# On Te vulnerable



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kore said:


> And I should care because?


Whether you care or don't care is not cause for concern for nearly anyone here, frankly, so you can stop restating it. It would be in your best interest to care about what I said, though, because otherwise you're going to find that some people are going to consider you needlessly hostile and not open to rational discussion. That's going to affect your goals, not mine.

Hence, do try to harbor some humility in discussion and not act like you are the sole possessor of the facts about this theory. That sort of holier-than-thou attitude is not very appreciable or even worthy of interest.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> Whether you care or don't care is not cause for concern for nearly anyone here, frankly, so you can stop restating it. It would be in your best interest to care about what I said, though, because otherwise you're going to find that some people are going to consider you needlessly hostile and not open to rational discussion. That's going to affect your goals, not mine.
> 
> Hence, do try to harbor some humility in discussion and not act like you are the sole possessor of the facts about this theory. That sort of holier-than-thou attitude is not very appreciable or even worthy of interest.


Again, why are you putting so much effort into informing me about stuff I already clarified I don't care about?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kore said:


> Again, why are you putting so much effort into informing me about stuff I already clarified I don't care about?


It's sad and childish of you that you don't. Sure, then, continue throwing tantrums and being a source of amusement to readers.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> It's sad and childish of you that you don't. Sure, then, continue throwing tantrums and being a source of amusement to readers.


Are you done?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Kore said:


> Are you done?


I hope not, I just got popcorn.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

But in all seriousness, @Kore, why are you so hostile towards discussion about the points presented in your videos? It seems your entire motivation for posting that video is for extra views on YT, and possibly worship and support without criticism. Either motivation is a poor reason for posting the video on a forum; we're here to discuss and debate the topic at hand. If you can't grasp discussions without acting in such a poisonous fashion, I suggest refraining from posting videos in the future.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

So, in regards to this first thing with Inguz, you state that in a sense, Te is the progenitor for Ti in INFps, that getting source material is a Te thing. In effect, trusting other people to give you reliable information which you can then structure. 

However, my understanding of Te is that it is not quite sources in essence. Collaboration and pooling of knowledge (of processes) are important, but the thing is, it is about processes, not static structure. If you are unsure of a definition, I think that would be Ti, at least given this basic interplay you have proposed. Te would be some sort of rational way of doing something. Personally, they kind of blend together for me...but that may be besides the point.

Anyway, how would you correct this/relate this to your idea?


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> But in all seriousness, @_Kore_, why are you so hostile towards discussion about the points presented in your videos? It seems your entire motivation for posting that video is for extra views on YT, and possibly worship and support without criticism. Either motivation is a poor reason for posting the video on a forum; we're here to discuss and debate the topic at hand. If you can't grasp discussions without acting in such a poisonous fashion, I suggest refraining from posting videos in the future.


I'm reading a lot of assumptions, a lot of people demanding Te of me, but only one or two actually talked to me. 
Am I hostile? I didn't know, now that I do... no, it doesn't make any difference.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> So, in regards to this first thing with Inguz, you state that in a sense, Te is the progenitor for Ti in INFps, that getting source material is a Te thing. In effect, trusting other people to give you reliable information which you can then structure.
> 
> However, my understanding of Te is that it is not quite sources in essence. Collaboration and pooling of knowledge (of processes) are important, but the thing is, it is about processes, not static structure. If you are unsure of a definition, I think that would be Ti, at least given this basic interplay you have proposed. Te would be some sort of rational way of doing something. Personally, they kind of blend together for me...but that may be besides the point.
> 
> Anyway, how would you correct this/relate this to your idea?


I personally get a feeling of a blend between MBTI and Socionics in there. Ti builds systems and structures, I agree on that part, but what does it put in those structures? It's not necessarily Te material. What my dual does with me is throw in some food for thought, I ruminate it in my head and work on it with Ni and Fe, when I come up with the answer "That works this way in me" he helps me locate it in the structure and recognize the values tied in the function. Example: "structure" I start ruminating on how structure is part of my life and what it actually does, it's a little bit like drawing the plan of a house starting from the idea of the house itself, then once I have a clear view of what the house looks like I call out "I see the house" and he tells me if it's a skyscraper or a castle, or a hut. So, this that I'm doing now, is structuring my experience and my intuitive analysis of my understanding of the functions and how it works, if there is any Te in here it's my dual's demonstrative Te, but I sure don't have links to provide nor definitions nor anything of the sort, I can deliver you a roughly logic (subjective logic) description of what I do. Basically, I could do the same thing without using socionics, socionics is just a tool to come to a common ground with him to know what we're talking about and discuss our strengthes and weaknesses and help eachother grow.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Kore said:


> I personally get a feeling of a blend between MBTI and Socionics in there. Ti builds systems and structures, I agree on that part, but what does it put in those structures? It's not necessarily Te material. What my dual does with me is throw in some food for thought, I ruminate it in my head and work on it with Ni and Fe, when I come up with the answer "That works this way in me" he helps me locate it in the structure and recognize the values tied in the function. Example: "structure" I start ruminating on how structure is part of my life and what it actually does, it's a little bit like drawing the plan of a house starting from the idea of the house itself, then once I have a clear view of what the house looks like I call out "I see the house" and he tells me if it's a skyscraper or a castle, or a hut. So, this that I'm doing now, is structuring my experience and my intuitive analysis of my understanding of the functions and how it works, if there is any Te in here it's my dual's demonstrative Te, but I sure don't have links to provide nor definitions nor anything of the sort, I can deliver you a roughly logic (subjective logic) description of what I do. Basically, I could do the same thing without using socionics, socionics is just a tool to come to a common ground with him to know what we're talking about and discuss our strengthes and weaknesses and help eachother grow.


Maybe the misunderstanding comes in where you are sensitive to the definition of definition as a call for your sources, instead of a call for your structure. You (maybe) dislike the appeal to the "objective", which I completely agree with, I hate when people pull this crap. For me, definitions are suggested by the analysis. Sometimes I take what people tell me on faith, but that's just to get started working so I can figure it out for myself.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Maybe the misunderstanding comes in where you are sensitive to the definition of definition as a call for your sources, instead of a call for your structure. You (maybe) dislike the appeal to the "objective", which I completely agree with, I hate when people pull this crap. For me, definitions are suggested by the analysis. Sometimes I take what people tell me on faith, but that's just to get started working so I can figure it out for myself.


if you have followed a bit I'm being called irrational or being called out on factual, some threw lists of stuff at me, some other kept telling me how I was supposed to answer them, this is all Fi/Te material that I instinctively recognize by guts feeling. Fi demonstrative is even a pain in the ass, like literally a physical pain, that's how it displays. Every time someone actively brings things at a personal level and the plan passes from theory to me vs you, what I get is literally belly pain, that then I can elaborate in a perception of hostility on the other side. This connects to Ni urgency and makes me dart out the answer that my intuition decides will lead to the best outcome for the environment around me that I have in my mind (aka IEIs and SLEs reading now or in the future). Hope it provides my perspective to what you meant, it felt appropriate.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Kore said:


> if you have followed a bit I'm being called irrational or being called out on factual, some threw lists of stuff at me, some other kept telling me how I was supposed to answer them, this is all Fi/Te material that I instinctively recognize by guts feeling. Fi demonstrative is even a pain in the ass, like literally a physical pain, that's how it displays. Every time someone actively brings things at a personal level and the plan passes from theory to me vs you, what I get is literally belly pain, that then I can elaborate in a perception of hostility on the other side. This connects to Ni urgency and makes me dart out the answer that my intuition decides will lead to the best outcome for the environment around me that I have in my mind (aka IEIs and SLEs reading now or in the future). Hope it provides my perspective to what you meant, it felt appropriate.


I do find it interesting that you connected their hard line "one best way" approach to Fi/Te, as that is what is predicted by Socionics. Yeah, I've been reading the thread, and there's a lot of misunderstanding going on.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> I do find it interesting that you connected their hard line "one best way" approach to Fi/Te, as that is what is predicted by Socionics. Yeah, I've been reading the thread, and there's a lot of misunderstanding going on.


That's true! But if I move towards them I don't help either. Moving towards them means treating them like stupids and giving for granted they can't get it. If I instead deliver who I am exactly the way I am they can use their tools to understand if they want when they want, I find it the best solution both for my goal of reaching out to other IEIs out there and their understanding of socionics. Also, Fi unvalued means Fi unvalued, personal opinions or feelings about things are something that to me is useless, it simply goes against my focus on the big picture.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

oh! @*tangosthenes,* thanks for giving me a chance to show a bit more!


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kore said:


> Are you done?


Depends on what I'm supposed to be "done" with.

Advising you against your attitude? Yes. it's quite pointless -- good luck to you with your endeavors.

Laughing about your attitude? No.


----------



## The Portia Spider (Aug 10, 2014)

I understand that it is a lot easier to believe a concept is flying under your head than flying over it. What I'm seeing is actually an _absence_ of introspection. Your lack of self-awareness, and the ignorance of the subject matter as a result, is therefore unnecessary. It will remain self-imposed for as long as you allow your unobserved mind to run your life. Just look a little closer internally, and you should be able to see that your behaviour is feeding ignorance. Make yourself conscious of it, and this pattern will dissolve. Once you've understood and done this, you'll have a most potent transformational tool to help you progress. *You will become powerful and amazing!*

You have an unconscious fear of losing this identify you have created for yourself, and I understand it very well. I also understand that you have created a strong resistance to any criticism of your identity. This is only natural. But, it's impeding your ability to think about how this subject matter exists outside of you, and your personal identity. Ultimately, it all boils down to your ego's fear of its own annihilation. This emotionally imposed ignorance has become an intrinsic part of your egoic mind as a deep-seated lack of incompleteness, or of not being whole.. If you wish to progress beyond this point, you will have to relinquish these things sooner or later.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I also want to add that I did listen a bit to the video in the OP, but I cannot at all agree with that using Te PoLR as a way to deflect any potential criticism, logical or otherwise, is particularly sound, not in a generic psychological context, nor in an actual socionics context, as I'm fairly sure there are plenty of Te PoLR types who are very much welcome to actually being criticized and questioned and don't blame that fear on their PoLR. Having Te PoLR does not excuse one from not being logically criticized and to clarify, having Te PoLR does not excuse one for being an asshole and refusing to communicate with other people just because they are Te-Fi valuing. That's incredibly childish and asinine, writing off people based on what types you think they possess rather than seeing them as people equally valued and worthy of being considered when it comes to offering their opinions. Judge the person, not the type. Using type as an excuse to cover up for one's sense of vulnerability is very petty, imo, especially when it develops into such elitism.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

The Portia Spider said:


> I understand that it is a lot easier to believe a concept is flying under your head than flying over it. What I'm seeing is actually an _absence_ of introspection. Your lack of self-awareness, and the ignorance of the subject matter as a result, is therefore unnecessary. It will remain self-imposed for as long as you allow your unobserved mind to run your life. Just look a little closer internally, and you should be able to see that your behaviour is feeding ignorance. Make yourself conscious of it, and this pattern will dissolve. Once you've understood and done this, you'll have a most potent transformational tool to help you progress. *You will become powerful and amazing!*
> 
> You have an unconscious fear of losing this identify you have created for yourself, and I understand it very well. I also understand that you have created a strong resistance to any criticism of your identity. This is only natural. But, it's impeding your ability to think about how this subject matter exists outside of you, and your personal identity. Ultimately, it all boils down to your ego's fear of its own annihilation. This emotionally imposed ignorance has become an intrinsic part of your egoic mind as a deep-seated lack of incompleteness, or of not being whole.. If you wish to progress beyond this point, you will have to relinquish these things sooner or later.


Some day you will find your correct typing and say something that actually makes sense. Good luck! 

This is Fi leading, by the way. I'd say Fi leading with Ni mobilized. ESI. Let me know when you will find yout I was actually right!  lolol

edited to add: if you read with a bit of objectivity you would realize that what you are doing there is creating a judgement based on you personal ethics about what you think I'm doing (that you didn't see correctly because obviously blinded by your likes and dislikes, maybe also by the fear of finding ou that you're actually mistyped), then threw in a bit of invention and some projection, everything aimed at creating a picture that would make me take a distance. 
No, I won't answer any other of your comments you've had enough Ni from me with this. And, try to introspect instead of getting bitter at those who do.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kore said:


> Some day you will find your correct typing and say something that actually makes sense. Good luck!
> 
> This is Fi leading, by the way. I'd say Fi leading with Ni mobilized. ESI. Let me know when you will find yout I was actually right!  lolol


Because clearly everyone else must be a mistype and you are the only one correctly typed.  Fe types were never disallowed to express empathy, last time I checked.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Because clearly everyone else must be a mistype and you are the only one correctly typed.  Fe types were never disallowed to express empathy, last time I checked.


hmmm try to check in the dictionary the meaning of the word "valued", then see it's antonym. You will see from your perspective why you're not making sense. 

I give you the question in advance: if I don't value something, why should I value it?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Thread warning: Please try to have a conversational tone when posting. Undercurrent personal attacks will only end in animosity, personal attacks and possibly infractions.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Kore said:


> Some day you will find your correct typing and say something that actually makes sense. Good luck!
> 
> This is Fi leading, by the way. I'd say Fi leading with Ni mobilized. ESI. Let me know when you will find yout I was actually right!  lolol
> 
> ...


I disagree with all of this. 

In fact, I think that what you're doing here is mimicking his response and throwing it back to him, covering up any bitterness with jesting.

You may be mistyped, but I don't think that matters. That's not the point at all.

You seem to think that you are an authority on the material, above anyone else, and above reproach. Your only reason for not listening to the information that others try to give is because you reason that they must all be mistyped, whereas you are the only one who truly understands your own type, and therefore the information behind it.

Even if you_ are_ typed correctly, this doesn't make you an authority on the subject matter.

I think that a lesson in humility is something you sorely need.

No one here is truly an expert. Being open to critiques on our own understanding is how we grow and develop into more knowledgeable and interesting people. :kitteh:


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kore said:


> Some day you will find your correct typing and say something that actually makes sense. Good luck!
> 
> This is Fi leading, by the way. I'd say Fi leading with Ni mobilized. ESI. Let me know when you will find yout I was actually right!  lolol
> 
> ...


STOP the elitism. Stop it. You are not an authority on this subject. Learn to respect the viewpoints of others. Just how self-possessed are you? You are making typology an excuse to look down on people and disrespect their words and intentions. I'm going to have to ask you to apologize to him and accept that you are not the one true seer of truth on this forum. There is a heavy possibility that YOU are the mistyped one, so stop making baseless assumptions about people unless you want to look hypocritical and petty on purpose.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> STOP the elitism. Stop it. You are not an authority on this subject. Learn to respect the viewpoints of others. Just how self-possessed are you? You are making typology an excuse to look down on people and disrespect their words and intentions. I'm going to have to ask you to apologize to him and accept that you are not the one true seer of truth on this forum. There is a heavy possibility that YOU are the mistyped one, so stop making baseless assumptions about people unless you want to look hypocritical and petty on purpose.


weren't you done? Do you have more to add?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Damnit, I'm out of popcorn. 



bethdeth said:


> Thread warning: Please try to have a conversational tone when posting. Undercurrent personal attacks will only end in animosity, personal attacks and possibly infractions.


I ponder the potential usefulness that could come from this thread to be... uh, well... not much.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I disagree with all of this.
> 
> In fact, I think that what you're doing here is mimicking his response and throwing it back to him, covering up any bitterness with jesting.
> 
> ...


how is that not personal?

You can put as many kitten as you want, but that's a personal attack. I made an analysis bases on what was written, what are you doing? That is personal judgment and I have no time to waste with it nor shits to give about it.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Kore said:


> weren't you done? Do you have more to add?


Unfortunately I find myself unable to keep quiet about it. Your self-absorption is sickening. It's amazing to me how one person can be THIS defensive against criticism. Guess some more of that "introspection" is in order, huh? 

Oh well, maybe you will get away with it on the forum, but irl you're not going to be able to tell people "Get away from me! You are Fi! I won't listen to you!"


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Kore said:


> how is that not personal?
> 
> You can put as many kitten as you want, but that's a personal attack. I made an analysis bases on what was written, what are you doing? That is personal judgment and I have no time to waste with it nor shits to give about it.


That was certainly _not_ a personal attack on my part. 

I made observations about how you reacted to Portia Spider's post, and have given you an honest critique on your own knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

It is up to you whether you will learn from these observations, or not. roud: 

If you have no time to waste on having a reasonable discussion about Socionics, perhaps you should not open up a forum of discussion by creating a thread with your own personal thoughts regarding the subject.

Furthermore, if you aren't interested in being disputed, then perhaps you should be posting in a personal blog, and not a forum. 

Here, everything is open for debate, up to and including your own personal theories and insights into the system. :kitteh:


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> That was certainly _not_ a personal attack on my part.
> 
> I made observations about how you reacted to Portia Spider's post, and have given you an honest critique on your own knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
> 
> ...


why would I care about how you misinterpret my words?

Again, how is this not personal? 



No, seriously, I don't have any more time to waste. From now on I will answer only to civil posts.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Kore said:


> why would I care about how you misinterpret my words?
> 
> Again, how is this not personal?
> 
> No, seriously, I don't have any more time to waste. From now on I will answer only to civil posts.


If you believe I have misinterpreted your posts, please clarify by pointing out where.

And if you believe I have not been anything but extremely and awesomely civil, please specify.

I think that the issues with miscommunication may be due to the fact that English may not be your first language, and you may be misinterpreting information yourself. 

If I'm the culprit, I hope you'll enlighten me.

Besides that, maybe you're just trolling. :kitteh:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> If you believe I have misinterpreted your posts, please clarify by pointing out where.
> 
> And if you believe I have not been anything but extremely and awesomely civil, please specify.
> 
> ...


Though, she seems articulate enough and confident enough in it to make videos in English, so I am not sure if English really is the problem, but what do I know. I mean, English isn't my first language either, but I have no problems communicating. /shrug


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Though, she seems articulate enough and confident enough in it to make videos in English, so I am not sure if English really is the problem, but what do I know. I mean, English isn't my first language either, but I have no problems communicating. /shrug


What seems clear to me is that: She either isn't reading people's individual posts in entirety, or simply isn't understanding them, and assuming that there is a personal attack/agenda involved.

Most people where English is not their first language can be very articulate, and even better than native speakers. (Such as yourself. And... A lot of other people on this forum, and those who I know IRL.)

But, there are a few others where certain words spark the wrong meanings, and there is misunderstanding. Because they simply haven't reached that knowledge level.

There is an obvious wall between her and us, and I think that communication may very well be the issue. I see words missing in what she writes, a lot of it seems 'off'. Especially in her more curt remarks.

Whether it's a language barrier remains to be seen, but I think it is likely, based on her responses thus far. roud:

Just a hunch.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Kore said:


> you're missing the premises: one needs to understand what is going on to do what you're suggesting.


Hmmm. Alright. Do you mind if I use a post I made containing Te in a different argument as a sample?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Kore said:


> No, you're obviously not listening to a word of what I said or not giving a shit. Plus, you are using manipulative means to impose me to logically debate with you.
> 
> Again, I'm not interested. Find someone else.


Pot.meet.kettle . . . hmmmm . . . I wonder which "function" I'm using here . . .


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Autvoyeur said:


> Hmmm. Alright. Do you mind if I use a post I made containing Te in a different argument as a sample?


sure


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Kore said:


> sure



Excellent. The argument is here. For some context, the argument was over whether women should serve in integrated rather than segregated combat units, with my post being an argument for their serving alongside men. Make sure to read the post I quoted as well, as my argument is a refutation of that point (though it was flawed enough at that time for a rebuttal to be made later, but seeing if you can point out the flaw will be part of the _fun_ :tongue: )

If you don't understand anything I said, I'll try to say it more clearly for you. _But here's what I want to see_. 

--What, if anything, you can get out of the argument.
--Whether or not you can point out the flaw
--What you thought made it difficult to understand. 


.........aaaaaaaaand, GO!!!! :tongue:

EDIT: Actually, Entropic, you wanna confirm the Te-ness of this?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Autvoyeur said:


> Excellent. The argument is here. For some context, the argument was over whether women should serve in integrated rather than segregated combat units, with my post being an argument for their serving alongside men. Make sure to read the post I quoted as well, as my argument is a refutation of that point (though it was flawed enough at that time for a rebuttal to be made later, but seeing if you can point out the flaw will be part of the _fun_ :tongue: )
> 
> If you don't understand anything I said, I'll try to say it more clearly for you. _But here's what I want to see_.
> 
> ...


What Te-ness am I supposed to confirm?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Entropic said:


> What Te-ness am I supposed to confirm?


In the argument I linked. :happy:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Autvoyeur said:


> In the argument I linked. :happy:


I still don't get it. Extremely unspecific. Whose argument? Whose post?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I still don't get it. Extremely unspecific. Whose argument? Whose post?


Would it be helpful if I separated the link from everything else? 

If so, argument's here.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Autvoyeur said:


> Excellent. The argument is here. For some context, the argument was over whether women should serve in integrated rather than segregated combat units, with my post being an argument for their serving alongside men. Make sure to read the post I quoted as well, as my argument is a refutation of that point (though it was flawed enough at that time for a rebuttal to be made later, but seeing if you can point out the flaw will be part of the _fun_ :tongue: )
> 
> If you don't understand anything I said, I'll try to say it more clearly for you. _But here's what I want to see_.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what I'm supposed to do with that. I see the questions you asked, but I honest have no clue what to do with the post you linked. 
What I understand is that you are trying to prove 



> why it's a bad idea to use Olympic world record holders as benchmarks




using statistics. What my brain does with the statistics part is: skip, skip, skip. 

Thanks for showing me this. Just yesterday I realized the difference between reading an LSE and an IEE (vulnerable vs. ignoring) and I realized that I basically don't reeact to either, with LSEs what happens is "WTF is this person talking about?" and I simply can't focus, everything I saw yesterday was this person implying that intuitive processes are stupid and Fe is bullshit (which I can undestand from the opposing sensory and ethic perspective), whereas with IEEs what I see is what they say, I just find the countless options presented too chaotic. 

Now, I sure won't tell you how to proceed, but you may want to take into account my lack of interest in the primary theme discussed, although I can see the possibility for the application of theoretical thinking to that specific area, I don't really see the importance of that subject by itself. It's one of those areas I don't enter.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

@Autovoyeur : also, I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like you want to test my ability to use Te. 
The focus I can give you is that if you ask me for Te material or Te answers, what you get is resistance. The point is this: when things pass from discussing ideas to a me vs you approach, I don't enter the game. If I am going through a board and cross Te posts, or Fi fights, I simply go past it. 
Again, in case it wasn't clear before, I don't see why I would want to deal with (or even read) posts like the one you showed me.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Kore said:


> using statistics. What my brain does with the statistics part is: skip, skip, skip.


Same here. That kind of thing is hard for me to read because my brain wants to skip over the details and go straight to the main point. 1D Te @[email protected]


----------



## The Portia Spider (Aug 10, 2014)




----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> Same here. That kind of thing is hard for me to read because my brain wants to skip over the details and go straight to the main point. 1D Te @[email protected]


That's probably your Ne. Makes perfect sense to me. Ne wants the potential on the spot and flies over to get to the point. 
Still, you are using Te when you make direct reference to theory. So your Te is there. 

This may provide you food for thought: I have two IEE friends, both say they are exactly like me but then do things the opposite way. Example: They both like in depth thought, then I start introspection and they answer they will need to do it in private and they will come back to me when they're done (I'm still waiting - lol). Or, both say they love Ti to death, then when I start explaining their profile they deny every word, so I ask them if they think they are another profile then, and the reply is always No, that they are simply special, when actually, they fit in the functions perfectly.

No, I don't think you're mistyped, simply because functions dimensions is something I never understood. (Te vulnerable?)

edited to add: maybe you could be interested to read the description of Fe demonstrative as opposed to my video on Fi demonstrative on the other topic.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Kore said:


> I have no idea what I'm supposed to do with that. I see the questions you asked, but I honest have no clue what to do with the post you linked.
> What I understand is that you are trying to prove [claim] using statistics. What my brain does with the statistics part is: skip, skip, skip.
> 
> Thanks for showing me this. Just yesterday I realized the difference between reading an LSE and an IEE (vulnerable vs. ignoring) and I realized that I basically don't reeact to either, with LSEs what happens is "WTF is this person talking about?" and I simply can't focus, everything I saw yesterday was this person implying that intuitive processes are stupid and Fe is bullshit (which I can undestand from the opposing sensory and ethic perspective), whereas with IEEs what I see is what they say, I just find the countless options presented too chaotic.
> ...


Hmmmm. See, this seems odd to me on one hand, because I can only assume you've _done_ this sort of math outside of a debate context--it's a requirement in school, of course. Is it a problem of recognizing when numbers can be used outside the context of numbers? 

Also, I'm curious now what type you think I am. Since you mentioned LSEs.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Autvoyeur said:


> Would it be helpful if I separated the link from everything else?
> 
> If so, argument's here.


Right, I suppose one could argue this is exemplary of Te demonstrative.


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Autvoyeur said:


> Hmmmm. See, this seems odd to me on one hand, because I can only assume you've _done_ this sort of math outside of a debate context--it's a requirement in school, of course. Is it a problem of recognizing when numbers can be used outside the context of numbers?
> 
> Also, I'm curious now what type you think I am. Since you mentioned LSEs.


I don't know, I usually don't go around typing people, sometimes I do but I don't do it by default. How does me mentioning LSEs relate to you?


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Kore said:


> That's probably your Ne. Makes perfect sense to me. Ne wants the potential on the spot and flies over to get to the point.
> Still, you are using Te when you make direct reference to theory. So your Te is there.
> 
> This may provide you food for thought: I have two IEE friends, both say they are exactly like me but then do things the opposite way. Example: They both like in depth thought, then I start introspection and they answer they will need to do it in private and they will come back to me when they're done (I'm still waiting - lol). Or, both say they love Ti to death, then when I start explaining their profile they deny every word, so I ask them if they think they are another profile then, and the reply is always No, that they are simply special, when actually, they fit in the functions perfectly.
> ...


Hmm, I can see how Ne might want to skip over details, preferring to look for the main point. But in my case it's not just that. I think if it were just Ne, I'd still be capable of going through the details if I wanted to, because Ne doesn't imply weak Te. The ILE had no problem doing it. But I actually literally can't read that without really straining myself. It's like a literal blind spot. I tried to answer his questions but I couldn't even bring myself to check out the details. Like, his sources could be totally bogus and I wouldn't know.

IEI and EII both have 1D Te, which means it's their weakest function (tied with Se which is also 1D). Vulnerable and suggestive are 1D. Though I can see IEE having trouble with this type of thing too because they also have weak Te, though not quite as weak.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Kore said:


> If I am going through a board and cross Te posts, or Fi fights, I simply go past it.


how come?


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Modal Soul said:


> how come?


not interested. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Autvoyeur said:


> Would it be helpful if I separated the link from everything else?
> 
> If so, argument's here.


All the calculations made me think more Ti than Te. I would have settled with:

A soldier runs at this speed
A top athlete runs at this speed
Since the time for the athlete is better than that of the soldier, the latter is not peak trained at running


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

why was @Entropic banned?


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Kore said:


> not interested. It's as simple as that.


fair enough. you're missing out though


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Modal Soul said:


> why was @_Entropic_ banned?


Unrelated to this.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Unrelated to this.


what'd he do, then? and where'd he do it?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Modal Soul said:


> what'd he do, then? and where'd he do it?


Look at the bans/infractions thread in the spam section.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Look at the bans/infractions thread in the spam section.


"Entropic has received a one-month vacation for repeated trolling infractions and violating a separation agreement."

i didn't know you could file for restraining orders on here. this site just got 100 times cooler!


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

itt @Kore is sassy and i like it haha


----------



## The Portia Spider (Aug 10, 2014)

Modal Soul said:


> why was @Entropic banned?


It would seem that the few attacks he made that were of either ridicule or invective made a lot of noise, it's a shame that the help that they provoked were mostly ignored.

The forums will become more boring without him around, I think.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Raawx said:


> You like her dogmatic enforcement of veiled incompetence?


Oooh yeah. That's right. Call me a childish Fi type some more. I love it when my type makes you skip over my posts!

(..I assume that is how it works.)


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Kore said:


> basically, any time anyone jumps on an IEI with "corrections" of definitions what they are actually doing is being selfish and attacking someone that cannot defend themselves causing undescribable amounts of pain.


Cry me a river.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Typhon said:


> Cry me a river.


Now you're just asking for it  Tsk tsk, no one will be there to save you.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Kore said:


> Sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about. And thanks for actively trying to hurt me.


So, correcting others by asking them to cite their sources is cruel, but saying "you have no clue what you're talking about" is kind?



Kore said:


> This is a way that doesn't damage me. Same as Inguz. It was not a matter of having a retort (I suppose it means answer lol) it's because his question as much as your question allow me to answer with my instruments (Ni = introspection). You are not attacking me with a list of stuff, you are not questioning my sources, you are asking a question about my reactions, this is something that doesn't harm me.


Ni does not equal introspection. Or maybe you meant introspection is an aspect of Ni, but how do you expect people to understand what you meant?



Kore said:


> Oh, yes, I was heating the atmosphere a bit  lol


Oh baby, lets switch on the ceiling fan.



Kore said:


> That’s quite an ethical approach for someone claiming to be intuitive, isn’t it?
> 
> Since you can’t see what was hurtful in that specific answer (a Te PoLR wouldn’t need to ask), let’s assume for a moment that Te was about being factual and rational and knowing how factual and rational someone is, if a Te PoLR can’t understand what being factual and being rational means how are they supposed to answer to someone claiming they are using Te?
> Also, Ni sees into things. ‘nuff said.


"Rational" in socionics means something else. You really think you can convince people without any kind of logic, without any kind of demonstration of your points in a step by step manner, just because you claim to see into things, oh, poor us, how could we not see how well you use your all mighty insight and just be convinced of everything you say, oh prophetess?



Kore said:


> you're missing the premises: one needs to understand what is going on to do what you're suggesting.


Do you understand anything about what you are "doing"? Sounds to me like you are irreverent of logic, and I am irreverent of people who irreverent of logic! What do you hope to accomplish with this thread? Promote your videos? Convince IEIs(which claim to be, though I hate to think they are all as illogical a you try to be) that you need to cry about how hurt you have been because of how evil Te is? Create a "lets all cuddle and cry over how evil the Te doms are" community? Dont you think it would be more constructive(for your sake) to try and understand WHY you have been hurt by whatever you claimed has hurt you, to try to understand what went wrong instead of saying that using logic, reason, and resorting to facts is "evil"? You say you great powers of introspection, so why not try and understand why you feel this way, rather than complain?


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Amaterasu said:


> Now you're just asking for it  Tsk tsk, no one will be there to save you.


Horde tactics. Everyone commits some many oversteps, that they can't ban every rule-breaker.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Bash said:


> Horde tactics. Everyone commits some many oversteps, that they can't ban every rule-breaker.


Damn, that's strategic. Count me in, I'm up for some righteous circlejerking! 



Typhon said:


> Oh baby, lets switch on the ceiling fan.


LMAO best thing I've read today


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Typhon said:


> you need to cry about how hurt you have been because of how evil Te is? Create a "lets all cuddle and cry over how evil the Te doms are" community? Dont you think it would be more constructive(for your sake) to try and understand WHY you have been hurt by whatever you claimed has hurt you, to try to understand what went wrong instead of saying that using logic, reason, and resorting to facts is "evil"? You say you great powers of introspection, so why not try and understand why you feel this way, rather than complain?


Actually, I think she_ uses_ Te.

What she _seems_ to be hostile towards isn't Te at all, but Ti. She uses 2d Te, from what I've observed from her reasoning. I may be mistaken.

I don't really type people these days though, just my thoughts.

All in all, her behaviour has nothing to do with her type, of course. That is a separate cookie. :kitteh:


----------



## BurningIce (Oct 19, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Actually, I think she_ uses_ Te.
> 
> What she _seems_ to be hostile towards isn't Te at all, but Ti. She uses 2d Te, from what I've observed from her reasoning. I may be mistaken.
> 
> ...


from what I have observed you are an IEE and the fact that you're siding with every Fi type that enters the conversation should give you food for thought. MAYBE it's you needing to understand the difference between Ti and Te.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Kore said:


> from what I have observed you are an IEE and the fact that you're siding with every Fi type that enters the conversation should give you food for thought. MAYBE it's you needing to understand the difference between Ti and Te.


That's an interesting observation... But, after doing extensive research over the last couple of years, understanding dimensionality in typing, the Reinin dichotomies, and generally understanding how all of my cognitive functions fit dynamically... Not to mention the plethora of people who typed me as ILE... 

I'd say that your assumption is incorrect. I certainly do _not _have 4-dimensional Fe, and the idea of 3-dimensional Fi is laughable. :kitteh:

Agreeing with other's points of view has nothing to do with cognitive functions. Cognitive functions are the motivations behind behaviour, _not _the other way around, as I see it.

I see your response as a way of deflecting the issue from you, really, rather than any accuracy about my typing on your part. And this seems to be an insulted Fi response.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: You shouldn't feel insulted/hurt about typing or cognitive functions. It is a way of understanding your motivations and psychological processes.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Te types are mean :c


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Glory said:


> Te types are mean :c


We're all Te types in some form or another. :kitteh:

Embrace your inner Te. Embrace your ignoring function! :laughing:


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> What she _seems_ to be hostile towards isn't Te at all, but Ti. She uses 2d Te, from what I've observed from her reasoning. I may be mistaken.


Ti vulnerable or Ti suggestive, huh? I was thinking she seems like a weak Te user, but maybe 1D, iunno, I'm newer to the dimensions than you are. Care to expand on your reasonings for me? 



Glory said:


> Te types are mean :c


... says the ISTP! :shocked:


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Kore said:


> Those who want to understand what I say will understand well enough. Arrogant, self-righteous individuals are obviously not my audience. Good life.


The only person being arrogant and self-righteous in this thread is you. You've been hostile to any attempt at discussion in every single one of the threads you've opened recently. _Nobody_ is siding with you on _any_ of your many attacks on the people who come across your threads. Doesn't that say something to you?


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> Ti vulnerable or Ti suggestive, huh? I was thinking she seems like a weak Te user, but maybe 1D, iunno, I'm newer to the dimensions than you are. Care to expand on your reasonings for me?
> 
> 
> 
> ... says the ISTP! :shocked:


We're not trying to dominate anybody, or act like hard asses. We're cool. Some folks just can't take tactless honesty, you know the deal.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Closing this thread as there doesn't seem to be much in the way of positive discussion or learning.


----------

