyway. But there's more of a focus on the model being able to explain every little thing and being consistent throughout every sort of behavioral nuance, hence the ceaseless invention of new stuff like +-, DCNH, etc. That's more Ti imo.



> I was asking what parts you like and which ones you don't, though lol. I remember you saying once before that it's easy for you to talk about why you like/dislike something once before. Trying to see what it is, so I know our common grounds better.


A degree of categorization is cool by me. I mean, typology is fun cause it has a lot of interesting insights about people. Where it gets fishy is when people use it a standard of how relationships should be and what sort of people they SHOULD like and dislike. It also isn't right to predict too much about a person's attitude and preferences using typology. That's where I draw the line. It's fun, but it shouldn't permeate into real life interaction and serve as a model for it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> I am not sure exactly what your point is, or mine either. I agree that these things can work together. I see it like a body. Organ systems. They are kind of specialized parts of a whole. Enneagram, Socionics, MBTI, etc. Like how the nervous system works on muscles. There are connections there. But we know of these connections from years of study, much of it very gooey and empirical. I was actually just thinking we are like Pythagoreans. lol. They don't think anything should actually be cut open. Flesh broken. Things get too messy when that happens. They are against surgery for that reason. They believe in the integrity of the flesh. Of the surface. It shouldn't be broken.
> 
> In a previous post you showed Enneagram permeates through Socionics. You are showing that connection. But it is a morass. It can be made logical but there is nothing I can really touch. I remember an episode of Futurama and robots are scared of humans because we are so messy and gooey on the inside. They don't like seeing humans cut open either. You need to get your hands in that goo.
> 
> Even something simple like a function stack: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. Where did anybody even come up with that? It is treated as if it were an actual anatomical structure. Like the bones from my shoulder to my fingers. This part is distal to this, this is medial to that. Trying to connect all these things is like trying to sort how the body oxygenates blood through itself.
> 
> It comes down to pragmatism too. You can make these things logically consistent, but only for that purpose you made them for. Like the geocentric version of the universe had similar predictive power to heliocentric. Why should one be considered superior? What answers that question, is what is important to us. Carl Sagan said we can choose to live in delusion. This is why James is a radical empiricist. No experience is superior or inferior to another. That is never in the experience. That preference. We decide that.


My point is, we don't actually care about logic. We just wanna see how people connect lol


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> Same functions anyway. But there's more of a focus on the model being able to explain every little thing and being consistent throughout every sort of behavioral nuance, hence the ceaseless invention of new stuff like +-, DCNH, etc. That's more Ti imo.
> 
> A degree of categorization is cool by me. I mean, typology is fun cause it has a lot of interesting insights about people. Where it gets fishy is when people use it a standard of how relationships should be and what sort of people they SHOULD like and dislike. It also isn't right to predict too much about a person's attitude and preferences using typology. That's where I draw the line. It's fun, but it shouldn't permeate into real life interaction and serve as a model for it.


Makes sense. Human heart always trumps logic, right?


----------



## The_Wanderer

Oh! What a dramatic trainwreck.


----------



## Captain Mclain

This is like godwin's law


----------



## The_Wanderer

No! You're a Hitlerite!


----------



## Jeremy8419

Been trying to disprove that law for the last 2 months... Mother effers...


----------



## Typhon

Abraxas said:


> For example, you'll notice how @_Night Huntress_ discredits my analysis by saying "it's neither, it's enneagram". Then, in my response to Typhon, I went and quoted my source, Jung, and bolded the part where he gives the very same analysis I did, putting this discussion on point. This is why I maintain that it's important for people to get their facts straight before they say anything, otherwise they're just misleading people with their opinions and interpretations.


But socionics is not hard science. I feel you are approaching it as if it were hard science. The functions as decribed by Jung were in a primordial state of understanding. In fact, if we came up with a thread where everyone was to describe the functions in their own words, you would have as many different descriptions as there are posters to write them, even if there would be some common trends in how, say, Se is described. So yes, description of the functions implies some leeway for interpretation, as there are no observable facts like there with, say, astrophysics for example. Already belief in the existence of the functions is a interpretation of human cognition, not a fact. 

I can agree with comparing one's opions to others and having a grounding in the latest scientific and academic discoveries, including the ones related to socionics, however I also feel that someone can be right and make sense without being an officialized "expert" on the matter. It takes proper documentation, much reading, studying, etc, to understand and know socionics, and I do not claim any expertise on the matter. But it also takes some interpretation of what you read, rather than simply quoting passages, to arrive at an understanding.

You gotta have the objective information as well as the subjective interpretation.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Captain Mclain if you follow my J=j and P=p. This thread, the people talking in it, is a good example of people exercising their Demonstrative occasionally, while knowing the overall posting behaviors of the subject shows their Leading.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> @Captain Mclain if you follow my J=j and P=p. This thread, the people talking in it, is a good example of people exercising their Demonstrative occasionally, while knowing the overall posting behaviors of the subject shows their Leading.


I support that MBTI did it wrong. I/E about if first function is extroverted or introverted. N/S if upper block got sensor or intuition. F/T if upper block got thinking or feeling. All fine and good. J/P in Socionics is referring to rational-irrational which is a Jung concept. I do not know what MBTI was doing here, they tried to backtrack from the stacking. 

Take your Dom, leading function. Follow it with your creative or aux. Lets say FiNe. That is your type. Apply it to that system you prefer. I think MBTI failed and Socionics is the best system.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> I support that MBTI did it wrong. I/E about if first function is extroverted or introverted. N/S if upper block got sensor or intuition. F/T if upper block got thinking or feeling. All fine and good. J/P in Socionics is referring to rational-irrational which is a Jung concept. I do not know what MBTI was doing here, they tried to backtrack from the stacking.
> 
> Take your Dom, leading function. Follow it with your creative or aux. Lets say FiNe. That is your type. Apply it to that system you prefer. I think MBTI failed and Socionics is the best system.


It's not "wrong." They are just showing different things. Go look at the picture I made in PhotoShop on either the Socionics, MBTI, and Jung thread or the Model B thread. Extroverts have Libido (request for information) go out their Leading. Introverts have information go out their leading. Extroverts have information go out their Demonstrative. Introverts have Libido go out their demonstrative. MBTI is showing Libido Out and Information In for both extroverts and introverts, meaning it is showing Leading as Dom for Extroverts and Demonstrative as Dom for introverts. People have In and Out for both Information Requests and Information Supplies. MBTI simply shows a single flow in the same direction for extroverts and introverts.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's not "wrong." They are just showing different things. Go look at the picture I made in PhotoShop on either the Socionics, MBTI, and Jung thread or the Model B thread. Extroverts have Libido (request for information) go out their Leading. Introverts have information go out their leading. Extroverts have information go out their Demonstrative. Introverts have Libido go out their demonstrative. MBTI is showing Libido Out and Information In for both extroverts and introverts, meaning it is showing Leading as Dom for Extroverts and Demonstrative as Dom for introverts. People have In and Out for both Information Requests and Information Supplies. MBTI simply shows a single flow in the same direction for extroverts and introverts.


What have that to do with Judger or Perceiver


----------



## RoSoDude

I revisit this subforum from time to time, and I've noticed a few patterns. Without fail, if a thread has more than 12 pages, it contains an argument about @Entropic's type. Hilariously, this one appears to consist of _accusing_ him of having conscious Ti as a preferred information element. Making unwarranted conclusions about another's type without actually knowing them in person has always seemed bizarre to me, but the assignment of negative qualities to Ti here is especially amusing.

I really don't understand entering these sorts of discussions in the manner @Abraxas has, beginning with what is really just a bitter rant about Ti and ending with "but you know, I don't actually have to support any of my claims because I don't care and because they're right by virtue of my saying there exists evidence that verifies them". If I don't care about something, I don't offer a dozen paragraphs of malicious nonsense on it and feign surprise when it strikes a nerve.

Based on how these discussions seem to go, I imagine that if I were to distance myself from some of the more absurd claims about Ti's problems (e.g. "literally mentally incapable of devaluing his own judgment") I would either be told that I must actually be some other type or that my wording of my post actually _reveals_ how insular and masturbatory my own cognition is. How is THAT not conforming the facts to fit your own opinion?


----------



## Vermillion

RoSoDude said:


> I revisit this subforum from time to time, and I've noticed a few patterns. Without fail, if a thread has more than 12 pages, it contains an argument about @_Entropic_'s type. Hilariously, this one appears to consist of _accusing_ him of having conscious Ti as a preferred information element. Making unwarranted conclusions about another's type without actually knowing them in person has always seemed bizarre to me, but the assignment of negative qualities to Ti here is especially amusing.
> 
> I really don't understand entering these sorts of discussions in the manner @_Abraxas_ has, beginning with what is really just a bitter rant about Ti and ending with "but you know, I don't actually have to support any of my claims because I don't care and because they're right by virtue of my saying there exists evidence that verifies them". If I don't care about something, I don't offer a dozen paragraphs of malicious nonsense on it and feign surprise when it strikes a nerve.
> 
> Based on how these discussions seem to go, I imagine that if I were to distance myself from some of the more absurd claims about Ti's problems (e.g. "literally mentally incapable of devaluing his own judgment") I would either be told that I must actually be some other type or that my wording of my post actually _reveals_ how insular and masturbatory my own cognition is. How is THAT not conforming the facts to fit your own opinion?


ROFL you made my day :toast:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> What have that to do with Judger or Perceiver


When Introversion switches the position of your J/P compared to extroversion, it's switching your mental/vital ring from Socionics.


----------



## Jeremy8419

RoSoDude said:


> I revisit this subforum from time to time, and I've noticed a few patterns. Without fail, if a thread has more than 12 pages, it contains an argument about @Entropic's type. Hilariously, this one appears to consist of _accusing_ him of having conscious Ti as a preferred information element. Making unwarranted conclusions about another's type without actually knowing them in person has always seemed bizarre to me, but the assignment of negative qualities to Ti here is especially amusing.
> 
> I really don't understand entering these sorts of discussions in the manner @Abraxas has, beginning with what is really just a bitter rant about Ti and ending with "but you know, I don't actually have to support any of my claims because I don't care and because they're right by virtue of my saying there exists evidence that verifies them". If I don't care about something, I don't offer a dozen paragraphs of malicious nonsense on it and feign surprise when it strikes a nerve.
> 
> Based on how these discussions seem to go, I imagine that if I were to distance myself from some of the more absurd claims about Ti's problems (e.g. "literally mentally incapable of devaluing his own judgment") I would either be told that I must actually be some other type or that my wording of my post actually _reveals_ how insular and masturbatory my own cognition is. How is THAT not conforming the facts to fit your own opinion?


Nice Ti-


----------



## Wolfskralle

Yeah I don't get why being Ti lead is some kind of insult of these parts of forums. lol. And why proving that your opponent in duscussion is Ti lead became the main theme here.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Wolfskralle said:


> Yeah I don't get why being Ti lead is some kind of insult of these parts of forums.


I think the only person whose ever assumed it an insult is Jeremy.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

RoSoDude said:


> I revisit this subforum from time to time, and I've noticed a few patterns. Without fail, if a thread has more than 12 pages, it contains an argument about @_Entropic_'s type. Hilariously, this one appears to consist of _accusing_ him of having conscious Ti as a preferred information element.* Making unwarranted conclusions about another's type without actually knowing them in person has always seemed bizarre to me,* but the assignment of negative qualities to Ti here is especially amusing.
> 
> I really don't understand entering these sorts of discussions in the manner @_Abraxas_ has, beginning with what is really just a bitter rant about Ti and ending with "but you know, I don't actually have to support any of my claims because I don't care and because they're right by virtue of my saying there exists evidence that verifies them". If I don't care about something, I don't offer a dozen paragraphs of malicious nonsense on it and feign surprise when it strikes a nerve.
> 
> Based on how these discussions seem to go, I imagine that if I were to distance myself from some of the more absurd claims about Ti's problems (e.g. "literally mentally incapable of devaluing his own judgment") I would either be told that I must actually be some other type or that my wording of my post actually _reveals_ how insular and masturbatory my own cognition is. How is THAT not conforming the facts to fit your own opinion?


Yet it is the backbone of this forum. Why the objection here and now? That is what I call subjective logic. Few of us really know each other so why we do spend so much time typing each other? Make a career out of it almost. Some much more so than others.


----------



## reptilian

Night Huntress said:


> It's neither. It's wanting a sense of group belonging and commonly associated with type 6 or type 9. That entire post was basically @_Abraxas_ disliking the type 8 style of thinking and declaring his support for type 9 values. Sloth and peacemaking vs power and truth.


This is weird as I have noticed he keeps presenting himself as an 8 and disrespecting 9 when he speaks.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> When Introversion switches the position of your J/P compared to extroversion, it's switching your mental/vital ring from Socionics.


Socionics is consistent from Jung. You should not switch anything in Socionics, what is wrong is MBTI.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Captain Mclain said:


> Socionics is consistent from Jung. You should not switch anything in Socionics, what is wrong is MBTI.


Where does it get definitons about Se being about force then? Where did that come from?

What is "wrong" with MBTI is it doesn't have the castle of epicycles that Socionics does to protect it.


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> Where does it get definitons about Se being about force then? Where did that come from?
> 
> What is "wrong" with MBTI is doesn't have the castle of epicycles that Socionics does to protect it.


If I understand it correctly. The "structure" of Socionics is a direct consequence of Jung. Also the reinin dichotomies is some kind of mixture of those 4 original dichotomies from Jung. E/I, F/T, N/S and rational and irrational (J/P). But why is NP or SJ "tactical" and NJ or SP "strategical"? Where does that tactical and strategical come from? I guess that is what rainin personally found was the biggest difference in this specific split. A split which is, again, a direct consequence from Jung dichotomies.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Captain Mclain said:


> If I understand it correctly. The "structure" of Socionics is a direct consequence of Jung. Also the reinin dichotomies is some kind of mixture of those 4 original dichotomies from Jung. E/I, F/T, N/S and rational and irrational (J/P). But why is NP or SJ "tactical" and NJ or SP "strategical"? Where does that tactical and strategical come from? I guess that is what rainin personally found was the biggest difference in this specific split. A split which is, again, a direct consequence from Jung dichotomies.


But Jung wouldn't structure it that way and I doubt it even could be structured that way.

Look at this thread title. Nobody can even agree on functions -- some of the most basic definitions. But we take those shady definitions and abstract them some more. A system like this makes it harder to detect bullshit because there is so much structure put into justifying its unproved premise/mentalism. How could something with so much structure be wrong? lol. 

We have terms we don't understand and then we add nuances to them. Fe for example. Nobody understands one measure but we can somehow understand 4 measures of it? How? Where? Like I see people typing in videos. What is even being "held"? What are people grabbing onto here? I know Socionics isn't about behavior but behavior is really the only thing observable. Even language/speech is a form of behavior. Keirsey for example only types on behavior. He said that all cognitive functions theories are projection as they rely on unseen mental processes. I don't see how he is wrong.


----------



## Captain Mclain

FearAndTrembling said:


> But Jung wouldn't structure it that way and I doubt it even could be structured that way.
> 
> Look at this thread title. Nobody can even agree on functions -- some of the most basic definitions. But we take those shady definitions and abstract them some more. A system like this makes it harder to detect bullshit because there is so much structure put into justifying its unproved premise/mentalism. How could something with so much structure be wrong? lol.
> 
> We have terms we don't understand and then we add nuances to them. Fe for example. Nobody understands one measure but we can somehow understand 4 measures of it? How? Where? Like I see people typing in videos. What is even being "held"? What are people grabbing onto here? I know Socionics isn't about behavior but behavior is really the only thing observable. Even language/speech is a form of behavior. Keirsey for example only types on behavior. He said that all cognitive functions theories are projection as they rely on unseen mental processes. I don't see how he is wrong.


You approach it wrong yo. This is not a theory of Jung. This is Socionics that is directly logically based on Jung. Get in though with your Ti yo.  

Anyhow. I do not care much about this Nobody for the moment.


----------



## Entropic

jkp said:


> This is weird as I have noticed he keeps presenting himself as an 8 and disrespecting 9 when he speaks.


How so? I mean, I'm an 8 and our differences couldn't be more apparent in this regard.


----------



## Jeremy8419

jkp said:


> This is weird as I have noticed he keeps presenting himself as an 8 and disrespecting 9 when he speaks.


His posts are a demonstration of his demonstrative function. He normally talks about Ni and is fairly quiet and perceiving.


----------



## reptilian

Entropic said:


> How so? I mean, I'm an 8 and our differences couldn't be more apparent in this regard.





> Begin to dominate their environment, including others: want to feel that others are behind them, supporting their efforts. Swaggering, boastful, forceful, and expansive: the “boss” whose word is law. Proud, egocentric, want to impose their will and vision on everything, not seeing others as equals or treating them with respect - See more at: https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-8/#sthash.0nzYeav5.dpuf


I dont know him from before but have noticed a lot of expressed anger from him.


----------



## reptilian

Jeremy8419 said:


> His posts are a demonstration of his demonstrative function. He normally talks about Ni and is fairly quiet and perceiving.


Im not sure he likes it when someone says he uses Ti :laughing:

Is the demonstrative function always negative? Why or why not?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> Socionics is consistent from Jung. You should not switch anything in Socionics, what is wrong is MBTI.


Well, I meant "Compared to MBTI..." Lol

http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...-bukalov-16-component-model-tim-socion-4.html
Second picture. It's for introverts. Extroverts are reverse flow. MBTI shows libido out and information in for both E/I.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, I meant "Compared to MBTI..." Lol
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...-bukalov-16-component-model-tim-socion-4.html
> Second picture. It's for introverts. Extroverts are reverse flow. MBTI shows libido out and information in for both E/I.


tbh. All I see is you making a visual demonstration of introverted vs extroverted functions and the dom and aux functions. I do not support it. I like Judger and Perceiver switch to be rational vs irrational.


----------



## Jeremy8419

jkp said:


> Im not sure he likes it when someone says he uses Ti :laughing:
> 
> Is the demonstrative function always negative? Why or why not?


No, it depends on personality type. If your Leading is positive, your Demonstrative will be negative. If your Leading is negative, your Demonstrative will be positive. Demonstrative is alllllways going on, so people can mistake it for an Ego function if they don't realize it is automatic; e.g., IEEs are very emotionally warm, verrrry, but it is just something that is automatically going on constantly, whereas EIEs are consciously focusing on it.

Most posts on here by the "ILI"s are them deconstructing logic. Their social role is Fi, so they are usually talking about sociology, philosophy, typology, etc., but if you watch their posts, you can see that what they are really doing is deconstructing the logic of such. In the background, they are using Ni+ to develop trends, and occasionally demonstrate such by going into Ni+ land. Abraxas, on the other hand, is usually in Ni+ land. Occasionally, he demonstrates Ti-. The result is that when the "ILI"s demonstrate Ni or the ILIs demonstrate Ti, in a friendly way, the other group is like "oh hayyyyy I like you now," before the inevitable revert back to the Ego. When both place conscious effort into a discussion, they're both in Ego, and don't agree. When both go on preconscious auto-pilot in a discussion, they're both in Id, and don't agree. When one is placing conscious effort into a discussion and the other goes auto-pilot, one is Ego and one is Id, so they are temporarily identical and agree. Similarly, if I am placing conscious effort into things, SLE and myself clash heavily, but if I go on auto-pilot mode, I simulate their dual. This carries over into all relations, flipping between Supervisor to your Supervisee to the Supervisee of such when going between conscious and auto-pilot, etc., so that all types have a sort of give-take and reversal with each other.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> tbh. All I see is you making a visual demonstration of introverted vs extroverted functions and the dom and aux functions. I do not support it. I like Judger and Perceiver switch to be rational vs irrational.


Socionics gives the correct functions for your tested (not functional) MBTI type; e.g., if you test as INFP your stack is like IEI. This is your stance, correct?


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Socionics gives the correct functions for your tested (not functional) MBTI type; e.g., if you test as INFP your stack is like IEI. This is your stance, correct?


I say there is a lack of logic in MBTI. Basically she thought it would be easier to type if you went with the first extroverted function instead. The result of that is that the system is broken. Then she wrote descriptions of all the types based on sterotype and not function. There is an other hole in the reasoning. She took 3 Jung dichotomies, some magic on the 4th, and then made a test out of it with briggs. They made some money out of that test and descriptions which are morso happy reading text. They got you hooked with Jung and then sell descriptions they wrote. I call it out BS.


----------



## reptilian

@Jeremy8419

I see your talking about model A, so you disagree with model G? Demonstrative function there is the auxiliary one.

In model G Ti- is an open minded system builder in IxTP and the Ti+ is a stubborn system defender in ExTP. 

Im so confuse, how can you be so sure as in what is correctly generalized?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> I say there is a lack of logic in MBTI. Basically she thought it would be easier to type if you went with the first extroverted function instead. The result of that is that the system is broken. Then she wrote descriptions of all the types based on sterotype and not function. There is an other hole in the reasoning. She took 3 Jung dichotomies, some magic on the 4th, and then made a test out of it with briggs. They made some money out of that test and descriptions which are morso happy reading text. They got you hooked with Jung and then sell descriptions they wrote. I call it out BS.


Gotcha


----------



## Jeremy8419

jkp said:


> @Jeremy8419
> 
> I see your talking about model A, so you disagree with model G? Demonstrative function there is the auxiliary one.
> 
> In model G Ti- is an open minded system builder in IxTP and the Ti+ is a stubborn system defender in ExTP.
> 
> Im so confuse, how can you be so sure as in what is correctly generalized?


Quite frankly, I think Gulenko needs to take his medication. After reading through B and G, G seems like a broken version of B brought about by him not understanding B and having his panties in a wad.

Because, my social role is Ti+. I may seem like I am building logic systems, but in reality, I'm watching y'all's factual interactions like a hawk.


----------



## Entropic

jkp said:


> I dont know him from before but have noticed a lot of expressed anger from him.


Expressing anger isn't the same as being an 8, though? His anger and attitude towards it all is very 9ish.


----------



## reptilian

Entropic said:


> Expressing anger isn't the same as being an 8, though? His anger and attitude towards it all is very 9ish.


Now its your turn to explain!


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Expressing anger isn't the same as being an 8, though? His anger and attitude towards it all is very 9ish.


Are enneagrams supposed to be static? They strike me as far more mutable than MBTI or Socionics; more like a "current mood or disposition" than anything else.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Are enneagrams supposed to be static? They strike me as far more mutable than MBTI or Socionics; more like a "current mood or disposition" than anything else.


No. Enneagram is a particular way of viewing the world and utilizing specific life strategies that come with it. It's definitely not related to moods.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> No. Enneagram is a particular way of viewing the world and utilizing specific life strategies that come with it. It's definitely not related to moods.


Well, they sure seem mutable.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, they sure seem mutable.


Not really. Being moody is mostly related to the reactive triad, or type 4, 6 and 8. They are the most susceptible to moods.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FearAndTrembling said:


> Where does it get definitons about Se being about force then? Where did that come from?


I believe it comes from how Se is the most in-tune with present reality, thus a strong Se-user is likely to have a desire to have a concrete impact on that reality, and a good sense of how much force is needed in order to make that impact. Maybe Socionics over-emphasizes the forcefulness, but it does make some sense...

Edit: Also, it is kind of funny how Ti-dom is apparently supposed to be this accusation here. Meanwhile, I wish I was a Ti-dom sometimes. =P


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> I believe it comes from how Se is the most in-tune with present reality, thus a strong Se-user is likely to have a desire to have a concrete impact on that reality, and a good sense of how much force is needed in order to make that impact. Maybe Socionics over-emphasizes the forcefulness, but it does make some sense...
> 
> Edit: Also, it is kind of funny how Ti-dom is apparently supposed to be this accusation here. Meanwhile, I wish I was a Ti-dom sometimes. =P


I haven't been observing you. I could, if you would like.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Jeremy8419 said:


> I haven't been observing you. I could, if you would like.


You like observing people, do you?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Distortions said:


> I believe it comes from how Se is the most in-tune with present reality, thus a strong Se-user is likely to have a desire to have a concrete impact on that reality, and a good sense of how much force is needed in order to make that impact. Maybe Socionics over-emphasizes the forcefulness, but it does make some sense...
> 
> Edit: Also, it is kind of funny how Ti-dom is apparently supposed to be this accusation here. Meanwhile, I wish I was a Ti-dom sometimes. =P


It makes just as much sense for Fe and Te. Wouldn't an extroverted judging dom have more of a will in the environment? Jung actually said it was Te doms who are whipping people into shape and is the center of the cause. Leading the charge. Hitler for example fits a Te dom description more than a Se dom. Fe pushes on people in a similar way.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> You like observing people, do you?


"Like" seems odd. I observe to be able to help as necessary.


----------



## reptilian

@Entropic

He is feeling he is not getting enough attention, he knows he is smart and understands a lot of things and has his own view of the facts. Maybe his anger isnt directed towards you directly but how you two communicate, each is "demonstrating" Ti as @Jeremy8419 has pointed out, which this topic is all about, the 4D demonstrative value. It seems like @Abraxas would be "demonstrating" his logical background by presenting his whole picture with facts interconnected. Ni-Te is working within awareness but that doesnt mean it cant produce Ti logic through consciousness. I have mentioned this a few times in a few topics but didnt get a proper argument on why its not possible.
I once asked you why you score low on Ti, when I looked at other studies I saw high correlations with Ni in INxP and Ti in IxTJ. What would consciousness bring without the ability to create "sister" unconscious functions it is called the ID(primal energy source, libido exit) for a reason... But you have high Fi which makes you stubborn which is hard to spot if its properly disguised into a 9. Abraxas seems to be on 5 wanting to present himself as 8, you say you are 8 but you talk to abraxas like from a higher level trying to step away from the argument but actually reinforcing him into old arguments. But im not good at enneagram yet, so dont take the judgments too personal, its just guesses...

Both of you can see eachother points but you dont relate in terms of Ti. You doubt each others logic and disagree on how you present your facts, each forming his own detached picture in his mind about one another.
And the stupid arguments that show Fi in both of you something like: "I know you are not INTJ because you dont think like me and cant agree..". Oh, how small is the world, because all the INTJ scientist are completely the same in forming their own picture of how facts are validated and how they correlate ti the whole picture.

You are not arguing cause your Ne functions dont come into alignment, INTJs think Ne is "shallow", what you care about is Ti, Ni, Te. 

You guys should do another video together... Yes I saw it a some time ago(subbed and supported), you two should go look at it again!. And for example the part that you two agree on Ti being obsessed with "objective truth". How self perceptive are you two? You both are doing that! Im not saying you view objective world as Ti dom/aux does, you two want to understand the Ti concept and are doing so unconsciously by forming Ni-Te. Why do you think NTs are so hard to separate? All the data you need is in this topic.


----------



## Jeremy8419

jkp said:


> @Entropic
> 
> He is feeling he is not getting enough attention, he knows he is smart and understands a lot of things and has his own view of the facts. Maybe his anger isnt directed towards you directly but how you two communicate, each is "demonstrating" Ti as @Jeremy8419 has pointed out, which this topic is all about, the 4D demonstrative value. It seems like @Abraxas would be "demonstrating" his logical background by presenting his whole picture with facts interconnected. Ni-Te is working within awareness but that doesnt mean it cant produce Ti logic through consciousness. I have mentioned this a few times in a few topics but didnt get a proper argument on why its not possible.
> I once asked you why you score low on Ti, when I looked at other studies I saw high correlations with Ni in INxP and Ti in IxTJ. What would consciousness bring without the ability to create "sister" unconscious functions it is called the ID(primal energy source, libido exit) for a reason... But you have high Fi which makes you stubborn which is hard to spot if its properly disguised into a 9. Abraxas seems to be on 5 wanting to present himself as 8, you say you are 8 but you talk to abraxas like from a higher level trying to step away from the argument but actually reinforcing him into old arguments. But im not good at enneagram yet, so dont take the judgments too personal, its just guesses...
> 
> Both of you can see eachother points but you dont relate in terms of Ti. You doubt each others logic and disagree on how you present your facts, each forming his own detached picture in his mind about one another.
> And the stupid arguments that show Fi in both of you something like: "I know you are not INTJ because you dont think like me and cant agree..". Oh, how small is the world, because all the INTJ scientist are completely the same in forming their own picture of how facts are validated and how they correlate ti the whole picture.
> 
> You are not arguing cause your Ne functions dont come into alignment, INTJs think Ne is "shallow", what you care about is Ti, Ni, Te.
> 
> You guys should do another video together... Yes I saw it a some time ago(subbed and supported), you two should go look at it again!. And for example the part that you two agree on Ti being obsessed with "objective truth". How self perceptive are you two? You both are doing that! Im not saying you view objective world as Ti dom/aux does, you two want to understand the Ti concept and are doing so unconsciously by forming Ni-Te. Why do you think NTs are so hard to separate? All the data you need is in this topic.


One is INTJ/LII. The other is INTP/ILI. Abraxas isn't that concerned with Ti, which is why he largely stopped coming to forums. It's a Ti-fest up in here.

Notice the forums are predominantly permanently occupied by INTJs and ENTPs, two "supposed" orthogonal types that have somehowwww joined in a group.

Also, it's a translation issue. In the West, we have conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. I guess the East doesn't have preconscious, because what is described as "unconscious" in socionics is very clearly preconscious.


----------



## Entropic

jkp said:


> I dont know him from before but have noticed a lot of expressed anger from him.





jkp said:


> Now its your turn to explain!





jkp said:


> @Entropic
> 
> He is feeling he is not getting enough attention, he knows he is smart and understands a lot of things and has his own view of the facts. Maybe his anger isnt directed towards you directly but how you two communicate, each is "demonstrating" Ti as @Jeremy8419 has pointed out, which this topic is all about, the 4D demonstrative value. It seems like @Abraxas would be "demonstrating" his logical background by presenting his whole picture with facts interconnected. Ni-Te is working within awareness but that doesnt mean it cant produce Ti logic through consciousness. I have mentioned this a few times in a few topics but didnt get a proper argument on why its not possible.
> I once asked you why you score low on Ti, when I looked at other studies I saw high correlations with Ni in INxP and Ti in IxTJ. What would consciousness bring without the ability to create "sister" unconscious functions it is called the ID(primal energy source, libido exit) for a reason... But you have high Fi which makes you stubborn which is hard to spot if its properly disguised into a 9. Abraxas seems to be on 5 wanting to present himself as 8, you say you are 8 but you talk to abraxas like from a higher level trying to step away from the argument but actually reinforcing him into old arguments. But im not good at enneagram yet, so dont take the judgments too personal, its just guesses...
> 
> Both of you can see eachother points but you dont relate in terms of Ti. You doubt each others logic and disagree on how you present your facts, each forming his own detached picture in his mind about one another.
> And the stupid arguments that show Fi in both of you something like: "I know you are not INTJ because you dont think like me and cant agree..". Oh, how small is the world, because all the INTJ scientist are completely the same in forming their own picture of how facts are validated and how they correlate ti the whole picture.
> 
> You are not arguing cause your Ne functions dont come into alignment, INTJs think Ne is "shallow", what you care about is Ti, Ni, Te.
> 
> You guys should do another video together... Yes I saw it a some time ago(subbed and supported), you two should go look at it again!. And for example the part that you two agree on Ti being obsessed with "objective truth". How self perceptive are you two? You both are doing that! Im not saying you view objective world as Ti dom/aux does, you two want to understand the Ti concept and are doing so unconsciously by forming Ni-Te. Why do you think NTs are so hard to separate? All the data you need is in this topic.


Is this an analysis of the video interview? 

As for the enneagram, I think you misunderstand the anger of type 8 vs 9, here. First of all, anyone can be angry for any reason. Anger is a universal feeling so it's not explicit to a given type. However, gut types have a sense of existential anger that the other types don't have, meaning they are more perpetually or intrinsically angry at someone or something though in the 9, the direction of their anger is extremely diffused. It's an anger at no one thing and everything at the same time, which is why it's so difficult for them to let out and express their anger because being angry means being angry at something, an object of some kind. 9s deny themselves this. 

Anyway, 8 anger is very specific in that it's blaming and very direct. It's very much no nonsense. You got a problem? Spit it out. It polarizes as a way to try to hash out ambiguity. It's very much either you are with me or you are against me. Either what you are telling me right now is the truth or it isn't. There's no real middle-ground. When 8s engage in anger with other people, it's usually in the sense of "someone here [you] is in the wrong, and this wrong must be righted in order to make the world just again". In order to do that, 8s can act as arbiters of truth and the like. I am not very fond of most enneagram descriptions, but one suggests that 8s act as judge and executioner at once, and this is correct. 8s like to take justice in their own hands in this way. 8s are very attuned to power differences concerning strong/weak, and often seek to take justice in their own hands to set things straight again, as they think the world is fundamentally very unfair. 

9s, suffice to say, are none of this, but the very opposite of. If 8s seek polarization, 9s seek ambiguity. If 8s seek directedness, 9s seek avoidance and so on, as a general theme, anyway. If you read one of my greater clashes with Abraxas, you will see that I as an 8, ask him several times wtf his problem is and what is going on. He doesn't respond until I start getting very aggressive. Very typical 9 avoidance. 9s easily become passive-aggressive, and he's showcased this behavior several times, and he only responded because he reacted against being pushed like I did, which is also very typical 8. I don't like when people avoid me. The more people avoid me and a direct confrontation of an issue, the more frustrated I get and the more I'll push for a reaction. It's very instinctive. 

Also, the comments that Abraxas want people to take him seriously and create this sense of belonging he mentioned earlier likely goes back to him being a 9. 5s don't have that, for example. They feel detached and don't seek belonging in this way, to feel they are recognized by their environment. That's more the connection to type 3 that 9 has, in this case.

And I've always scored low on Ti except initially when I was new and I tended to score higher on Ti on the Keys2Cognition test. In retrospect I don't think I was fully honest with myself when I did though, and didn't quite understand what I was answering but who knows. I score average on Ti nowadays on K2C, still very high on Fi and Te along with Ne. I score higher on Ni now because I understand what he's asking for and I can recognize that process in myself though I still honestly don't agree with the formulations as it's not something I overly relate to as a whole. Fi is the function that's always been consistently high, no matter what test I took, along with Fe being the most consistently low. I think this is because I care a lot about authenticity as a personal value in and of itself, which may skew the results, since a lot of online tests ask associate Fi with authenticity. 

For reference, I got INTJ on those CelebrityTypes tests, whatever it's worth. 

As for INTx descriptions being messed up because they correlate to each other, I agree. This is why I don't like the MBTI. It's ironically so poorly structured not just logically, but also conceptually. It's just a theoretical mess and it's a huge turn-off. 



Jeremy8419 said:


> One is INTJ/LII. The other is INTP/ILI. Abraxas isn't that concerned with Ti, which is why he largely stopped coming to forums. It's a Ti-fest up in here.
> 
> Notice the forums are predominantly permanently occupied by INTJs and ENTPs, two "supposed" orthogonal types that have somehowwww joined in a group.
> 
> Also, it's a translation issue. In the West, we have conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. I guess the East doesn't have preconscious, because what is described as "unconscious" in socionics is very clearly preconscious.


You never listen to people, do you, taking their words at face value? I tend to score INTP on the MBTI test. I'd like to see you seriously consider what that factual nugget means about me as a person. I type as an INTJ not because that's my MBTI test score (if I would honestly type based on the score, I'd still type as an INTP), but because functionally speaking, INTJ is the more correct typing.

If you're so good at interpersonal relationships, I think you understand the importance of taking people and what they say about themselves seriously and learn to be receptive to that and what it says about them.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Is this an analysis of the video interview?
> 
> As for the enneagram, I think you misunderstand the anger of type 8 vs 9, here. First of all, anyone can be angry for any reason. Anger is a universal feeling so it's not explicit to a given type. However, gut types have a sense of existential anger that the other types don't have, meaning they are more perpetually or intrinsically angry at someone or something though in the 9, the direction of their anger is extremely diffused. It's an anger at no one thing and everything at the same time, which is why it's so difficult for them to let out and express their anger because being angry means being angry at something, an object of some kind. 9s deny themselves this.
> 
> Anyway, 8 anger is very specific in that it's blaming and very direct. It's very much no nonsense. You got a problem? Spit it out. It polarizes as a way to try to hash out ambiguity. It's very much either you are with me or you are against me. Either what you are telling me right now is the truth or it isn't. There's no real middle-ground. When 8s engage in anger with other people, it's usually in the sense of "someone here [you] is in the wrong, and this wrong must be righted in order to make the world just again". In order to do that, 8s can act as arbiters of truth and the like. I am not very fond of most enneagram descriptions, but one suggests that 8s act as judge and executioner at once, and this is correct. 8s like to take justice in their own hands in this way. 8s are very attuned to power differences concerning strong/weak, and often seek to take justice in their own hands to set things straight again, as they think the world is fundamentally very unfair.
> 
> 9s, suffice to say, are none of this, but the very opposite of. If 8s seek polarization, 9s seek ambiguity. If 8s seek directedness, 9s seek avoidance and so on, as a general theme, anyway. If you read one of my greater clashes with Abraxas, you will see that I as an 8, ask him several times wtf his problem is and what is going on. He doesn't respond until I start getting very aggressive. Very typical 9 avoidance. 9s easily become passive-aggressive, and he's showcased this behavior several times, and he only responded because he reacted against being pushed like I did, which is also very typical 8. I don't like when people avoid me. The more people avoid me and a direct confrontation of an issue, the more frustrated I get and the more I'll push for a reaction. It's very instinctive.
> 
> 
> 
> You never listen to people, do you, taking their words at face value? I tend to score INTP on the MBTI test. I'd like to see you seriously consider what that factual nugget means. I type as an INTJ not because that's my MBTI test score (if I would honestly type based on the score, I'd still type as an INTP), but because functionally speaking, INTJ is the more correct typing.
> 
> If you're so good at interpersonal relationships, I think you understand the importance of taking people and what they say about themselves seriously and learn to be receptive to that and what it says about them.


Maybe I just like listening to you speak lol

Being good at interpersonal relationships means I understand not take someone seriously when they say they aren't an alcoholic with a drink in their hand lol


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Maybe I just like listening to you speak lol
> 
> Being good at interpersonal relationships means I understand not take someone seriously when they say they aren't an alcoholic with a drink in their hand lol


Except in this case, you are saying I have a drink in my hand and that I'm a drinker when I don't have a drink in my hand. You say I'm an INTJ in the MBTI based on dichotomies, and I say I'm an INTP. Are you the one who took the tests and received the results or did I? Being good at interpersonal relationships does very well mean to take people and their words seriously, regardless if you disagree with them or not. This is specifically true for typology since people ultimately know themselves better than others do. You essentially suggest that I have a cellar with bottles, not because you've seen it, but simply because you think I do. You are right solely for being right. Maybe you should check my cellar first and maybe you should be open to observe whether I sit with a drink in my hand before you make judgements about my drinking patterns. Suggesting otherwise is a form of slander. Slander, as you should be aware, is a very serious social faux pas to the point it's prohibited by law.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Except in this case, you are saying I have a drink in my hand and that I'm a drinker when I don't have a drink in my hand. You say I'm an INTJ in the MBTI based on dichotomies, and I say I'm an INTP. Are you the one who took the tests and received the results or did I? Being good at interpersonal relationships does very well mean to take people and their words seriously, regardless if you disagree with them or not. This is specifically true for typology since people ultimately know themselves better than others do. You essentially suggest that I have a cellar with bottles, not because you've seen it, but simply because you think I do. You are right solely for being right. Maybe you should check my cellar first and maybe you should be open to observe whether I sit with a drink in my hand before you make judgements about my drinking patterns. Suggesting otherwise is a form of slander. Slander, as you should be aware, is a very serious social faux pas to the point it's prohibited by law.


But I've been in your cellar for months on end lol.

Aren't there INFJ memes saying "I know you better than you know yourself"? Lol


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> But I've been in your cellar for months on end lol.
> 
> Aren't there INFJ memes saying "I know you better than you know yourself"? Lol


Those aint legit! Come back to the light. P=p and J=j is some kinda of hockopockus you made up. Most of us typed ourself from our dom and aux valued functions.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> But I've been in your cellar for months on end lol.
> 
> Aren't there INFJ memes saying "I know you better than you know yourself"? Lol


No, that's the thing, you haven't. You've never been in my cellar. You don't even know whether I have one or not. You simply assume that I do. If I say I don't have a cellar and you've say you've been there for months, which one is lying here, you or I?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> No, that's the thing, you haven't. You've never been in my cellar. You don't even know whether I have one or not. You simply assume that I do. If I say I don't have a cellar and you've say you've been there for months, which one is lying here, you or I?


Cellar=mind lol

You know I love ya /hugs lol


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Cellar=mind lol
> 
> You know I love ya /hugs lol


No, the cellar is not equivalent to the mind, here. That's just the house in general. I never denied to having a house. The cellar is better expressed as some hidden content I'm not showing the external world since that is what the cellar is. It's stuffing away things underground that you don't want others to see, just like the attic. I think I should be the one who knows how my house layout is like better than you do, seeing how I'm the one living in my own house.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> Those aint legit! Come back to the light. P=p and J=j is some kinda of hockopockus you made up. Most of us typed ourself from our dom and aux valued functions.


Hocus pocus? Lol

We're on a Socionics forum and Socionics states J=j and P=p. The tests are a bell curve. If you're borderline J/P, you're going to see little difference in your Socionics model, because your mental/vital line isn't pronounced.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> No, the cellar is not equivalent to the mind, here. That's just the house in general. I never denied to having a house. The cellar is better expressed as some hidden content I'm not showing the external world since that is what the cellar is. It's stuffing away things underground that you don't want others to see, just like the attic. I think I should be the one who knows how my house layout is like better than you do, seeing how I'm the one living in my own house.


You don't like going around and digging through people's attics and cellars? Lol


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Hocus pocus? Lol
> 
> We're on a Socionics forum and Socionics states J=j and P=p. The tests are a bell curve. If you're borderline J/P, you're going to see little difference in your Socionics model, because your mental/vital line isn't pronounced.


My point is. When i was in MBTi and found my type. I did E/I, F/T and N/S. Then I started to learn about the functions and found that I am using my Ni and Fe. If you went by that route then it should be J=p and P=j for introverts.

If you did MBTI official test then you may be right?

edit; somehow I think some ideas from socionics where floating around in the MBTI community already.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> My point is. When i was in MBTi and found my type. I did E/I, F/T and N/S. Then I started to learn about the functions and found that I am using my Ni and Fe. If you went by that route then it should be J=p and P=j for introverts.
> 
> If you did MBTI official test then you may be right?


Well, the thing is... MBTI type by definition is your test results. If you're very close to average on a dichotomy, you're more likely to mistype; however, since you're close to average, the difference between both types is negligible in your personality. It's like arguing if you are 5'9" or 5'10" when you're 5'9 and 9/16th"


----------



## Captain Mclain

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, the thing is... MBTI type by definition is your test results. If you're very close to average on a dichotomy, you're more likely to mistype; however, since you're close to average, the difference between both types is negligible in your personality. It's like arguing if you are 5'9" or 5'10" when you're 5'9 and 9/16th"


I think I always been geared towards Socionics and Jung over MBTI. The first thing I studied after learning type was relationship between these. At this point I find no value in MBTI. It was my gate into this so it play a part still.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Captain Mclain said:


> I think I always been geared towards Socionics and Jung over MBTI. The first thing I studied after learning type was relationship between these. At this point I find no value in MBTI. It was my gate into this so it play a part still.


I just use it for the tests, because the websites for them are cross-platform friendly, relatively standardized, and worded correctly and with good English. Not to mention, some like 16personalities have language change options, which are good for all the Hispanics around here.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> You don't like going around and digging through people's attics and cellars? Lol


What do I have to do with people's cellars and attics unless they let me into those in the first place? The question isn't whether I have interest in those places, but the real question is why you think you've been and seen mine without me even telling whether I got one. Again, suggesting that I do when I don't is a form of slander.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> What do I have to do with people's cellars and attics unless they let me into those in the first place? The question isn't whether I have interest in those places, but the real question is why you think you've been and seen mine without me even telling whether I got one. Again, suggesting that I do when I don't is a form of slander.


So you should just take people at face-value when they say what is or isn't in their attic?


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> So you should just take people at face-value when they say what is or isn't in their attic?


Yes, because that is the considerate thing to do, because again, the person knows their own house layout that they live in better than you do. The only one who can claim that they do as well or better would be someone so close to the person they would live with that person, and by that it could be literally and not just figuratively. In this case, the only other person who I consider to have that right on this forum is Night Huntress. It does most definitely not include you.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Yes, because that is the considerate thing to do, because again, the person knows their own house layout that they live in better than you do. The only one who can claim that they do as well or better would be someone so close to the person they would live with that person, and by that it could be literally and not just figuratively. In this case, the only other person who I consider to have that right on this forum is Night Huntress. It does most definitely not include you.


So then you have no actual evidence for the comparison between what is in your house and what is in others' houses?

And I dunnnnoooooo.... Comparing at face value sounds awfully like external statics of fields....


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> So then you have no actual evidence for the comparison between what is in your house and what is in others' houses?
> 
> And I dunnnnoooooo.... Comparing at face value sounds awfully like external statics of fields....


Why should I compare what's in my fucking cellar/attic to that of someone else, lol? That is the claim that is being made to begin with. You think you know that a) I actually have a cellar without knowing whether I do, and b) what's in it without being in there. And I tell you no, you don't. You don't know whether I have a cellar and you have most definitely not been there. At best all you are doing right now is being a voyeur who think you can see the entire interior of someone else's house by simply glimpsing through the window. Unless you possess some kind of laser sight which you don't, fwiw, because you are human like the rest of us here, you have no clue wtf you are talking about. At best you are trying to extrapolate how the curtain you see says something about my living room. 

Also, I never once suggested anything about comparing face value information to something. You can simply accept information at face value for what it is without judgement by letting it exist in a vacuum. I don't think you are capable of comprehending what this actually entails, though, for the same reason FAT doesn't comprehend, because you don't naturally think that way. When typing people, it is extremely important to consider what they say about themselves and take that at face value. You don't always have to believe they are right, but you need to be attentive and listen to it and see how that fits into the big picture without dismissing those claims. Dismissing people's personal experiences like that is simply extremely rude, and someone who claims to understand interpersonal relationships very well would also understand this, and avoid doing it out of fear of offending or worse, invalidating the other person.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Why should I compare what's in my fucking cellar/attic to that of someone else, lol? That is the claim that is being made to begin with. You think you know that a) I actually have a cellar without knowing whether I do, and b) what's in it without being in there. And I tell you no, you don't. You don't know whether I have a cellar and you have most definitely not been there. At best all you are doing right now is being a voyeur who think you can see the entire interior of someone else's house by simply glimpsing through the window. Unless you possess some kind of laser sight which you don't, fwiw, because you are human like the rest of us here, you have no clue wtf you are talking about. At best you are trying to extrapolate how the curtain you see says something about my living room.


Well, I see you understand the concept of Fi now lol.


----------



## reptilian

Entropic said:


> Is this an analysis of the video interview?


I'm no expert and I cant really judge thing so well, but try to perceive as much as I can. Though I get these Ne ideas but dont give them much attention, have to quickly dismiss ideas, for new ones to enter.



Entropic said:


> As for the enneagram, I think you misunderstand the anger of type 8 vs 9, here. First of all, anyone can be angry for any reason. Anger is a universal feeling so it's not explicit to a given type. However, gut types have a sense of existential anger that the other types don't have, meaning they are more perpetually or intrinsically angry at someone or something though in the 9, the direction of their anger is extremely diffused. It's an anger at no one thing and everything at the same time, which is why it's so difficult for them to let out and express their anger because being angry means being angry at something, an object of some kind. 9s deny themselves this.


So you are saying all 9 will act this way? I thought all enneagrams are present in a person and have a negative and a positive scale. It seems you are taking your conclusion from deductions of how Abraxas is acting. Isnt perpetual also intrinsically by its nature? I consider myself a 9 and I think its not only anger that is difficult to express but other emotions too. I refuse to experience it as an 8 does until I get passionate about something. Your definitions of a 9 seems to be in conflict with Te (as you defined Te in the video and talks): https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-9




Entropic said:


> Anyway, 8 anger is very specific in that it's blaming and very direct. It's very much no nonsense. You got a problem? Spit it out. It polarizes as a way to try to hash out ambiguity. It's very much either you are with me or you are against me. Either what you are telling me right now is the truth or it isn't. There's no real middle-ground. When 8s engage in anger with other people, it's usually in the sense of "someone here [you] is in the wrong, and this wrong must be righted in order to make the world just again". In order to do that, 8s can act as arbiters of truth and the like. I am not very fond of most enneagram descriptions, but one suggests that 8s act as judge and executioner at once, and this is correct. 8s like to take justice in their own hands in this way. 8s are very attuned to power differences concerning strong/weak, and often seek to take justice in their own hands to set things straight again, as they think the world is fundamentally very unfair.


8 see the world as something they have to prove and win in. Its primitive in my eyes as a 9, although I can be perceived as that without knowing sometimes, so 9w8. I like talking to 8, they can go on and on on how they are correct. A 9 should by definition never have the need to engage in conflict as an 8 does. I can keep my opinion to myself or manipulate, 8 dont do that. 



Entropic said:


> 9s, suffice to say, are none of this, but the very opposite of. If 8s seek polarization, 9s seek ambiguity. If 8s seek directedness, 9s seek avoidance and so on, as a general theme, anyway. If you read one of my greater clashes with Abraxas, you will see that I as an 8, ask him several times wtf his problem is and what is going on. He doesn't respond until I start getting very aggressive. Very typical 9 avoidance. 9s easily become passive-aggressive, and he's showcased this behavior several times, and he only responded because he reacted against being pushed like I did, which is also very typical 8. I don't like when people avoid me. The more people avoid me and a direct confrontation of an issue, the more frustrated I get and the more I'll push for a reaction. It's very instinctive.
> 
> Also, the comments that Abraxas want people to take him seriously and create this sense of belonging he mentioned earlier likely goes back to him being a 9. 5s don't have that, for example. They feel detached and don't seek belonging in this way, to feel they are recognized by their environment. That's more the connection to type 3 that 9 has, in this case.


Good arguments. But does that prove he is a 9 lead? We know little about his everyday habits. He does self report as one, and you say that is valuable so ok... but what are his supporting numbers? 5 I'm pretty sure and the third? What is the anger directed at? Do you think he should be in your shoes? Giving interviews? He is better at rhetoric. But focusing this kind of resentment is a 6 thing, going into stress from a 9?



Entropic said:


> And I've always scored low on Ti except initially when I was new and I tended to score higher on Ti on the Keys2Cognition test. In retrospect I don't think I was fully honest with myself when I did though, and didn't quite understand what I was answering but who knows. I score average on Ti nowadays on K2C, still very high on Fi and Te along with Ne. I score higher on Ni now because I understand what he's asking for and I can recognize that process in myself though I still honestly don't agree with the formulations as it's not something I overly relate to as a whole. Fi is the function that's always been consistently high, no matter what test I took, along with Fe being the most consistently low. I think this is because I care a lot about authenticity as a personal value in and of itself, which may skew the results, since a lot of online tests ask associate Fi with authenticity.
> As for INTx descriptions being messed up because they correlate to each other, I agree. This is why I don't like the MBTI. It's ironically so poorly structured not just logically, but also conceptually. It's just a theoretical mess and it's a huge turn-off.


If you pre-know what the scores answers will give you then there is little point in getting a scale via test, you can just auto-adjust it into your own understanding. You can just as well influence on Ti results through your interventions to the test (marked words for example). But the question remains to how do you use Ti cuz to some it seems as if you are using it fully conscious(maybe you can take that as a compliment). Which description of INTJ suits you best?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

FearAndTrembling said:


> It makes just as much sense for Fe and Te. Wouldn't an extroverted judging dom have more of a will in the environment? Jung actually said it was Te doms who are whipping people into shape and is the center of the cause. Leading the charge. Hitler for example fits a Te dom description more than a Se dom. Fe pushes on people in a similar way.


I suppose. Like Fe wants to impact the ethical world, Te the logical world and Se the sensory world... Or something. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Jeremy8419 said:


> "Like" seems odd. I observe to be able to help as necessary.


Well I mean, I'm skeptical of your typing methods, so who knows how seriously I would take your input. Could always be interesting, though. In case there's any confusion, though, I'm not considering being a Ti-dom or anything like that, it's just something I like the idea of sometimes.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Distortions said:


> I suppose. Like Fe wants to impact the ethical world, Te the logical world and Se the sensory world... Or something. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> 
> Well I mean, I'm skeptical of your typing methods, so who knows how seriously I would take your input. Could always be interesting, though. In case there's any confusion, though, I'm not considering being a Ti-dom or anything like that, it's just something I like the idea of sometimes.


I am uncertain either way. But I find Fe pushy. I think a lot of people type Neil Degrasse Tyson as a Fe dom. I find him overbearing and controlling. Intrusive. The way he always imposes himself on the conversation and has to guide it. Let's assume Fe wants harmony. Harmony is a kind of functionality. Which is a type of order. You are getting into Confucius territory now.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Distortions said:


> I suppose. Like Fe wants to impact the ethical world, Te the logical world and Se the sensory world... Or something. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> 
> Well I mean, I'm skeptical of your typing methods, so who knows how seriously I would take your input. Could always be interesting, though. In case there's any confusion, though, I'm not considering being a Ti-dom or anything like that, it's just something I like the idea of sometimes.


I blab a lot, but I really just pay attention to interactions lol.


----------



## Typhon

Distortions said:


> I suppose. Like Fe wants to impact the ethical world, Te the logical world and Se the sensory world... Or something.


I think thats true. The extraverted functions want to impact their respective areas. Also, you left out Ne, which wants to impact the world of ideas.


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> It seem it is very essential to consider the demonstrative function when thinking of type.


Absolutely... ILIs are in a sense more -Ti than LIIs. ILIs develop this function from age 0 to 7 according to (Y)ermak. It is so much a part of our personality that it often causes boredom. However, this does not mean that we use this function more confidently than LIIs as adults.


----------



## Entropic

Tellus said:


> Absolutely... ILIs are in a sense more -Ti than LIIs. ILIs develop this function from age 0 to 7 according to (Y)ermak. *It is so much a part of our personality that it often causes boredom*. However, this does not mean that we use this function more confidently than LIIs as adults.


Demonstrative Ti doesn't cause boredom lol.


----------



## Entropic

double post


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> Demonstrative Ti doesn't cause boredom lol.


Well, it depends on what we mean by "causes boredom". ILI using -Ti_ privately_ does NOT cause boredom, but listening to LII's (or ILE's, or ILI's) -Ti often causes boredom. 


Socionics - the16types.info - Model A: Blocks of the Socionic Model of the Psyche

The fourth row of Model A (functions 7 and 8) is called the Id block. People see Id elements as a relatively easy, if somewhat *boring *and meaningless exercise, good for sharpening one's skills, but not worth focusing on too much.

Ermak: "vital track... is «my native» and «for me, the beloved one». Usually people avoid exposing their individual features"


----------



## Entropic

Tellus said:


> Well, it depends on what we mean by "causes boredom". ILI using -Ti_ privately_ does NOT cause boredom, but listening to LII's (or ILE's, or ILI's) -Ti often causes boredom.
> 
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Model A: Blocks of the Socionic Model of the Psyche
> 
> The fourth row of Model A (functions 7 and 8) is called the Id block. People see Id elements as a relatively easy, if somewhat *boring *and meaningless exercise, good for sharpening one's skills, but not worth focusing on too much.
> 
> Ermak: "vital track... is «my native» and «for me, the beloved one». Usually people avoid exposing their individual features"


That's not because of Ti itself but because they don't value it. The same argument is true for all unvalued IMEs. You essentially created a subjective definition that suits you in this context, making a circular argument. It's not applicable outside of what you just wrote because it's actual consistency when considering a greater application by looking at all the facts break it down i.e. it's not that Ti itself causes boredom because that's exactly what you wrote, but because Ti is unvalued so when engaging other people who places value on Ti, it seems irrelevant. Kind of like how I feel about you making subjective definitions specifically meant to avoid the contradiction you just yourself committed right now. The claim "Ti causes boredom" to "Ti valuing types are boring to listen to" don't follow, because the latter statement contradicts or edits the clause of the former, which is also a very different statement from your actual original claim that [Ti is] so much a part of our personality that it causes boredom". 

Tl;dr you are essentially cherry-picking to avoid being called out on your contradiction, especially seeing how the first statement that you made i.e. Ti does not cause boredom when alone, contradicts the offered quote that both id elements are seen as boring and meaningless as a whole. The application is universal, not context-dependent. It's not that Ti is sometimes fun but only when alone and Ti is boring with others. Either it's boring and meaningless because it's not valued, or it's fun and interesting because it's valued. It's about the general principle and application, rather than constantly lifting something out of its context. If Ti was sometimes fun and sometimes boring, it wouldn't be described as boring as a general principle, suggesting that by and large it should always be perceived as boring or meaningless as a conscious activity, or it doesn't fit the definition of an unvalued IE.


----------



## Asd456

My demonstrative Ne is useless. It's great if the context is to make a witty comment or sarcastic joke in conversation, but it's basically useless. It's impulsive and unproductive. When I use my demonstrative I am able to generate an exciting and potentially great idea but it quickly dissipates as well; it's ideation without the follow-through. Which is ultimately useless. With that said, I can't deny the 4D though; it is largely strong and unconscious (although I'm starting to notice it more often). Prior to learning about my demonstrative Ne, I valued it more in that I let myself succumb to the Ne influence, acting impulsively when it reached into consciousness. Now, unless I make an effort to remember the exact idea, I just let the initial excitement dissipate rather quickly.


----------



## Wisteria

Jeremy8419 said:


> EII: Warns of impending human doom similar to a prophet that rarely speaks.


imao
Guessing 4D Ni/Fi types would foresee conflict and therefore try and change things to prevent something bad from happening. Sometimes I feel like someone is going to go down a bad path and not achieve what they could, or I know a relationship isn't going to work out. Or I try to give advice on future prospects or decisions and they don't take any notice. It sucks tbh.

For 4D Si/Fi, this would perhaps make them more like a caregiver type? Especially ESI's when it comes romance styles.
Ne demonstrative would be try to discover the meaning behind everything.


----------



## Gorgon

I'm not going to sift through 25 pages lol. This is how I see Si demonstrative in xSIs:










The elements of the photo (the color, texture, etc) are beautiful and in synch (Si). There's nothing discordant or displeasing about the photo yet it still manages to be visually impactful (Se). The harmonious elements of the photo contribute to, enhance, and refine the the vivid intensity of the photo. Si is the backdrop and Se is the focus.

I do pay attention and attend to my internal sensations, the overall physical flow of things, as well as having a love and appreciation for aesthetics yet these are things I don't care or appreciate in and of themselves. They are always in the service of Se. Or better yet, it fine tunes and refines the expression of Se. Compare the Se of SxEs to that of xSIs. While the Se of Se-doms is highly effective and nuanced, it lacks flexibility. With Se being their base function and Si being their ignoring function, their Se lacks the subtlety, flexibility, and streamlined focus of creative Se (I mean focus in the way that xSIs use Se methods for either Ti or Fi ends). In regards to my duals (LIE), I cover their polr function (Si) with my demonstrative in the way that doesn't hinder them or is used to help further their agendas. Their shitty, devalued Si doesn't bother me, and more often than not, I view it as a comedic blunder. For them, my Si (and Se) grounds them in away that makes it easier for them to be focusly mobilized.


----------



## Gorgon

^Im assuming that's how the demonstative function works. I know it's unconscious being that it's in the id block. I'm still fairly socionics illiterate.


----------

