With his permission: Johannes Bloem

[Narc]

Do cognitive processes drive behavior?

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

I'm not sure if you're trying to refer to cognitive functions or information elements, but they are differently defined, which you should take into consideration.

Then why the hell are you posting on this forum? "Socionics" is a "system that characterizes and types people" and a "type description" is really just a "catalogued stereotype".

I post on this forum to amuse myself, not fulfil some fanciful purpose or majestic Socionic goal. I moved to Socionics from MBTI because it was a system that was coherent enough that I was able to type myself within it quite quickly. There's plenty of literature that's helpful, which isn't something quite so accessible to MBTI. You can think whatever you want about Socionics, but it was the shedding of some stereotypes that made it far easier for me to type myself and others without having to rely on stupid generalisations like "goes skydiving".

[blackburry]

So because I use some Jungian terminology I lose all credibility? Dude, "auxiliary" and "creative" mean the same fucking thing! They are names for a type's second strongest and second most valued function. Furthermore, I think "auxiliary" is better to use than "creative" because it denotes the secondary role of the second function in the ego block. Couldn't the first function in the ego block also be "creative"?

You really need to get over yourself. I know you're just mad because you made a blog where you post like you know what you're talking about, and now that my ideas are threatening your conception of socionics, you're scared of being embarrassed.

This post screams Se- PoLr (overreaction turned into lameass assumptions made into an attack that isn't related to topic at hand... it's overcompensation to look tough and to look "like you know what you're talking about.")

and a gross amount of Ti.



also, you're really rather unlikable.

shoo.

[Olduvai]

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

Gilbert Ryle disagrees with you:

According to Ryle, mental processes are merely intelligent acts. There are no mental processes that are distinct from intelligent acts. The operations of the mind are not merely represented by intelligent acts, they are the same as those intelligent acts. Thus, acts of learning, remembering, imagining, knowing, or willing are not merely clues to hidden mental processes or to complex sequences of intellectual operations, they are the way in which those mental processes or intellectual operations are defined.The rationalist theory that there is a transformation into physical acts of some purely mental factulty of "Will" or "Volition" is therefore a misconception because it mistakenly assumes that a mental act could be and is distinct from a physical act, or even that a mental world could be and is distinct from the physical world. This theory of the separability of mind and body is described by Ryle as "the dogma of the ghost in the machine". He explains that the workings of the mind as it governs the body are neither an independent nor a distinct mechanism, that there is no entity called "Mind" inside a mechanical apparatus called "the body", but that the workings of the mind may be better conceptualized as the actions of the body.

inb4 tl;dr

I'm not sure if you're trying to refer to cognitive functions or information elements, but they are differently defined, which you should take into consideration.

I see "cognitive functions" and "information elements" as one in the same, since the functions are merely information processors. What can you really say about them besides what sorts of information they process?

I post on this forum to amuse myself, not fulfil some fanciful purpose or majestic Socionic goal. I moved to Socionics from MBTI because it was a system that was coherent enough that I was able to type myself within it quite quickly.

Lmao, I thought you went through like six different typings before you erroneously settled on LIE?

There's plenty of literature that's helpful, which isn't something quite so accessible to MBTI. You can think whatever you want about Socionics, but it was the shedding of some stereotypes that made it far easier for me to type myself and others without having to rely on stupid generalisations like "goes skydiving".

You missed the point.

[Olduvai]

This post screams Se- PoLr (overreaction turned into lameass assumptions made into an attack that isn't related to topic at hand... it's overcompensation to look tough and to look "like you know what you're talking about.")

I'll grant that I have weak Se, but it isn't my PoLR, and I fail to see how my post indicates such a weakness to begin with.

and a gross amount of Ti.

No, just Ne+Fi.

also, you're really rather unlikable.

I am unlikable to you, and I am perfectly okay with that.

shoo.

Nope.

[bolong]

I dare say "annoying as fuck"

Hahahaha, ILE. Pretty funny.

[Olduvai]

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

By the way, you're proving me right here, even though I agree with Ryle. If a thought process "catalyzes" a "separate decision" to "undertake action", then thought processes do indeed drive behavior.

I moved to Socionics from MBTI because it was a system that was coherent enough that I was able to type myself within it quite quickly.

Sounds like Ti-dual seeking to me.

[Narc]

Gilbert Ryle disagrees with you:


inb4 tl;dr

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

I see "cognitive functions" and "information elements" as one in the same, since the functions are merely information processors. What can you really say about them besides what sorts of information they process?

They are not the same thing. Even if we take away the erroneous 'cognitive processes' throwup you burped out there, cognitive functions are different in Jung, MBTI and different to information elements in Socionics. I'm not sure if you just fail to understand when you read (or if you've read at all)

Lmao, I thought you went through like six different typings before you erroneously settled on LIE?

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

You're taking this very personally, I noticed. Perhaps you're the one that's afraid of being wrong, which would make sense considering you're arguing desperately with incomplete information and then getting upset and having a little sook when someone gives you a smack on the wrist for it.

You missed the point.

I got your point, it's just not even worth arguing about, we have different opinions.

[Narc]

By the way, you're proving me right here, even though I agree with Ryle. If a thought process "catalyzes" a "separate decision" to "undertake action", then thought processes do indeed drive behavior.

I'm saying a separate decision is made with the information. You're implying that because it can drive the action, it WILL drive the action. Classic example of black and white thinking, and it also illustrates the difference between why we're arguing.

Sounds like Ti-dual seeking to me.

You clearly don't know shit from clay. I suggest you do a bit more reading.

[squark]

Michael Jordan, who I think might be SLI.

Sorry, Michael Jordan is LSI. Oh, and and you strike me as ILE, but I've only skimmed what you've written so who knows.

[Beautiful sky]

Such language really turns me on! Lets make babies together!

I had to put it in quotes because I didn't want to say it...but when I hear someone else say that it reminded me of this situation and how well it suits my current emotions about that. So, yes...it was the closest to how I felt.

[Olduvai]

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

So anytime anyone says anything remotely scientific or philosophical, they're using Ti? You're looking at the general "character" or "overall impression" of someone's langauge and equating that with a certain function, and that is where you err.

They are not the same thing. Even if we take away the erroneous 'cognitive processes' throwup you burped out there, cognitive functions are different in Jung, MBTI and different to information elements in Socionics. I'm not sure if you just fail to understand when you read (or if you've read at all)

If I'm so stupid and mistaken, then how about you educate me? What more is there to "aspects" and "functions" than "qualities of information being perceived and processed" and "that which does the perceiving and processing"?

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

Irrelevant.


[QUOTE=Narc;989795] You're taking this very personally, I noticed. Perhaps you're the one that's afraid of being wrong, which would make sense considering you're arguing desperately with incomplete information and then getting upset and having a little sook when someone gives you a smack on the wrist for it.
[/QUOTE ]

lol, I'm not taking anything personally. I'm just laughing at how much people are breaking out.

I'm saying a separate decision is made with the information. You're implying that because it can drive the action, it WILL drive the action. Classic example of black and white thinking, and it also illustrates the difference between why we're arguing.

Bro, your "separate decision" is itself a "cognitive process", and no matter how you wanna word it, "cognitive processes" drive actions.

You clearly don't know shit from clay. I suggest you do a bit more reading.

I've done enough reading. It is time for me to teach.

[Olduvai]

Sorry, Michael Jordan is LSI.

For what reason is Michael Jordan LSI? "Because I said so" is your rationale thus far.

Oh, and and you strike me as ILE, but I've only skimmed what you've written so who knows.

Definitely not you, lol

[blackburry]

So anytime anyone says anything remotely scientific or philosophical, they're using Ti? You're looking at the general "character" or "overall impression" of someone's langauge and equating that with a certain function, and that is where you err.


If I'm so stupid and mistaken, then how about you educate me? What more is there to "aspects" and "functions" than "qualities of information being perceived and processed" and "that which does the perceiving and processing"?




Irrelevant.


lol, I'm not taking anything personally. I'm just laughing at how much people are breaking out.




Bro, your "separate decision" is itself a "cognitive process", and no matter how you wanna word it, "cognitive processes" drive actions.




I've done enough reading. It is time for me to teach.

Is this William trolling the forum?.. what in the world.

[Beautiful sky]

My dear, there are subjective emotions and objective. Expressions of one's subjective emotional state as in "I love" "I hate" those are subjective "he looks happy" and such are objective...LOL Every human can do both type is set in what takes predominance as in which is "typical" attitude of the individual.

[squark]

For what reason is Michael Jordan LSI?

Start a type thread on him if you want to discuss it with ppl, or better yet bump an old one. My opinion in brief though - IJ temperament, receptive to Fe, clearly ST.

[Beautiful sky]

Start a type thread on him if you want to discuss it with ppl, or better yet bump an old one. My opinion in brief though - IJ temperament, receptive to Fe, clearly ST.

Michael Jordan is LSE confirm and final.

[squark]

sigh.

[Beautiful sky]

sigh.

go read about it. it's all Te.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...el_jordan.html

It's a common attitude of negativist types to fair through tough times and succeed while I think positivists tend to withdraw and look elsewhere for success

It's all about work and teaching others (like disciplining) on how to become successful.

"I've always believed that if you put in the work, the results will come."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...CPw8ivfHApA.99

[Narc]

So anytime anyone says anything remotely scientific or philosophical, they're using Ti? You're looking at the general "character" or "overall impression" of someone's langauge and equating that with a certain function, and that is where you err.

No, look at the way he's separating the information and defining it:

The rationalist theory that there is a transformation into physical acts of some purely mental factulty of "Will" or "Volition" is therefore a misconception because it mistakenly assumes that a mental act could be and is distinct from a physical act, or even that a mental world could be and is distinct from the physical world. This theory of the separability of mind and body is described by Ryle as "the dogma of the ghost in the machine". He explains that the workings of the mind as it governs the body are neither an independent nor a distinct mechanism, that there is no entity called "Mind" inside a mechanical apparatus called "the body", but that the workings of the mind may be better conceptualized as the actions of the body.

This isn't just a case of something 'vaguely scientific' being tarred with the Ti brush. It is Ti. Purposely clarifying based on a perceived misconception of another, centring around clarifying a concept. (As a side note: formal logic is most likely derived from Ti.)

Te is generally quite terse in comparison, but will get verbose when a sentence is created that connects a series of events together. Example: "To cook this dish, you need to oil up the pan, then put the heat up to halfway and let it simmer for 10 minutes, then you put the beef mince into the pan in small amounts so the excess fat will begin to burn out, wait for the meat to properly sear before adding more meat in the pan, then add spices, etc. Then, then, then, then, then. Doing one thing opens that door, and doing that thing opens this door, etc. Seems to pertain far less to clarification and works based on an understanding that each object/person in a situation will do a certain thing a certain way and crafting a goal or process from that.

If I'm so stupid and mistaken, then how about you educate me? What more is there to "aspects" and "functions" than "qualities of information being perceived and processed" and "that which does the perceiving and processing"?

Jung and Briggsy define the cognitive functions differently to each other. I don't care to categorise them in any specific way, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that each set of definitions are incompatible with the other, so a dual/tri-discipline approach will create a series of inconsistencies. It's easier for my purposes to keep to Socionics. This root of this question reeked of Ti argument trap, by the way. Not something I find interesting to discuss, nor helpful. It's a sleight of hand that Ti ego types seem to use to provoke a debate.

Irrelevant.

Hahaha, not at all, young grasshopper.

lol, I'm not taking anything personally. I'm just laughing at how much people are breaking out.

Okay.

Bro, your "separate decision" is itself a "cognitive process", and no matter how you wanna word it, "cognitive processes" drive actions.

I don't really care, to be honest. I only have arguments like these when I'm drunk and bored and I'm neither of which right now.

I've done enough reading. It is time for me to teach.

I promise you, that time has not yet come.

[Olduvai]

My dear, there are subjective emotions and objective. Expressions of one's subjective emotional state as in "I love" "I hate" those are subjective "he looks happy" and such are objective...LOL Every human can do both type is set in what takes predominance as in which is "typical" attitude of the individual.

has_anynoe.jpg

Start a type thread on him if you want to discuss it with ppl, or better yet bump an old one. My opinion in brief though - IJ temperament, receptive to Fe, clearly ST.

I'll agree that he is clearly ST, but I don't think he has an IJ temperament. He was late to a press conference in one of the videos I posted, and that is uncharacteristic of any IJ type, as they are all equally attuned to Ni, though they vary in their valuation of it.

No, look at the way he's separating the information and defining it:

You realize that I copy+pasted that from Wikipedia, right? Regardless, "separating information and defining it" is something we all do.

This isn't just a case of something 'vaguely scientific' being tarred with the Ti brush. It is Ti. Purposely clarifying based on a perceived misconception of another,

Don't we all do that when we think we're being misunderstood? Type-unrelated.

centring around clarifying a concept.

Welcome to the redundancy factory where we make redundant, this is the redundancy factory.

(As a side note: formal logic is most likely derived from Ti.)

"Formal logic"? Fucking children and their buzzwords, I'll tell ya.

Te is generally quite terse in comparison,

It depends on whether it is plus- or minus-Te and whether it is the "primary function" or the "auxiliary function" (before you get butthurt over bullshit again, that is my own terminology). A type with plus-Te as its primary function would likely be loquacious compared to a type with minus-Te as its auxiliary function; incidentally, I believe the supervision of LIE by SLI is related to this.

Example:

I can't wait.

"To cook this dish, you need to oil up the pan, then put the heat up to halfway and let it simmer for 10 minutes, then you put the beef mince into the pan in small amounts so the excess fat will begin to burn out,

Your example is pathetically-disguised and poorly-rendered Ti blended with scraps of Ni, Se, and Fe:

To cook this dish

You're establishing a plus-Ti context for your example with this statement. You could've easily jumped into the action and still made your point.

You need to oil up the pan, then put the heat up to halfway and let it simmer for 10 minutes

The first bolded section is plus-Ti insofar as it means "the rules for dish-cooking necessitate that you oil up the pan". The second bolded section indicates Ni in a pop-psychy kinda way. Take it or leave it.

wait for the meat to properly sear before adding more meat in the pan, then add spices, etc. Then, then, then, then, then. Doing one thing opens that door, and doing that thing opens this door, etc.

You are focusing on the "relation" between your "actions" and the "objects" involved, but not on the "objects" themselves. That is plus-Ti.
If I may, allow me to rewrite your statement in my chickenscratch minus-Te:

"Food can stick to pans if you don't use enough oil, so apply a generous coating then let it sizzle on medium heat until the oil starts popping and crackling. Take a half-cup of minced beef and drop it in the pan. Let all the excess fat burn out and then put in another half-cup."

That is "Explicit Object Dynamics". That is Te.

Jung and Briggsy define the cognitive functions differently to each other.

It doesn't matter how they define them if you're just borrowing their terminology.

I don't care to categorise them in any specific way, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that each set of definitions are incompatible with the other, so a dual/tri-discipline approach will create a series of inconsistencies.

Again, I'm just borrowing terminology and using my own, better definitions, kinda like how Model A borrows Freudian terminology.

It's easier for my purposes to keep to Socionics. This root of this question reeked of Ti argument trap, by the way. Not something I find interesting to discuss, nor helpful. It's a sleight of hand that Ti ego types seem to use to provoke a debate.

lol @ "Ti Argument Trap". That sounds like a Pokemon attack.

Hahaha, not at all, young grasshopper.

Yoda-Meme.jpg

I don't really care, to be honest. I only have arguments like these when I'm drunk and bored and I'm neither of which right now.

Good, because you're a waste of my time.

I promise you, that time has not yet come.

That's only because you're not listening.

[consentingadult]

I had to put it in quotes because I didn't want to say it...but when I hear someone else say that it reminded me of this situation and how well it suits my current emotions about that. So, yes...it was the closest to how I felt.

I saddens me to see I failed to touch your heart :-(

[Narc]

@Johannes Bloem: Your massive immaturity + communication barrier = no more of me wasting my time on you. I say you're a particularly annoying ILE/LII.

Enjoy playing around in your little sandbox.

[Beautiful sky]

I saddens me to see I failed to touch your heart :-(

You didn't fail. You did touch my heart lol

[strangeling]

Let's say you are IEE,
By your understanding, how would the super aggressiveness and seeming overreactions to an unwillingness to be wrong play into you being IEE? Of course, if you're unwilling to validate my perception as relating to your behavior in some way, I guess there's little that you will entertain that you don't already agree with. And I actually could see that as a super ego complex then, ironically.

[consentingadult]

You didn't fail. You did touch my heart lol

really? You make me blush!

[DaftPunk]

Johannes you seem like a person who gives shit on etiquette. You have to ask yourself how much aware you are of that. If you really aware of your behaviour IEE is a possibility otherwise weak unvalued Fi is likely i'd say ILE-Ti or LII.

Especially male IEE can be very confrontational (with words )

Considering Quadras Delta wouldn't be my first choice for you.

[Zero11]

Johannes you seem like a person who gives shit on etiquette. You have to ask yourself how much aware you are of that. If you really aware of your behaviour IEE is a possibility otherwise weak unvalued Fi is likely i'd say ILE-Ti or LII.

Especially male IEE can be very confrontational (with words )

Considering Quadras Delta wouldn't be my first choice for you.

Who doesn´t give shit to etiquett? He was insulted, called being a yerk, said that he doesn´t know what he is talking about and that with very weak logic and without proof. So where is your Etiquette now? The subjective perception are really obvious here. Infact the attackers here behave like little children sweet-talk everything into their twisted realm.

[DaftPunk]

Who doesn´t give shit to etiquett? He was insulted, called being a yerk, said that he doesn´t know what he is talking about and that with very weak logic and without proof. So where is your Etiquette now? The subjective perception are really obvious here. Infact the attackers here behave like little children sweet-talk everything into their twisted realm.

My main point is not this thread but conversation in the chatbox and overallimpression. I don't play judge here.

[wacey]

Your example is pathetically-disguised and poorly-rendered Ti blended with scraps of Ni, Se, and Fe:

Throwing a snowball at the broad side of a barn, of course your going to hit something.

[blackburry]

Who doesn´t give shit to etiquett? He was insulted, called being a yerk, said that he doesn´t know what he is talking about and that with very weak logic and without proof. So where is your Etiquette now? The subjective perception are really obvious here. Infact the attackers here behave like little children sweet-talk everything into their twisted realm.

Is English not your first language because WTF DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?



also @Johannes Bloem, Tackk made a good point..

Let's say you are IEE,
By your understanding, how would the super aggressiveness and seeming overreactions to an unwillingness to be wrong play into you being IEE? Of course, if you're unwilling to validate my perception as relating to your behavior in some way, I guess there's little that you will entertain that you don't already agree with. And I actually could see that as a super ego complex then, ironically.

You should respond to this.


also.

I'll agree that he is clearly ST, but I don't think he has an IJ temperament. He was late to a press conference in one of the videos I posted, and that is uncharacteristic of any IJ type, as they are all equally attuned to Ni, though they vary in their valuation of it.




Your example is pathetically-disguised and poorly-rendered Ti blended with scraps of Ni, Se, and Fe:

You're establishing a plus-Ti context for your example with this statement. You could've easily jumped into the action and still made your point.

The first bolded section is plus-Ti insofar as it means "the rules for dish-cooking necessitate that you oil up the pan". The second bolded section indicates Ni in a pop-psychy kinda way. Take it or leave it.

You are focusing on the "relation" between your "actions" and the "objects" involved, but not on the "objects" themselves. That is plus-Ti.
If I may, allow me to rewrite your statement in my chickenscratch minus-Te:

"Food can stick to pans if you don't use enough oil, so apply a generous coating then let it sizzle on medium heat until the oil starts popping and crackling. Take a half-cup of minced beef and drop it in the pan. Let all the excess fat burn out and then put in another half-cup."

That is "Explicit Object Dynamics". That is Te.

Generalizations about types are always correct, aren't they you simple-minded twerp? He was late to a press conference in one of the videos I posted, and that is uncharacteristic of any IJ type, as they are all equally attuned to Ni, though they vary in their valuation of it.

YEAH! If someone is late to anything in their entire life, cross that IJ temperment out ya'll because they can't be it. nope. nada. impossible.

[Olduvai]

@Johannes Bloem: Your massive immaturity + communication barrier = no more of me wasting my time on you. I say you're a particularly annoying ILE/LII.

Here is Filatova on the relationship between IEE and IEI:

Ekaterina Filatova "Art of understanding yourself and others"

Here we have four identical functions of different orientation in the same channels. And, at the same time - not a single communication channel on identical functions. This implies that for these partners, there isn't any significant sphere in which they would have same point of view.

Where one pays attention to external processes via his extroverted function, the other focuses on the internal states via his introverted function, and vice versa. As a result, it becomes difficult for these partners to understand each other and agree.

Enjoy playing around in your little sandbox.

This statement is completely meaningless. What a waste of time and forum space.

Considering Quadras Delta wouldn't be my first choice for you.

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

Who doesn´t give shit to etiquett? He was insulted, called being a yerk, said that he doesn´t know what he is talking about and that with very weak logic and without proof. So where is your Etiquette now? The subjective perception are really obvious here. Infact the attackers here behave like little children sweet-talk everything into their twisted realm.

Finally, someone who gets it! Thank you for your support!

Throwing a snowball at the broad side of a barn, of course your going to hit something.

No, that is what I found embedded in the statement.

Is English not your first language because WTF DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?

If you don't already understand it I'm afraid you never will.

You should respond to this.

But I'm sick of taking out the garbage

, and that is uncharacteristic of any IJ type, as they are all equally attuned to Ni, though they vary in their valuation of it.[/B]

YEAH! If someone is late to anything in their entire life, cross that IJ temperment out ya'll because they can't be it. nope. nada. impossible.

No, I merely said that being late to a conference "suggests" a temperament other than IJ. If the reason people believe Michael is IJ is because he invested so much time into basketball, then they're doing the same thing I do when I say "he was late, I do not think him IJ". The difference is that I follow my statement up with "that is because an IJ, regardless of type, will be adept in Ni, which has been described by some as a keen sense of time". Furthermore, if Michael Jordan really is SLI, then he is an "obstinate" type and would thus be normal in devoting a lot of time to an interest of his.

Basketball itself is a "dynamic" game, with plays often developing a seemingly spontaneous manner as the players constantly adjust their positions on the court relative to the ball, which constitutes the center of action. An SLI, whose primary function is Si, or "Implicit Relation Dynamics", and whose auxiliary function is Te, or "Explicit Object Dynamics", would be in an excellent position to excel in a dynamic game like basketball. The primary function might be responsible for some of Michael's more "creative" moments, as with it he could have envisioned a dynamic relationship between himself, the ball, the other players, the basketball hoop, and the court itself that no other player could conceive of. His well-trained auxiliary function assisted with court awareness - tracking the "Explicit Dynamics" of the "Objects" of play, i.e. the players and the ball.

Now, if you'd like to tell me why he is IJ, I'm all ears.

[Narc]

You realize that I copy+pasted that from Wikipedia, right? Regardless, "separating information and defining it" is something we all do.

Yes, I realise that you copied and pasted. You're not processing my posts properly because you're too concerned with excluding any information that doesn't match your fruity little subjective system.

Don't we all do that when we think we're being misunderstood? Type-unrelated.

Are you really so short-sighted? I pointed out that he's clarifying within a specific area and that was the difference. You seem quite adamant about arguing to win and in doing that, you're shutting yourself off to furthering your understanding, which I think is a big shame. I'm happy to wait until you've managed to read my posts properly and actually get the point.

Welcome to the redundancy factory where we make redundant, this is the redundancy factory.

Caring about minimising redundancies is Ti. You sure do wear your heart on your sleeve, buddy.

"Formal logic"? Fucking children and their buzzwords, I'll tell ya.

lol, I take it you've never been to college or university then. Actually, that does make me wonder, are you in high school?

It depends on whether it is plus- or minus-Te and whether it is the "primary function" or the "auxiliary function" (before you get butthurt over bullshit again, that is my own terminology). A type with plus-Te as its primary function would likely be loquacious compared to a type with minus-Te as its auxiliary function; incidentally, I believe the supervision of LIE by SLI is related to this.

Plus and Minus tweaking of IEs is not something I've heavily dabbled in, so I don't wish to split hairs with you on this one, however, given that Socionics has generally gotten on without the Plus/Minus system for quite some time, it can be considered superfluous. As such, I don't except any of your points made based on this extension.

Don't get upset when I chide you for mixing up terminology (and it was a mixup, you clearly fall on "your system" as a crutch for your gaps in understanding and misuse of proper jargon), if you're going to claim that you have your own subjective system and please have the foresight to realise that you're going to have clashes with people that use the more commonly accepted model of Socionics (although this could apply to any system that you deem fit to argue about at any stage).

Your example is pathetically-disguised and poorly-rendered Ti blended with scraps of Ni, Se, and Fe:

You're establishing a plus-Ti context for your example with this statement. You could've easily jumped into the action and still made your point.

The first bolded section is plus-Ti insofar as it means "the rules for dish-cooking necessitate that you oil up the pan". The second bolded section indicates Ni in a pop-psychy kinda way. Take it or leave it.

You are focusing on the "relation" between your "actions" and the "objects" involved, but not on the "objects" themselves. That is plus-Ti.
If I may, allow me to rewrite your statement in my chickenscratch minus-Te:

"Food can stick to pans if you don't use enough oil, so apply a generous coating then let it sizzle on medium heat until the oil starts popping and crackling. Take a half-cup of minced beef and drop it in the pan. Let all the excess fat burn out and then put in another half-cup."

That is "Explicit Object Dynamics". That is Te.

Yeah, this is almost entirely a thinly veiled attempt to cover up the fact that your argument is weak and based on an impulse decision you made earlier. You selected IEI as your suspected type for me based on speaking with me for no greater than 10 minutes, then proceeded to double down on that opinion when people (including myself) poked fun at you for it. I believe that you got upset and are now scurrying around to attempt to confirm your bias that is based in emotion.

Again, I'm just borrowing terminology and using my own, better definitions, kinda like how Model A borrows Freudian terminology.

And you're attempting to argue that against a system with more foundation. That just strikes me as being like you sharpening a stick and bringing it to a knife fight and then being surprised when you end up with a body covered in delightful new openings.

Good, because you're a waste of my time.

If you're so insistent on spending your time arguing your baby boy Fisher Price Socionics against actual Socionics, I don't think you have the right to place any value on your time.

Here is Filatova on the relationship between IEE and IEI:

Ekaterina Filatova "Art of understanding yourself and others"

Here we have four identical functions of different orientation in the same channels. And, at the same time - not a single communication channel on identical functions. This implies that for these partners, there isn't any significant sphere in which they would have same point of view.

Where one pays attention to external processes via his extroverted function, the other focuses on the internal states via his introverted function, and vice versa. As a result, it becomes difficult for these partners to understand each other and agree.

Finally, something we actually agree on. Yes, this argument is a perfect example of extinguishment. However, I think that's because you're LII. The formation and interaction remain the same, only the types differ. I am very confident with my LIE typing and have checked it with other LIEs (who have in turn done their own introspection and study and generally know their own kind well enough), my own intertype relations with large amounts of people I know, finding a large amount of parallels in myself and the written profiles (Filatova, Stratiyevskaya, etc) and even VI at the end of the day.

If you are genuinely curious in discovering your type, my advice to you would be to reflect on the arguments you've had in this thread and draw something positive from them, because otherwise, all you've done is spent several days on a petty ego battle.

[Olduvai]

Yes, I realise that you copied and pasted. You're not processing my posts properly because you're too concerned with excluding any information that doesn't match your fruity little subjective system.

What?

Are you really so short-sighted? I pointed out that he's clarifying within a specific area and that was the difference. You seem quite adamant about arguing to win and in doing that, you're shutting yourself off to furthering your understanding, which I think is a big shame. I'm happy to wait until you've managed to read my posts properly and actually get the point.

"Clarifying within a specific area" is what makes one a Ti-valuer? SO, if a biologist and a geneticist and a sociologist are all clarifying their views, which is using Ti? You're such a fucking tard.

Caring about minimising redundancies is Ti. You sure do wear your heart on your sleeve, buddy.

NOBODY LIKES REDUNDANCIES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TI. YOU'RE AN IDIOT WITH A SHALLOW UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIONICS.

Plus and Minus tweaking of IEs is not something I've heavily dabbled in, so I don't wish to split hairs with you on this one, however, given that Socionics has generally gotten on without the Plus/Minus system for quite some time, it can be considered superfluous. As such, I don't except any of your points made based on this extension.

You're such a fucking ******.

Don't get upset when I chide you for mixing up terminology (and it was a mixup, you clearly fall on "your system" as a crutch for your gaps in understanding and misuse of proper jargon), if you're going to claim that you have your own subjective system and please have the foresight to realise that you're going to have clashes with people that use the more commonly accepted model of Socionics (although this could apply to any system that you deem fit to argue about at any stage).

"Commonly accepted model" = Fe-valuing. Just fucking give it up you little Beta NF fairy.

Yeah, this is almost entirely a thinly veiled attempt to cover up the fact that your argument is weak and based on an impulse decision you made earlier. You selected IEI as your suspected type for me based on speaking with me for no greater than 10 minutes, then proceeded to double down on that opinion when people (including myself) poked fun at you for it. I believe that you got upset and are now scurrying around to attempt to confirm your bias that is based in emotion.

Why don't you point out to me where I went wrong, then? And I wholeheartedly believe you to be IEI, there is nothing "desperate" about it. You're the one who won't even stop to consider it. Talk about "emotional".

And you're attempting to argue that against a system with more foundation. That just strikes me as being like you sharpening a stick and bringing it to a knife fight and then being surprised when you end up with a body covered in delightful new openings.

What point are you even trying to make here?

Finally, something we actually agree on. Yes, this argument is a perfect example of extinguishment. However, I think that's because you're LII. The formation and interaction remain the same, only the types differ. I am very confident with my LIE typing and have checked it with other LIEs (who have in turn done their own introspection and study and generally know their own kind well enough), my own intertype relations with large amounts of people I know, finding a large amount of parallels in myself and the written profiles (Filatova, Stratiyevskaya, etc) and even VI at the end of the day.

You're a fucking moron. There is no way I am LII and there is no way you are LIE. Get over yourself, stop "fighting" (IEI loves to fight), and LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

If you are genuinely curious in discovering your type, my advice to you would be to reflect on the arguments you've had in this thread and draw something positive from them, because otherwise, all you've done is spent several days on a petty ego battle.

Yeah, it's been a helluva fight trying to destroy your blind and emotional ego. If you are genuinely curious to discover your type, then I suggest you be honest with yourself about your weaknesses. As a man living in a world where most men use logic, do you think it was easy for me to admit to myself that I use ethics?

[blackburry]

If you don't already understand it I'm afraid you never will.


But I'm sick of taking out the garbage





No, I merely said that being late to a conference "suggests" a temperament other than IJ. If the reason people believe Michael is IJ is because he invested so much time into basketball, then they're doing the same thing I do when I say "he was late, I do not think him IJ". The difference is that I follow my statement up with "that is because an IJ, regardless of type, will be adept in Ni, which has been described by some as a keen sense of time". Furthermore, if Michael Jordan really is SLI, then he is an "obstinate" type and would thus be normal in devoting a lot of time to an interest of his.

Basketball itself is a "dynamic" game, with plays often developing a seemingly spontaneous manner as the players constantly adjust their positions on the court relative to the ball, which constitutes the center of action. An SLI, whose primary function is Si, or "Implicit Relation Dynamics", and whose auxiliary function is Te, or "Explicit Object Dynamics", would be in an excellent position to excel in a dynamic game like basketball. The primary function might be responsible for some of Michael's more "creative" moments, as with it he could have envisioned a dynamic relationship between himself, the ball, the other players, the basketball hoop, and the court itself that no other player could conceive of. His well-trained auxiliary function assisted with court awareness - tracking the "Explicit Dynamics" of the "Objects" of play, i.e. the players and the ball.

Now, if you'd like to tell me why he is IJ, I'm all ears.

Tackk had a valid point you imbecile.

Also, if I don't get I never will? His sentence was incoherent because he sucks at typing, you poor, poor, little incoherent man.


Now, if you'd like to tell me why he is IJ, I'm all ears.

How the hell would I type someone based on one sentence that he was late for a conference with no other information than that?..


No, I merely said that being late to a conference "suggests" a temperament other than IJ. If the reason people believe Michael is IJ is because he invested so much time into basketball, then they're doing the same thing I do when I say "he was late, I do not think him IJ". The difference is that I follow my statement up with "that is because an IJ, regardless of type, will be adept in Ni, which has been described by some as a keen sense of time".

No you didn't. You just now added "suggests" and put quotes around it. Your exact quote was actually this: " He was late to a press conference in one of the videos I posted, and that is uncharacteristic of any IJ type, as they are all equally attuned to Ni, though they vary in their valuation of it."
That.is.uncaracteristic.of.any.IJ.type.

Also, WHAT THE FUCK DOES MICHAEL JACKSON OR BASKETBALL HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT I'VE POINTED OUT? nothing. That whole paragraph seriously has nothing to do with what I've said. There is no correlation to with time between how much time is investing in an activity you enjoy and being late. Any type devotes time to what they are interested in.

Tackk asked why exactly do you think you are IEE considering you are so flamboyantly aggressive and lack any insight into what you are even spewing. You seriously just say things that add absolutely zero to your point and answer anyone's questions.


also, you are a total fucking moron beyond saving.

Can he be banned anyone?.. ..anyone..?

[Soupman]

@Johannes Bloem, lets take your argument that @Narc is an IEI how do you further develop your justification that he is that? You've said in the earlier posts that LIE are supposed to be starting businesses and going skydiving as opposed to what @Narc does which is being a guitar playing hippy in your eyes.

What makes IEIs accept commonly held values, without any analytic thinking as you see it forth? Why are such people like that? The assumption you've made that ethical men may be ashamed about being ethical rings only true for early socionists or MBTIs who have logic defined ''reason'' and ethics as being based on emotions. Given that, what makes Narc ashamed to be an ethical type if he is indeed one given that he is not acquainted with an elementary understanding of socionics?

In your understanding how are auxiliary and creative functions similar or the same between the two theories? How are the functional models between the two theories very similar that such differing terminology is redundant in your perspective?



By the way, take all the time you need to respond and be honest, I'm not here to attack you, I'm just interested in learning your perspective? I'm not here to tell you whether you are right or wrong.

[wacey]

Okay, guys chill out. Yeah? Everyone (myself included). We are making mountains out of mole hills.

Jo, look, when you come on here and say you are a type, most people believe you. I believe you. You are IEE.
I think that the confrontational nature others are approaching you with has less to do with the type you are, and more to do with the nature of your replies. You see, Deltas and Gammas are a sensitive bunch, most especially the deltas. In my experience delta's may like to reply to you and have a conversation, if you were a little more polite. Politeness is a real key with Deltas. The NF's there hate feeling as if they personally are under attack, and even if you are correct, they are going to get their backs up just because of the nature of the conversation. Now, I can hear the debate come back saying I am talking about Fe, and blah, blah, blah. I am not. I am talking about maintaining a certain amount of decorum in order that we may come closer to knowing each other.

So my next point is this, as an IEE, would it not make you very uncomfortable to be having such a meltdown here with others? I know for myself, that if I was in your shoes I would just feel so awful, even if I felt correct in my views, because the damage that was occurring between me and them would make me feel sick and cause my heart to race every time I signed on. If this is the case for you, I am sorry, because I can empathize with how that must feel.

Or, perhaps you are working through some inner patterns of thought that have found an outlet here on the16types? Hkkmr calls it group therapy and for once I agree with him.

I can say one thing for certain, you mentioned you are here to teach. I wonder who your students will be? Imagine, Jo, that we are all in the same room as you, right now, in person. When I write this is what I think about. That helps me say what I want to say with honesty and respect. Both for myself and for others. I have made mistakes too. I have also ranted on the16types, sometimes because of issues in trl, and sometimes with issues on here. Either way, I can understand where you may be coming from. So back to the first sentence, just chill out, everyone. In my view the people on this forum and tinychats are just regular people like you or I. They do not need teachers, I'm not sure what they need maybe people don't need anything, but it's def not teachers.

You speak of duality with SLI. I'm not sure if you have seen this duality, but in my experience your dual does not make you feel good all the time. Sometimes they will look at you when you are being retarded or unreasonable or whatever (I am not saying you are being these things - I am using them as an example - cause I am really talking my own experience here), and they are going to make you feel like shit. The caveat is that you can move on with your dual and not look back. They are still going to make you feel stupid, however. Especially SLI, who is in my opinion the most sensitive of the bunch, and reeeeaally wouldn't feel comfortable around a newcomer making everyone defensive, Fe polr and all.

I live on a ranch and will tell you that sometimes it's best to let the horse have it's head and let the reins go to loosen the bridle. A softer approach makes her respect you.

One thing I would like to end with is that is it fair of you to question other people's self-typings when you demand that others must trust that your own is correct?

[Zero11]

Yeah, this is almost entirely a thinly veiled attempt to cover up the fact that your argument is weak and based on an impulse decision you made earlier.

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

also, you are a total fucking moron beyond saving.

Can he be banned anyone?.. ..anyone..?

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

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

[Narc]

What?

Just did it again.

"Clarifying within a specific area" is what makes one a Ti-valuer? SO, if a biologist and a geneticist and a sociologist are all clarifying their views, which is using Ti? You're such a fucking tard.

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

NOBODY LIKES REDUNDANCIES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TI.

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

You're such a fucking ******.

lol

"Commonly accepted model" = Fe-valuing. Just fucking give it up you little Beta NF fairy.

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

Why don't you point out to me where I went wrong, then?

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

And I wholeheartedly believe you to be IEI, there is nothing "desperate" about it. You're the one who won't even stop to consider it. Talk about "emotional".

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

What point are you even trying to make here?

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

You're a fucking moron. There is no way I am LII and there is no way you are LIE. Get over yourself, stop "fighting" (IEI loves to fight), and LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

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

Yeah, it's been a helluva fight trying to destroy your blind and emotional ego. If you are genuinely curious to discover your type, then I suggest you be honest with yourself about your weaknesses. As a man living in a world where most men use logic, do you think it was easy for me to admit to myself that I use ethics?

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

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

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

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

You lack the coherence to be contributing to this discussion constructively.

[Zero11]

You lack the coherence to be contributing to this discussion constructively.

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

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

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

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

[Olduvai]

Zero, i luv you i am currently working, but when i get home i will help you quell this madness