Smilexian socionics: Si column

[implied]

;lkjlkj

[leckysupport]

An ENTj does not act like an ESFj, s/he does not serve individuals, get mixed up in minor affairs etc. An ENTj is not social. They act like they are above it all, something that may be annoying but is not in and of itself harmful.
An ESTj does not act like an ENFj, s/he does not care about the large scale effects of hir activities or morals. An ESTj is not ethical. They act as they had no humanity, something that is far more worrysome.

Do SLIs have the same or simular behaviour. Because I feel like I do a lot, but then I feel a lot stuff, so I don't know.

[Smilingeyes]

An ENTj does not act like an ESFj, s/he does not serve individuals, get mixed up in minor affairs etc. An ENTj is not social. They act like they are above it all, something that may be annoying but is not in and of itself harmful.
An ESTj does not act like an ENFj, s/he does not care about the large scale effects of hir activities or morals. An ESTj is not ethical. They act as they had no humanity, something that is far more worrysome.

Do SLIs have the same or simular behaviour. Because I feel like I do a lot, but then I feel a lot stuff, so I don't know.

That was mostly a reference to different clubs so sure. IPs have the same clubs.

[XoX]

Huge parties, SUVs? Never.

I'm not sure about the huge parties thing (the ESTjs I know rarely if ever arrange those) but SUVs and boats and expensive watches are very ESTj. Then what Joy said about ESTjs not wanting too abstract jobs...well of course they might not _want_ those but many ESTjs do work in abstract jobs because of circumstances so that is hard to use as evidence of ESTjness or against it. However all ESTjs I know (even those who work in rather abstract jobs) do like to work with real objects during free time e.g. building something in the garage, fishing, tying fishing flies, fixing furniture ... that kind of things. So someone who doesn't have any "concrete" hobbies or doesn't like them is not likely an ESTj imho.

Smilex seems to be on a mission to prove that ESTjs are more immoral than ENTjs or even ESTps/ENTps. Now where does all that enthusiasm come from? It seems quite contrary to Expat's attempts to prove that ENTjs are ethical super heroes.

[Smilingeyes]

On the analysis of the following description:

I have no idea. A warm body? Money? Sort of good looks except if someone doesn't like scars, I guess. Stability? Will to accomplish things for the benefit of the partner? Ability to give massages? Ability to solve problems efficiently? I don't know if those are good enough building blocks for a relationship. I'd actually like my partner to tell me what I have to do to maintain the relationship and then just do it. I'd like them to actually supply most of the warmth in the relationship, but not overdo it, just sort of give a warm response to my attentions.

Warmth, hugs, good-looking healthy babies, solace.

...

There's at least six obvious references in the above that are linked to in classical socionics and any other form of socionics that I care about. This is text that was used at a point in time to type me. While writing it I was embarrassed about including so many code-words that practically scream at your face , care-taking sexual preference, looking for someone of infantile sexual class thanks. Well, I was wrong. Apparently it wasn't so easy even for people who bloody well ought to know better.

For future reference... Any description of wanting to have children is a lot more likely to be included in Fi than Fe descriptions. Any mention to Health is a Si-Ne quadra value (judiciousness, avoiding of danger). The same goes for solace. Warmth in love as opposed to passion is Fi>Fe. Stability = Te>Ti. Will to accomplish things for the partner = caretaking sexual preference. At least those should be obvious to anyone whose been on the forum for any length of time, seriously. If you didn't know these, you should learn them.

I overestimated the abilities of some individuals and took it for an insult when they misjudged these characteristics. Perhaps it wasn't and it was just a stupid mistake. Whatever.

[FDG]

"Will to accomplish things for the partner = caretaking sexual preference"

What would be the version for aggressor and victim?

[Smilingeyes]

Also... Please everyone, just remember that all introvert functions create systems. Ni and Fi create systems that hard to describe, intangible. Si and Ti create tangible systems that are easier to evaluate, more forceful but more brittle in action. Fi and Si create systems that are easy to affect and interact with. Ti and Ni create systems of a more permanent, more ethereal nature.

Please don't fuck up and think that only Ti types create systems. Please. Just don't.

[Smilingeyes]

Mmm... Another lesson for anyone who wants them...

ESTjs are associated with the word onslaught.
Ganin commented of ESTjs that talking with them is like running into a brick wall.
Herzy, in one of her better typing moments mentioned, I believe bulging eyes and throbbing veins (I might misremember who said this though).
Short-lived tantrums in which much violence is caused are like a frigging trademark of ESTjs.
Again, this is according to each and every formalized system of socionics. If you want to claim that you know anything about anything, you should know this.

[UDP]

Mmm... Another lesson for anyone who wants them...

ESTjs are associated with the word onslaught.
Ganin commented of ESTjs that talking with them is like running into a brick wall.

Can you explain what those things are supposed to mean?
Running into a brick wall?
How does an ESTj use onslaught?

[Smilingeyes]

Mmm... Another lesson for anyone who wants them...

ESTjs are associated with the word onslaught.
Ganin commented of ESTjs that talking with them is like running into a brick wall.

Can you explain what those things are supposed to mean?
Running into a brick wall?
How does an ESTj use onslaught?

Ok, I'll answer your question and another one at the same time:

"Smilex...are you like...ok? You seem a bit stressed. Perhaps you work too much or something. Or you are ESTp lol."

An ESTj's PoLR is Ni and Ni is also about being a victim, right?
So an ESTj would naturally be someone who avoided being put into the role of being the victim at all costs?

Or let's look at it from another pov: ESTj is process and negative and taciturn, these qualities equate to someone who feels s/he is forced to the position in which a certain object has to be dealt with/removed/solved by hir.

Heck, there's many ways to look at it, but it's the drive towards the simplest, most effective solution to a problem enforced personally as quick as possible. Thing is, fighting solves nothing. So the ESTj rage isn't an attack (and I didn't attack anyone with my most recent outburst), it's an expression of frustration, a sort of "so... we've come to this now have we, I guess I have to correct everything by myself because no one else is able to a damned thing".

Oh yes, and classical socionics would say that it's all because of weak, uncontrolled Fe. Whatever they mean by that.

[implied]

Mmm... Another lesson for anyone who wants them...

ESTjs are associated with the word onslaught.
Ganin commented of ESTjs that talking with them is like running into a brick wall.

Can you explain what those things are supposed to mean?
Running into a brick wall?
How does an ESTj use onslaught?

Ok, I'll answer your question and another one at the same time:

"Smilex...are you like...ok? You seem a bit stressed. Perhaps you work too much or something. Or you are ESTp lol."

An ESTj's PoLR is Ni and Ni is also about being a victim, right?
So an ESTj would naturally be someone who avoided being put into the role of being the victim at all costs?

Or let's look at it from another pov: ESTj is process and negative and taciturn, these qualities equate to someone who feels s/he is forced to the position in which a certain object has to be dealt with/removed/solved by hir.

Heck, there's many ways to look at it, but it's the drive towards the simplest, most effective solution to a problem enforced personally as quick as possible. Thing is, fighting solves nothing. So the ESTj rage isn't an attack (and I didn't attack anyone with my most recent outburst), it's an expression of frustration, a sort of "so... we've come to this now have we, I guess I have to correct everything by myself because no one else is able to a damned thing".

Oh yes, and classical socionics would say that it's all because of weak, uncontrolled Fe. Whatever they mean by that.

i was under the impression was part of this where they were reluctant to reveal information about themselves which could incriminate them somehow and their reluctance was part of some ass-saving scheme. the whole idea behind their intentional vagueness is in part not wanting to be victimized. they aren't forthcoming about certain things because certain things could be held against them later. am i right or am i completely mislead here?


otherwise, i completely understand what you're getting at. i may just be reiterating exactly what you've said, doctor. (;


nice gender-neutral pronoun usage, by the way.

[Expat]

and I didn't attack anyone with my most recent outburst

Rubbish.

[Smilingeyes]

and I didn't attack anyone with my most recent outburst

Rubbish.

When an alcoholic comes to my clinic, I tell him he's an alcoholic.
When someone acts stupidly I tell him that.
When someone fucks up, I call him a fuck-up.
Doesn't mean anything more than that.
The first step to making oneself better is to admit that one has a problem.
If I act like there isn't a problem I act like I didn't care about the matter. That is an attack. To note someone's errors may in and of itself be an error and if so, reparations should be made, on the other hand when the note happens to be correct, the object of the notification ought to take a good long look at themselves.
I don't and didn't at any point wish anything bad to happen to you. As it is, it might not be my place to try to fix your faults but as it happens to be my habit to do so, if I didn't try, it would be a sign of me not caring about you. Now you may think this is rubbish, but that's just because of the socionics.
Anyway, I appreciate the way you act in general and the whole incident really did very little to change my views of you. Everyone fucks up every now and then. It's just that you're not as free to admit it as some other types are. And I don't think non-admission is even a great fault in you, I think I've seen you admit error every now and then. So I'm not even calling you at fault at that either.
Thing is, we used to play the same game, though even then in slightly different ways, but I've moved on, I'm no longer gamma.
And that does affect how we see each other.
And though it might have felt that you were attacked, it was not the intention of the action to be an attack. Please accept that.

[Mea]

O wow. The way you express yourself reminds me of phaedrus.

[Smilingeyes]

O wow. The way you express yourself reminds me of phaedrus.

Doesn't actually surprise me that much but let's still not go there. It'll just end up in tears and gnashing of teeth. And I do hope you note the differences as well. While Phaedrus is rather pushy in invading threads with his rhetoric, I'm happy to generally withdraw here and make my thoughts available in case anyone's interested. The similarity is only that we both have certain opinions of which we are not willing to budge just to please others. Now as it happens, that also one way of defining Te. Belief that a certain something is a demonstrated fact and unwillingness to change one's opinion until something drastic happens that makes one believe differently. Standing by one's words. It's a form of integrity but it can also be really, really annoying, lol. Anyway, talking like that doesn't actually make me happy, but the situation was a serious one and warranted straight talk, or so I thought. Heck, I might've been wrong.

[Expat]

@Smilingeyes

First, I think you may have misunderstood the point and motivations of my "rubbish" comment. As if I was expecting some act of contrition or something.

What meant was simply this.

If you say

I find this to be an atypically sucky opinion from you. [--] Seriously. Get a grip.

Okay, I started this off as somewhat of a joke but I find that some people here have gone deeply bonkers. Expat, Joy , you twits

Oh, god. Fuck-ups.

Idiots. Normally I don't care if you use a bad version of socionics but now you're even fucking up using classical socionics. Grrr, morons. Ok, I don't care, talk whatever you want. You still suck.

For you then to claim

and I didn't attack anyone with my most recent outburst

is, simply -- preposterous. An insult to my intelligence. Making it too easy for yourself.

For you to say

And though it might have felt that you were attacked, it was not the intention of the action to be an attack.

It's almost as bad, since you're essentially putting the responsibility on my shoulders for "feeling" an attack.

To recap: you started a thread on your type. Therefore you have no right whatsoever to expect only replies that please you. And if those replies were made in a sincere and civilized way - as were Joy's and mine - for you to react violently, in a "how dare they say those things to me", is, yes, an attack and a tantrum.

Now, I have no problem with the concept that you did not actually think "I am going to attack Expat and Joy". I do accept that. But I have a problem with your brushing it aside like that, and making it too easy for yourself.

You tell me "get a grip", I tell you: grow up.

When an alcoholic comes to my clinic, I tell him he's an alcoholic.
When someone acts stupidly I tell him that.
When someone fucks up, I call him a fuck-up.
Doesn't mean anything more than that.

I am not one of your bloody patients going to your clinic. I do not have to submit myself to your insults. That is the difference. Insults, as in "idiot", "moron", "twit", "fuck-up", "bonkers".

In my opinion, the only person here who "acted stupidly" and "fucked up" was you. Not me, not Joy. Just you. With no justification whatsoever, apart from a very bad temper and an unwarranted conviction of superior skills.

So, you threw a tantrum, I put you in your place. That is how I perceive the interactions.

As it is, it might not be my place to try to fix your faults but as it happens to be my habit to do so.

The difference is that, in my opinion, I did the same. I corrected your faults regarding Fe and Fi, in a way. Only you threw a tantrum at that. So you expect me to accept your "correcting of my faults" , but I may not "correct" yours. Isn't it how you see it?

Because you see -- even as it may shock you -- I do not recognize you as some sort of ultimate arbiter in socionics. In your own self-invented version of it, sure. How can anyone but you be the utimate arbiter of something appropriately called "Smilexian socionics"? But that is not usually what I accept as valid. I may be wrong. I can live with that.

What you then write is even worse, in a way:

Everyone fucks up every now and then. It's just that you're not as free to admit it as some other types are. And I don't think non-admission is even a great fault in you, I think I've seen you admit error every now and then. So I'm not even calling you at fault at that either. .

This is totally wrongheaded, patronizing, insulting - and embarrassing. It's projection. I do admit error, when I think I have erred. Of course I may have erred and not have realized it, but your implying that I think "uh, I have erred, but I may not admit it" because of what? Some image I have to uphold? That is not how I work at all.

Smilingeyes, these may well be your motivations. They are certainly not mine.

Thing is, we used to play the same game, though even then in slightly different ways, but I've moved on, I'm no longer gamma. .

This is more of the same. I am not playing any game here. You were, if you say so, and I think you probably still are, but I am not. So speak for yourself. You think you understand me, but you do not.

For the record: although I find it useful to look at socionics also through the prism of some of the things you wrote, at the end of the day I think that your view of socionics is, simply, wrong in its essentials. I think that what you wrote - more as a face-saving exercise in my opinion - on the "Ni PoLR of ESTjs making them outburst due to avoiding a Victim role" is, simply, nonsense.

It is, however, nearly impossible to discuss socionics with you, because you have appointed yourself the supreme master of your own version of socionics which, of course, is the "only correct one", so by definition everyone else is wrong the moment they disagree with you. A very convenient position to be in, in a way.

Which is, as has been observed, reminiscent of Phaedrus as in "I am the only person in the world who understand type descriptions properly" - only your use of data and logic is far more complex and consistent than his.

My point is: I think my understanding of socionics is more correct than yours. Of course you'll disagree. That is perfectly fine. But you have no right whatsoever to take as personal offense if someone questions your ideas and refuses to kiss your ass.

I do, however, have the right to take personal offense when someone acts the way you do.

[Smilingeyes]

On Te and facts.

Ni+Te attempts to establish facts.
Te+Si attempts to use the facts for some purpose.

The first one is less bound to following facts even correct ones.
The second one more bound follow facts even when the established facts are wrong.

Now my position in this whole mess is that I've done quite a lot of work on socionics and I've created a set on information that can be mashed together into a nice system, (though strictly speaking my set of information is not a system in and of itself, but a set of data). Anyway, I've used the past year and a half to test drive the set of data, to find practical uses for it, to test if one can accurately navigate society using the data, and it's worked for me. I consider the data therefore accurate and I'm no longer personally interested in discussing the principles. I'm only interested in the applications now. I'm interested in perfecting the skill of socionics not the science of it. How to test people's types quickly and with minimal disturbance of normal social relations? How to quickly and temporarily change one's type when dealing with people of very different type? How to quickly create atmospheres that support different kinds of social relations? These seem like interesting question. Unfortunately I'm as of yet quite incompetent to answer these questions as I'm only starting down this path. I'm trying to formalize the most important questions at first, to find the set of situations that most commonly emerge in which socionics is of use. The quick typing method would have to be first, I think...

Now when devising the quick typing method I'm not going for a 100% correct method, as information of that kind of exactness is not necessary in one's daily life.
Instead the non-invasiveness of the method is highly significant. Passive observation is preferrable but should be able to be supported by some kind of simple trick-like questions that would not seem out of place in most situations.
Ease of use is also highly significant.

Now VI has severe problems as a scientific typing tool but it has significant advantages and benefits when thought of in the context of practical needs.
As I may have mentioned before, I believe VI may have uses when one restricts one's attention to qualities an individual can control. Frankly I'd give proportionately more weight to a visual trait the easier it is to control.
1. Very easy : facial expressions, postures, mannerisms (change in moments)
2. Easy: clothing (changes daily)
3. Somewhat easy: hairdo, dyes, glasses, watches, very expensive accessories, jewellery (can be changed regularly or somewhat regularly)
4. Hard: body fat, muscle mass, professional or ideological uniforms/visual traits/symbols, piercings (show a long-term influence of a certain life-style)
5. Very hard: tattoos, surgery, injuries (show permanent or almost permanent events)

The reason for giving more importance to easily changeable things is that they are the kind of social messages a person is trying to give right now. There may be reasons other than personality or your interaction with the person that cause a person to be really muscular or thin, sometimes they're forced to wear a certain type of clothing for practical reasons and so on. You need to know the element of time to know to what direction the person is actively taking hir life at a given time and what is a remnant of past ideas and affections.
And once more, the point is not to find out a person's long-term habits because you will find them out eventually if you want to. The point is to make a quick guess.

So, I might be doing this in the future.

[Smilingeyes]

Bah, been a long time since the time expiration of answers last destroyed a post of mine. Anyway, i wrote a long answer to you, expat, in which I admitted some of your points and pointed out that I had already previously agreed on some of them. On others, I just made snide remarks since they were not based on facts but your personal interpretations of my intentions, something of which I know better than you.
Anyway, some serious points I made:

1. If you want to be holier than thou about personal interpretations, you should make it a lot more clear when you talk about your personal expatian socionics instead of classical socionics.
2. One should by now be able to notice our similar way of going around correcting people.
3. You're the one who dragged my patients into the conversation, something which was a low blow in and of itself, so you're the one who compared yourself to my patients, not me. If I was to expect an apology from you for something, this matter would be it. Though in your post there were severel other matters of which I could feel insulted if I felt the urge to feel insulted.
4. For the record, I am not here to talk about the principles of socionics. I've said what I want to say about them and it's been a couple of years since anyone else has been able to provide the kind of information that was previously unknown to me so I find it unlikely that I'll benefit of such discussions. I am here just as a forum member detailing my own travels, experiments and experiences in the field of socionics, to make myself available to anyone who wants to ask questions of me (something which many do), to occasionally have a bit of fun among people I consider friends and to otherwise profit from their presence and to occasionally set something straight when it obviously needs to be done, something that I do with about the same finesse that you often use. The last habit is potentially the most beneficial, but also the most annoying, so I'll watch the habit a bit more carefully from now on, ok?

Anyway, the basic gist of my post was, are you happy now? Do you feel you've gained what you wanted or do you intend to keep bugging me, keep exacting some kind of revenge for your feelings? I don't see any benefit in this so I'd like to know what I could do to make you feel not-insulted?

[Expat]

I just made snide remarks since they were not based on facts but your personal interpretations of my intentions, something of which I know better than you.

Precisely one of my points to you.

1. If you want to be holier than thou about personal interpretations, you should make it a lot more clear when you talk about your personal expatian socionics instead of classical socionics.

"Expatian" socionics aims at being a correct interpretation of classical socionics, and I think it's easy for everyone to know where I'm coming from. Of course I will be wrong in specific things, and I sound arrogant in thinking that I know classical socionics better than most, but I don't claim to be the only one who truly understands what socionics is about in a totally different way.

3. You're the one who dragged my patients into the conversation, something which was a low blow in and of itself, so you're the one who compared yourself to my patients, not me. If I was to expect an apology from you for something, this matter would be it. Though in your post there were severel other matters of which I could feel insulted if I felt the urge to feel insulted.

I will concede that you have a right to resent that specific reference. However, I only said anything of the sort at all in response to your own uncalled-for insults. If your point is that it was an exaggerated response, fine. I concede that particular point.

Anyway, the basic gist of my post was, are you happy now? Do you feel you've gained what you wanted or do you intend to keep bugging me, keep exacting some kind of revenge for your feelings? I don't see any benefit in this so I'd like to know what I could do to make you feel not-insulted?

That is not the point. You acted like an asshole, I put you in your place. It's not about "my feelings". It's about not letting you get away with it. That's all there is to it. You have what I see as a legitimate complaint regarding the specific remark on your patients, I concede error on that point.

I will drop the matter now. I have made my point.

[Smilingeyes]

For reference to any outsider following this...

Rick on identity relations:
Two like-minded partners who strive to occupy similar social niches. Understand each others motives and goals and easily become jealous of each other's successes, especially if partners have the same social status. Good for occasionally touching base and sharing experiences, and for teaching purposes — if one partner is older and more experienced. Difficult for doing multi-faceted tasks together; partners quickly tire of each other, and cooperation tends to break down if they have the same status. Partners tend to talk only on subjects related to their mutual strengths and avoid other topics. They are not able to help solve each others' real problems and can only offer general advice and relate personal experience. In group settings identity partners who are already personally acquainted tend to avoid one other.

Rick on comparative relations:
Like-minded partners with similar views and thinking styles but with different emphases within their common spheres of interest. Generally enjoy discussing their views, but rarely are able to arrive at a complete consensus or make decisions jointly. Less competition and avoidance of each other in groups than identity partners, but also less teaching potential. Partners tire of each other after a couple hours of contact. Cooperation is possible if formalized and if partners are able to maintain their autonomy.

The identity relations were obvious enough. The comparative hasn't yet established itself.

Anyway, that's all for me too. It's never smart to annoy the local sheriff too much.

Hmm, oh yes, typically I would say: That's all I've got to say and I'm going to leave this thread, but since, this is, you know, my idea of my blog, there's just no way I'm going to leave this thread.

...


I guess I could at this point give some pointers on scientificality to anyone who wishes to establish the new version of classical socionics, just in general, but I'm guessing that might be misunderstood as wise-cracking so I won't. Also I could only comment on what goes for empirical natural science as I really have no idea what humanist scientists consider as scientific criteria. So I guess that idea was still-born anyway. Hum, it's hard to be helpful these days.

[force my hand]

Expat FTW - *swish*

[Smilingeyes]

Back together typing stuff with Minde. Sort of happy. Busy. Learning whistling during moments of peace and quiet. Pissed off at betas ruining my work place. So far able to ignore most of the events but things are piling up. Trying to be real nice to an ISFp nurse, obviously not succeeding.
...

Slightly tired. Still going strong. Having a date with an ISFj on Friday. She's trying to catch me. I'm giving her an opportunity to show she can also be INFj. At least going to have good food and good music.

Tired.

[Smilingeyes]

I'll start with a question this time. If physical aggression is most like Se... and we have ISTj and ESTp who are both very capable of it. When they engage in mirror behaviour and start beating each other to a bloody pulp do you realize that their behaviour is in socionical terms amicable, mutually understood and agreed upon and a succesful exchange of information?

Similarly Te mirror behaviour is about stating things that one believes to be true to each other's face. Do the participants in the heat of the moment have the capacity to understand their actions? They may, or may not.

Observing the most recent round of Phaedrus bashing has been variably a riot and something sad. In the thread in question http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13935
there's two people arguing about the nature of , using very similar behaviour. There are differences, admittedly, but those differences should only go to cement the variance between accepting and creating Te. You can easily note the creation-creating fanaticism of Phaedrus and the emotion-creating crowd-pleasing of Expat. The one is trying to just repeat truth as one sees it, the other is trying to, well, he knows what he's doing. Hopefully. Anyway, EJ Te is something like... finding the most acceptable version of truth, one that can work as a common ground for any effort. IP Te on the other hand is something that seems the more pure, the less acceptable it is. The less it is affected by social concern. Let's put it like this... of EJs is like the lowest common denominator of truth. It's usually simple, easily acceptable and very reliable since it more or less depends on the cognitive and observation skills of everyone. Ip Te is solely dependent on the observational skills of the person using it. The only guarantor of it's success is the skill and motivational purity of the person using it. It can attain greater heights due to specialization yet the drop is also longer. It can claim as facts due to personal knowledge things that are not socially acceptable and do that with ease.

I don't care about the content of the comments because this is socionics analysis, but the words they use to construct the comments are very similar. I do of course see similarities between Phaedrus and Logos and Phaedrus and Tcaud as do I see similarities between Phaedrus and Lytov, Phaedrus and Detail and also Phaedrus and Expat and Phaedrus and myself. Still the closest connection seems to be to people like Niffweed. Again, something that may well strike a spark for a riot due to the "truth"-related nature of .

...

I feel the need to wax historical for a moment.

When I first came on the forum, this was a silly place. A bunch of people riotously commenting anything with no basis at all. It was a wild place, very alpha. There was a general sentiment against ENTjs in particular. I came in with the express purpose of trying to change that sentiment. I was pissed off at that time and quite bad in socionics too. Not a good place to start. Anyway, there were some disagreements, some of them quite severe. There was a lot of talk about a gamma takeover of the forum at the time.
...
I don't know at what point did it actually happen but at some point it did. There was a point at which some of the rowdier element were removed and the forum is actually a very calm place right now. As a place where consistent advice is given on socionics it's now far more fitting to the western audience than if it remained the place of wild guesses that it was in the first place. It's less fun but more credible and more capable of doing public good. How very gamma. I was happy when this evolution came about. And I'm fairly certain that I played a significant part in changing the atmosphere and the place myself.

Now I evidence that the original bias against gammas has turned into a gamma bias. I know it serves a purpose at this point in time but I still find it esthetically displeasing. I know that particularly Expat is doing as good a job as he can and he's having splendid results. I know that if I volunteered my opinions on types as easily as he did I'd make more mistakes than he does. I know that the short-cuts he espouses in typing are better for newbies to learn than the complex and esoteric-seeming yet in the end more accurate pattern that I have chosen. This is how things are, and I should just accept that this is how they should be. The recognition of facts is the start of wisdom. Hmm... Why do I talk here then... I think I'm somewhat motivated by guilt. Sorry alphas that I was involved in screwing up your playground, we did it for the greater good or at least we thought so. Honest.

...

For the record: I've seen Expat type as Ti in various instances properties that were more accurately labeled as Si, Te, Ni (accepting), creation-creating, emotion-creating or judicious. I don't know why he's done it. Everyone makes mistakes. But I'm getting the idea that his view of Ti is not particularly well formed, more to the point I've noted that there's a good likelihood that one gets labeled as Ti if one disagrees with him. *shrug*

Also for the record: I don't think Rick's typing skills are that good either. I've seen him mention changing his opinion on a person between mirror types for the explicit reason that the person seemed to be stronger in one function than the other. That's just wrong. That's bad technique.

...

Finally, just so I don't give you the wrong idea. I love what both Rick and Expat are doing for socionics and for this site. I support them. Everything I've said in this post is just nit-picking, insignificant in the greater context. That's just what I've become these days, a crotchety old hermit grumbling in my own cave (blog) with moments of doubt.

[Minde]

Oh, dear...

[Expat]

But I'm getting the idea that [Expat]'s view of Ti is not particularly well formed, more to the point I've noted that there's a good likelihood that one gets labeled as Ti if one disagrees with him. *shrug*

I've noted that there's a good likelihood that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

[Smilingeyes]

Oh, dear...

Hmm, what's wrong? I tried to make it clear that I support what he does as you suggested :/ I avoided using any derogatory names or harsh language. I tried to be fair towards all parties, recognizing them for their strengths and still pointing out where I think they were wrong. Hmm... Would you prefer it if I didn't take part in the discussion at all?

[Smilingeyes]

But I'm getting the idea that [Expat]'s view of Ti is not particularly well formed, more to the point I've noted that there's a good likelihood that one gets labeled as Ti if one disagrees with him. *shrug*

I've noted that there's a good likelihood that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

For that particular sentence that's true. I don't know what your idea of Ti is and I don't know what criteria you use when you label people with Ti. I haven't seen a pattern in it so yes, that sentence was only idle guessing. Frankly the idea that you'd use Ti as a sort of weapon is so worrying that I don't mean to give the image to people that I'm suggesting that you do. I'll just say it out loud: "I don't think that Expat is using Ti as a label for personal motivations. I think he's doing his best to point out Ti when and only when he thinks a person is using it." That's my opinion, voluntarily given, hear ye all?!

Is there anything else I can help you with?

[Minde]

Oh, dear...

Hmm, what's wrong? I tried to make it clear that I support what he does as you suggested :/ I avoided using any derogatory names or harsh language. I tried to be fair towards all parties, recognizing them for their strengths and still pointing out where I think they were wrong. Hmm... Would you prefer it if I didn't take part in the discussion at all?

By all means, discuss! I'd find that interesting, if that actually happened. You did take my advice, and I'm very pleased. No, I say that because despite heeding me you still managed to hit lots of sensitive spots. I suppose some of it can't be helped, though... Part of it is simple disagreement. Or not so simple. Anyway, don't be discouraged.

[Expat]

that sentence was only idle guessing. Frankly the idea that you'd use Ti as a sort of weapon is so worrying that I don't mean to give the image to people that I'm suggesting that you do.

It would be even better if you had thought of making this point before I had to draw attention to it.

I'll just say it out loud: "I don't think that Expat is using Ti as a label for personal motivations. I think he's doing his best to point out Ti when and only when he thinks a person is using it." That's my opinion, voluntarily given, hear ye all?!

Is there anything else I can help you with?

Hmmm -- cut off the condescending crap for a start? You should know very well that by phrasing it that way - "voluntarily given, hear ye all" - you leave it open to the interpretation that you don't really mean it and that your true views are that I do use it as a "sort of weapon", while at the same time "allowing" you to claim that you did say it. Are you in kindergarten or what?

And it would be ridiculous in the face of it, since at whom have I actually pointed that "weapon"? Do I go everywhere saying "you're Ti"? What are you talking about? Phaedrus? Yourself? Anndelise? I am hardly the only one to hold that view regarding Phaedrus, unless you go for the easy cop-out of saying that others just follow me like sheep. As for yourself, if you start a thread on your type - or even if you don't - you should be able to accept views on that that you disagree with.

As for Anndelise - no matter if you meant her or not, now I want to make clear - who said I disagree with her? I'm not even sure that I do or not. Since I am not at all persuaded that I understand everything there is to know about socionics and am infallible - unlike one or two people here, by the way - if I see what I think may be a preference for Ti, I am humble enough to ask if others see it that way or not. With no other agenda than to refine my own ideas and understanding.

I neither desire to be, nor need to be, devious. I don't need to use tricks like saying "you're Ti" or whatever. I will just say that in my opinion you're showing an appalling character. It would be hypocritical of me not to say it.

[Phaedrus]

Te mirror behaviour is about stating things that one believes to be true to each other's face.

...

You can easily note the creation-creating fanaticism of Phaedrus and the emotion-creating crowd-pleasing of Expat. The one is trying to just repeat truth as one sees it, the other is trying to, well, he knows what he's doing. Hopefully. Anyway, EJ Te is something like... finding the most acceptable version of truth, one that can work as a common ground for any effort. IP Te on the other hand is something that seems the more pure, the less acceptable it is. The less it is affected by social concern. Let's put it like this... of EJs is like the lowest common denominator of truth. It's usually simple, easily acceptable and very reliable since it more or less depends on the cognitive and observation skills of everyone. Ip Te is solely dependent on the observational skills of the person using it. The only guarantor of it's success is the skill and motivational purity of the person using it. It can attain greater heights due to specialization yet the drop is also longer. It can claim as facts due to personal knowledge things that are not socially acceptable and do that with ease.

Nothing new under the sun ... Everything you say here is either explicitly or (nonexclusive "or") implicitly stated in Dichotomic descriptions of the types, and it is explained in more lenght in Smilexian Socionics. It also happens to be perfectly consistent with how the types actually think and behave in real life. But it is an excellent way of putting it, anyway.

I do of course see similarities between Phaedrus and Logos and Phaedrus and Tcaud as do I see similarities between Phaedrus and Lytov, Phaedrus and Detail and also Phaedrus and Expat and Phaedrus and myself. Still the closest connection seems to be to people like Niffweed. Again, something that may well strike a spark for a riot due to the "truth"-related nature of .

A correct observation, in my opinion.

[Smilingeyes]

that sentence was only idle guessing. Frankly the idea that you'd use Ti as a sort of weapon is so worrying that I don't mean to give the image to people that I'm suggesting that you do.

It would be even better if you had thought of making this point before I had to draw attention to it.

Better in what sense? Perhaps I could have added some more diminutives to the sentence so that people would have immediately grasped the passing nature of the idea, but I can't go as far as to sensorize my thoughts on the basis of fear of repercussions. That would be dishonest. I trust you see that.

Hmmm -- cut off the condescending crap for a start? You should know very well that by phrasing it that way - "voluntarily given, hear ye all" - you leave it open to the interpretation that you don't really mean it and that your true views are that I do use it as a "sort of weapon", while at the same time "allowing" you to claim that you did say it. Are you in kindergarten or what?

You've just explained in great length why you detest it when someone implies that you lie. Is this what you say here not an implication that I lie?
Do you really, really, in your heart of hearts want me to give this the answer I truelly think this deserves? If this is not meant as an insult I hope you'll give explanation on this in some form on some forum. If you don't, I'll just make a note of that. Naturally you don't need to, if you don't want to, but you'd be a better person if you did.

And it would be ridiculous in the face of it, since at whom have I actually pointed that "weapon"? Do I go everywhere saying "you're Ti"? What are you talking about? Phaedrus? Yourself? Anndelise? I am hardly the only one to hold that view regarding Phaedrus, unless you go for the easy cop-out of saying that others just follow me like sheep. As for yourself, if you start a thread on your type - or even if you don't - you should be able to accept views on that that you disagree with.

-You don't go everywhere saying "You're Ti" but you do from my vantage point go anywhere saying "You're Ti". I just can't see any pattern to what you label as Ti. Do you want me to go around pointing out every instance in which I disagree with you so that you'd get certainty what I'm referring to? I doubt you really want that, but I may be wrong. I'm certainly not going to do that because it would be very time consuming and I doubt any good would come of it.
-Why would I be talking about Anndelise? Is she too fighting with you? I suggest you treat that as a separate matter. I don't know what this matter is about but if it was another case in which someone was annoyed of your comments on Ti (which is the idea I get from you bringing her into this) that would suggest even more of a pattern.
-And I don't know what others have to do with your thoughts anyway, I don't assume that you follow others like sheep so I think that you are responsible for your own words.
-And neither do I know why you insinuate that I haven't agreed on the fact that my creation of a personal typing thread was a bad idea. I think it was a bad idea.
-But there's no reason at all why I should accept views that I disagree with. I only need to accept the people I disagree with.

As for Anndelise - no matter if you meant her or not, now I want to make clear - who said I disagree with her? I'm not even sure that I do or not. Since I am not at all persuaded that I understand everything there is to know about socionics and am infallible - unlike one or two people here, by the way - if I see what I think may be a preference for Ti, I am humble enough to ask if others see it that way or not. With no other agenda than to refine my own ideas and understanding.

I really don't understand why you keep dragging anndelise into this. Neither do I know why you're interested whether other people see the same things you see as Ti or don't. It doesn't change whether there's Ti to be seen or no. What you're doing is a form of humility, I agree, but it doesn't create or destroy the existence of Ti, and the opinions you get are only as good as the people expressing them. It's humility towards other people, not towards truth.

I neither desire to be, nor need to be, devious. I don't need to use tricks like saying "you're Ti" or whatever. I will just say that in my opinion you're showing an appalling character. It would be hypocritical of me not to say it.

I don't know why you move to protect yourself from charges of deviousness. I've only said you're wrong in some points. That you think some of my behaviour is appalling should be a given for socionical reasons. If I wanted to act like an ENTj I could but I don't. And I've already mentioned at some points that I actually think that ENTjs are in general on morally higher ground than ESTjs so I don't see that as a charge but as reasonable. But it's also reasonable that delta behaviour is necessary to the socion and if everyone acted ENTj the world would be a very bad place indeed.

I'd just like to ask you, do you see anything good coming out of you repeatedly barging in on my thread and derailing my blog? There's a few thousand other places where you could protect yourself from the possibility of charges against you considering whatever you've done with Anndelise and/or others. Do I pose some kind of a threat to you or what's the reason? I'm just stating things as I see them and even doing it in a separate place.

Finally:
I don't like the fact that you take personal offense at things that are not meant to offend. I've said that I support your behaviour in general but it's hard to do it in specific instances like this. Anyway, I hope you'll continue your good work with socionics as you've done before.

[Smilingeyes]

Am in the middle of a very annoying situation. The date with the ISFj went rather well and am forced to ponder did I shoot myself in the foot by going ESTj because now she's giving me random PoLR hits in the middle of otherwise enjoyable conversation. Still, she is ISFj-Fi and I'm pretty much Te. So maybe, just maybe I'll be able to push her into INFj behaviour. Hmm... I don't know whether I'll try. The situation is rather nice even as is. And I need my energy elsewhere atm.

[FDG]

Am in the middle of a very annoying situation. The date with the ISFj went rather well and am forced to ponder did I shoot myself in the foot by going ESTj because now she's giving me random PoLR hits in the middle of otherwise enjoyable conversation. Still, she is ISFj-Fi and I'm pretty much Te. So maybe, just maybe I'll be able to push her into INFj behaviour. Hmm... I don't know whether I'll try. The situation is rather nice even as is. And I need my energy elsewhere atm.

Pay attention, pushing from behind is not welcomed by a certain set of girls.

Also, don't be an idiot. Relationships are important. Sometimes, more than career.

[Smilingeyes]

Am in the middle of a very annoying situation. The date with the ISFj went rather well and am forced to ponder did I shoot myself in the foot by going ESTj because now she's giving me random PoLR hits in the middle of otherwise enjoyable conversation. Still, she is ISFj-Fi and I'm pretty much Te. So maybe, just maybe I'll be able to push her into INFj behaviour. Hmm... I don't know whether I'll try. The situation is rather nice even as is. And I need my energy elsewhere atm.

Pay attention, pushing from behind is not welcomed by a certain set of girls.

Also, don't be an idiot. Relationships are important. Sometimes, more than career.

Thanks for the sentiment. I'm going to act with my utmost politeness. And I'll be helped by the fact that I'm really not yet particularly good at so I couldn't push very far to that direction even if I treid. But the career stuff. ... I'm trying to lock it down but I have to get my specialization done before I can really throw my legs on the table. At that point though, hehehe, I'm somewhat anticipating the fun it's going to be. But first I need to prove I'm trustworthy and before that I have to check whether I am trustworthy. I'm not particularly attuned to my feelings and I'm not yet sure am I really, really willing to go the distance. We've only just met. And I think I need to be frank and upfront about my doubts as well.

Oh, btw, FDG. She's studying to be a priest. What do you think about that? Could you, you know, do it with a priest? I'm slightly confused by this atm.

[FDG]

Am in the middle of a very annoying situation. The date with the ISFj went rather well and am forced to ponder did I shoot myself in the foot by going ESTj because now she's giving me random PoLR hits in the middle of otherwise enjoyable conversation. Still, she is ISFj-Fi and I'm pretty much Te. So maybe, just maybe I'll be able to push her into INFj behaviour. Hmm... I don't know whether I'll try. The situation is rather nice even as is. And I need my energy elsewhere atm.

Pay attention, pushing from behind is not welcomed by a certain set of girls.

Also, don't be an idiot. Relationships are important. Sometimes, more than career.

Thanks for the sentiment. I'm going to act with my utmost politeness. And I'll be helped by the fact that I'm really not yet particularly good at so I couldn't push very far to that direction even if I treid. But the career stuff. ... I'm trying to lock it down but I have to get my specialization done before I can really throw my legs on the table. At that point though, hehehe, I'm somewhat anticipating the fun it's going to be. But first I need to prove I'm trustworthy and before that I have to check whether I am trustworthy. I'm not particularly attuned to my feelings and I'm not yet sure am I really, really willing to go the distance. We've only just met. And I think I need to be frank and upfront about my doubts as well.

You've already been in a marriage, so your experiences on the matter are likely more cemented. Still, sometimes fresh water is better than cement. In any case, only you know your career situation. If it is a temporary matter, then it's always plausible to wait; especially if you have already told yourself you're going to get back to the best part of life (fun) when that ends. But make sure you don't get addicted to self-control - that's all I'm saying - I have been done there for short periods of my life and it rendered relationships more difficult afterwards (the slower you drive, the harder it is to drive faster, basically).

Oh, btw, FDG. She's studying to be a priest. What do you think about that? Could you, you know, do it with a priest? I'm slightly confused by this atm.

She's an ISFj. You can do everything with them, whatever their occupation is, even nun. At least, this has been my experience. Provided that they like you, of course.

[Smilingeyes]

You've already been in a marriage, so your experiences on the matter are likely more cemented. Still, sometimes fresh water is better than cement. In any case, only you know your career situation. If it is a temporary matter, then it's always plausible to wait; especially if you have already told yourself you're going to get back to the best part of life (fun) when that ends. But make sure you don't get addicted to self-control - that's all I'm saying - I have been done there for short periods of my life and it rendered relationships more difficult afterwards (the slower you drive, the harder it is to drive faster, basically).

She's an ISFj. You can do everything with them, whatever their occupation is, even nun. At least, this has been my experience. Provided that they like you, of course.

Marriage, sex, sure. I was thinking more about the religious aspect of it all. I mean, I don't doubt that an ISFj priest or nun could under certain conditions have sex with someone. I'm more thinking about whether I want to be a person who regularly has sex with a priest or a nun. It's a matter of respect to me. And even if a nun asked me to have sex with her I feel I'd likely feel awfully self-concious about it. Mixed feelings.

I think the waiting is a good idea. It'll give both of us a moment to get more of an idea what we really want. Slow rolling it.

...

I hear you about the addiction with self control. Been there, done that. Bad times.

The fun times. I feel they're somewhere over the horizon. Not actively aiming for them but I know they're there.

Thanks again.

[FDG]

Marriage, sex, sure. I was thinking

Thinking thinking thinking...too much of it become dangerous. Personal take on it, really. Some people might say that if people were always perfectly rational, no problem would ever arise. I'd object that people being perfectly rational can be a problem in itself.

more about the religious aspect of it all. I mean, I don't doubt that an ISFj priest or nun could under certain conditions have sex with someone. I'm more thinking about whether I want to be a person who regularly has sex with a priest or a nun. It's a matter of respect to me. And even if a nun asked me to have sex with her I feel I'd likely feel awfully self-concious about it. Mixed feelings.

I understand; a nun that regularly has sex is techincally not a nun. Well, she has to clear her mind too - she can't date you and also be a priest, after all. I doubt an ISFj would prefer being a priest to dating a guy she likes. But maybe I've only know the nympho sub-type.

I hear you about the addiction with self control. Been there, done that. Bad times.

They don't even feel bad while you're doing it. It's only afterwards that you start noticing the holes.

The fun times. I feel they're somewhere over the horizon. Not actively aiming for them but I know they're there.

Thanks again.

No problem. It's very helpful for me, too.

[XoX]

Not all priests have to be celibate...

Somehow I understood the problem is not whether the priest is willing or not but instead whether it feels ok for smilex to do it with a priest and whether he can ever be himself with her. I might be wrong though For some people doing things with a priest is a dirty little fantasy but for some people it is a bit of a turn off (at least makes them hold back a bit). I don't know which is the case here.

[Smilingeyes]

Not all priests have to be celibate...

Somehow I understood the problem is not whether the priest is willing or not but instead whether it feels ok for smilex to do it with a priest and whether he can ever be himself with her. I might be wrong though For some people doing things with a priest is a dirty little fantasy but for some people it is a bit of a turn off (at least makes them hold back a bit). I don't know which is the case here.

You're both correct.
Her church has no qualms about priests getting married and having children.

[Logos]

Not all priests have to be celibate...

Somehow I understood the problem is not whether the priest is willing or not but instead whether it feels ok for smilex to do it with a priest and whether he can ever be himself with her. I might be wrong though For some people doing things with a priest is a dirty little fantasy but for some people it is a bit of a turn off (at least makes them hold back a bit). I don't know which is the case here.

You're both correct.
Her church has no qualms about priests getting married and having children.

Anglican/Episcopalian?