It was never meant to be conclusive, just to demonstrate he doesn't know function from type or type from profile. Everything I'd been saying to him prior was the proof in the pudding that his understanding of functions and type was being incorrectly misapplied. And that he isn't ENTP due to that.
Because he is incorrect in his understanding of functions and types, so whatever he has ascribed to himself (an ENTP) is wrong.
Right? Right.
I think another dude summed up your point well:
Boy, you're never going to learn until you wholly abandon profiles and purely embrace functions.
'Til then it's just pro/injection with you.
What I'm getting at is probably not at the crux of your issue.
Your issue: whether simu understands that he misapplies a lot of stuff within typology. I've corrected him before, and he does not think it's that much of an issue, not knowing typology to that depth.
My issue: how does this 'lack of understanding' prove/disprove (either way) using a
cause-effect model whether simu is an ENTP or...whatever?** ** But, you cleared it up in your post with regards to it
not meaning to be conclusive.
We can assume that because he doesn't know typology to that depth, he
may have "misapplied" a profile to himself and stuck with it - ENTP. We cannot know whether he truly is ENTP or not, though.
Question is: is knowledge of functions/typology contingent on
being a type? Of course not. So...how about assigning ONESELF a type? Then, imo, it depends....on the mode of knowledge acquired (e.g., validity of certain 'sites' versus others), and to what degree.
So, taking this context, my initial issue was: him not understanding to depth typology, and, being so fixated on his type; then, to be presented with such a 'ruse'....it was one that was predictably walked into (leaving aside whether a 'true' NT would fall for it or not). Meaning, that whatever initial point of the 'ruse' was,
becomes irrelevant in providing any *new* information.
So much so that it's almost redundant to say,
after, "aha, you fell for it, hence it proves _______". I.e., in its presentation, it was SET UP to be a bias (assuming/biasing the conclusion ________ from the start), so we can't go back and say, that it DOES therefore prove ________ - this is why I said it was
subjective validity.
^ that's my only real point with this tete-a-tete b/w u two. I don't disagree with your evaluation that he doesn't know depths of functions/or typology. (truly, i don't have much of an opinion) My point was with regards to a completely different aspect of the discussion, that of the mode of transmission, I guess. Sorry for the derail.
And then making fun of other people (I found the post he put you in btw).
Can you keep a secret? I actually get off on being whined about long after an incidence has passed. Like I'm one of those long-lasting gum. You can't get the taste of me outta your mouth. For a while to come.
I done gooood. 
I also think you may be relying TOO much on what functions tell about a person as a whole. 1) Esp. when you can take a thought/idea of theirs, and say, well, they've said it, and this thought/idea
can ONLY come from X function, so they MUST then have X. 2) You're not accounting for all that may be inside them as Y, nor whether the response itself necessitated that they respond with an X (regardless of whether the preference would be for X or not). 3) Nor whether what you're ascribing as X may be a mix of other functions working in tandem within that person, or, a really bad handle of another function. 4) Nor whether what you've gleaned from a given information is the
same as what the other person is seeing. Or.....
E.g.,
Don’t tell me I can’t do something. Rules and regulations infuriate me. Doing something by the book isn’t always logical or reasonable.
zarc:
NTs take things seriously, especially rules (Ti = NTP) and regulations (Te = NTJ). Sometimes too seriously. ENTPs are not excluded.
Actually, I would have agreed with that general description, as well, esp cuz it backs up with 'isn't always logical or reasonable'. I only takes rules as seriously as it needs in order to understand them well enough to break them with efficiency (and flair). [my ex ass-of-a-landlord is testemant to this skill]
As well, Forer effect happens when there's such general enough profiles, one must also keep in mind.
Issues with that above exchange b/w u two:
1) Esp. when you can take a thought/idea of theirs, and say, well, they've said it, and this thought/idea
can ONLY come from X function, so they MUST then have X.
You say, 'especially rules (Ti=NTP)', yes, given. But, how does that translate to mean those with Ti likes rules? Ti likes 'rules' in the sense of logical structures, but, rules in the real world, I don't think only Ti can really be held accountable to this inquiry.
2) You're not accounting for all that may be inside them as Y, nor whether the response itself necessitated that they respond with an X (regardless of whether the preference would be for X or not).
zarc: No ETP would care enough to have written such long posts. They just wouldn’t—I don’t care how evolved as a person. They don't (their Ti doesn't) have the patience for it (EFPs, if they care (Fi) they'll push past their reluctance, putting effort into making themselves understood! Through Pe-Te! /Pe = Se/Ne) . But if they do care, they’d make it short and sweet because of Ti.
A
long post can be made
if there's a
long need for justification. I think Ti likes to justify all that Ne can come up with, and can sometimes fall...short. Hence, long. And, sometimes, if the Ne is that convoluted, or that far-reaching, a word count can be a bitch. I know that I always itch that I couldn't put all that I have been thinking into words enough (sufficiently so) to justify exactly the level of 'revelation' going on inside my head. I think a few other ENTPs on this board are quite long-winded (with many [brackets] to indicate another random off-shot thought) (myself included).
*btw, I think his long-windedness comes from being emotionally baited so he makes his one point puff up to make it look like there's meat.
3) Nor whether what you're ascribing as X may be a mix of other functions working in tandem within that person, or, a really bad handle of another function.
As I said earlier, young ENTP, Fe gone a bit beserk to make him post to that length as he does, or miss the detail of certain points, and just find one glaring thing, and hem and haw about it, so that Fe can get calm again, cuz he was able to "attack back" the person who emotionally baited him, maybe?
For example, look at what you ascribe in terms of functions to a 'long post'.
zarc:And don't mistaken all my long posts being Te (like yours sw)-- It isn't. It's straight up Fe
So, if we see a long post, we'll know its either Te or Fe? That's quite the correlation b/w post length and functions.
4) Nor whether what you've gleaned from a given information is the
same as what the other person is seeing.
Like that example of 'breaking rules'. I think the way you interpreted what rules are are probably quite different than he did.
Someone please tell me they get this (all the type talk).
I get type talk, I just don't get how it can be exemplified through a poster's posting style - at the level of being able to dissect certain small statements of theirs and then ascribing a
functional cause to where that statement came from. But, that's my overall criticism of Typology in general....so carry on.
Btw, this doesn't mean I think/don't think Simu is ENTP (no real opinion, nor care). Nor whether I'm siding with him or you..........no sides. Just some thoughts that came with the presentation of this convo between you two.
I jump whenever there's a mood in me, even if it sometimes may be 'helping' (the case) out the bugger who whines about me all the time.
It's not for him or any other
person. Even if I hated him (which I obviously don't, he amuses me), I'd still inquire....it's just to inquire about thoughts. Not people.
And, i see you've said that you've taken it to PM, so sorry if I rehashed this again. Carry on...
her!!!
I had workings, they're just way above. Maybe too above..
