I am just trying to help everyone achieve understanding. Mixing Socionics, MBTI, Jung and Enneagram will not achieve that. In fact, the way you do this is more akin to Ti way of breaking down and rebuilding from the ground up. Just saying.Except I gave several practical examples of how they infer the specific reasoning process. I am not sure how that's difficult to comprehend, but ok? I am not even focused on the action, but the logic behind it. Also, your character accusation is petty and unwarranted and is extremely far from how I conceptualize things.
I never excluded Fe to feel about values though, but usually, Fe isn't so much about say, right/wrong to the person in question (that's more Ti), so when Fe types feel, they often feel with people.
I don't think Fe always seeks to align the values of the group, though. It can also purposefully go against the group if it thinks the group is becoming too bland in its expressions.
They don't focus on these things no, as a part of the cognitive aspect of the function. Fi doesn't project feelings onto objects like Fe does, to focus on the environmental aspect of the feeling, just like Fe doesn't focus so much on the internal relationship you have between self-object as Fi does.
These are properties of I vs E.
You actually did include the word "social" but ok. Also, I don't type Hitler because I don't think he genuinely can be typed. He's too much of a caricature persona so you may use another example to demonstrate the point.
And socionics is also about cognition. I do think that MBTI and socionics deal with the same objects of reality and they do that by approaching it differently so I also think that Fi in the MBTI=Fi in socionics. If you also studied socionics, you'd realize socionics is a lot about personality traits. It specifically calls it information metabolism, actually, which means how we process information around us. That's a very cognitive approach and VI isn't even accepted as a type phenomenon even in socionics circles, so don't use that to discredit socionics. The main aspect of socionics is model A, which has nothing to do with visual typing, something the MBTI and the MBTI community also endorses at its places, btw.
No shit, because that's what I've been arguing with you all this while, actually? But it doesn't mean that your phrasing isn't vague and can mean a lot of things or be interpreted in different ways. I understand what you are trying to convey, but I also think it can and should be conveyed better.
Sure it is, but rationally think about it: how many Ti doms do you really think always need to consciously stop and logicalize in their head before they make a decision? Functions don't work that way. We process them so easily they occur spontaneously and unconsciously. That's my point and I think saying that Ti doms must always "stop and think" is a bit of a misnomer.
Except frequency of use=!skill of use. My ESTP cousin tries to Fe a lot all the time; it doesn't mean she's actually good at it the same way an Fe ego is. I use Fi a lot too but it doesn't mean I'm good at Fi either.
So please tell me how I'm stereotyping because I fail to see it.
I actually never linked them to that so again, you are reacting because you literally interpret my examples but you know what? I am very sure you'd react the same way no matter how I'd phrase it or express it, actually. You focus on the outcome of the actions in the examples I cited; they are in fact irrelevant. What's relevant is how the process of said result is reached. It's the process, how it is being reasoned, how it's being expressed. I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. I am not saying "putting kettle on stove=Te", I am saying, the reason the person decided to put the kettle on the stove is related to Te. Two very different things.
That's what you did but ok.
I don't really care to scroll all the way up to check, but it was something related to how it was regulating the emotions of the external world. It was again too ambiguous and vaguely expressed imo.
Again, please tell me exactly how you even interpret it this way.
Actually, just because you think my supposed theory is refuted doesn't mean that your attempts to connect these things are incorrect or make you above criticism yourself. On the contrary, if you have the right to dismiss my supposed "theory" even though it's actually not mine, I have every right to criticize you and then some on the fact that I think the way you present information right now is extremely biased and wrong and compared to you, I am also avoiding character attacks as I'm attacking your claims only, whereas you keep thinking it's ok to dismiss what I express just because you disagree with me lol.
You expressed it's stereotyping and you criticize the examples but you don't bother to explain why. So yes, it is still warranted that you explain why it is so. Saying "I criticize you" is not explaining why you criticize me or my thoughts. That is simply a disagreement and I asked you to justify your disagreement with logic, not "I disagree with you because I disagree with you". That's circular and I'm certainly not stupid; I understand that much myself. If this is a logical debate, then you need to justify your opinions with logic, not reinforcing your previous judgement with another value judgement.
I asked you to explain yourself because you criticized my examples used and I wanted to know exactly what it is you found wrong with them. Now you are dragging this out by attacking my character and my behavior, again not the point I raised. Explain why you think they are wrong and we can actually argue the points being made so we can move on with this and have an actual logical argument.
Except I never stated this as they were examples, not hard rules to draw. However, ordering the library yes, I do think that is Ti, because you can try to toss and turn that argument however you want, but the order will always be based on Ti reasoning in some way. That's one of the reasons why there's a question like that in the Ti section in the 80 questions socionics questionnaire. Do note: Ti can serve Te reasons and vice versa.
If you think I have such a good grasp of the theory and the functions, then maybe stop attribute certain thoughts or behaviors you think I think and do and maybe trust in what I say what I think.
Yeah, I agree with that and yes, that's Leo, thanks.
@Ixim Yeah, I'm ignoring you because the points you raise are honestly quite asinine and not worth responding to like how you think I contradict Jung. Not worthy of my time refuting, for the same reason I don't bother with FAT because he's just being a contrarian because he can be one and because it's me so he has a knee-jerk to always default to being a contrarian. He doesn't even care for the content so I don't bother with that either.
If you are going to debate, at least raise some damn valid points or criticisms that aren't already addressed by me elsewhere...
Don't mix things. Just trust Jung and several others. People who knew their job. And weren't in this for money's sake(like oh so many modern psychologists in lieu of MBTI).
Besides, holding grudges and attacking ad hominem doesn't really picture you in the best light(no matter how big fan club you've garnered here). See, I understand everything. So, no big deal.
Back, to the topic...what's the latest update?