Also, you did cling to Ti at the end of the debate, as you began to define Si according to your own perspective, I'm not saying that to discredit you, I'm saying that because it happened. Also, I didn't attack your character whatsoever, I analyzed your thinking.
Also, the "you can't just make conclusions about ways of thinking without further data" is (and I'm doing this just for the ironic amusement) you clinging to Se (focus on specific data and the amalgamation of data to ensure that the conclusion is perfectly accounted for with evidence) and bashing Ni, which does, in fact, make conclusions with little data and often turns about to be correct, as I have done with this.
I'm sure SolitaryWalker and many other INTPs will be thrilled to know they use Se simply because they demand evidence as critical thinkers. /sarcasm
If you have to resort to going after who you're responding to by bringing up their type or function-attitudes, you show a weakness in your argument. One of my oldest pals in the forum is an INTJ. I assure you, he never lifted up his middle finger at evidence, and he and I were of the same opinion that making lame generalizations is a sign of sloppy thinking. People don't get a free pass based on type: "Ni, which does, in fact, make conclusions with little data and often turns about to be correct." First of all, you can't prove any such claim or do you personally know 51% of the world's Ni Dom population? (That question was rhetorical.) Not only do you not know 51%, you can't even prove a person is Ni dom. You included. The MBTI is a self-reporting instrument which makes it unreliable and pointing a finger and shouting "See, that's Ni!" at a person's post won't cut the mustard, either.
If you want to make a claim, back it up with evidence.
And if you think only one MBTI type would say that, there are thousands of posts in this forum that will show you otherwise. Use the advanced search function in this forum and start reading.
That said, your claim that someone is "clinging" to Ti and defining "clinging" as "beginning to define Si according to your own perspective" means a hell of a lot of people use Ti, (including me) and many authors of type books. The definitions vary from source to source, test question to test question, person to person, and so on. Again, there are thousands of posts in this forum with people putting their own spin on things, according to their own perspective and it's not about Ti.
On page 22 of An Introduction To The Personailty Type Code written by Dario Nardi (INTJ) and Linda Berens (INTP) an excerpt from the Ti section of the ISTP profile reads:
They are skilled at stepping back, staying objective, and not over-reacting.
So, who shall we call bullshit on now? Berens, Nardi, ISTPs, INTPs, INTJs, you, me, who? Are you getting the picture yet? Many people complain that Ti is too subjective, but the function-attitudes do not operate in a vacuum. Ti-Se and Ti-Ne will not operate the same way. It doesn't matter if it's Socionics, the MBTI, Jung, Freud, or even the Enneagram. There are different definitions and descriptions from source to source and one better be flexible if they want to discuss type models. Many people have changed their minds about their own type upon reading different publications for the very reasons I have mentioned.
What I actually find amusing is that what you claim is Se, was what an ENTP member claimed was Te for many years. He called it "shit Te."
As for Socionics and the MBTI, the reason I brought up the tertiary function elsewhere in this thread was not just for the hell of it. Socionics is not flexible in its structure; it does not account for tertiary function-attitude flexibility. It's set up in blocks. One would have to bust open the framework and change the fundamental structure to accommodate that level of flexibility.
Btw, without mentioning names, there are two people who claim to be MBTI INTJs in this forum.
Of the two MBTI INTJs, using Socionics , one claims to be LII, the other claims to be ILI.
The discrepancies in how some INTJs type themselves using Socionics is nothing new. Some INTJs have even typed themselves as Ti-Se using Socionics. And that is their choice.
There is no correct answer using self-reporting instruments, it's up to the person to decide what fits them best. You'd think that would be obvious, but after all these years, some still seem to think they have a right to make decisions for other people regarding their type whether it's the MBTI, Socionics, or even the Enneagram.
I think Se is rather interested in manipulating the present\immediate environment whereas Te is more interested in how present or potential resources in the general environment can be organized in a systemmatic manner...
So Se is like a beast... Te is like a machine...
Ti-Se may be checking if the internal system of understanding fits and holds water in the physical environment... whereas Ti-Ne may be checking in which alternate reality (that defy the present circumstances) that specific understanding may hold water... so one works with what "is" and the other works with what "can be"
Last edited by yeghor; 04-23-2014 at 01:24 PM.