I've already done that plenty of times. It seems everyone overlooks all of my points regarding the rationale of proper social interaction.
Are you assuming your points are being overlooked just because we're not paying attention?
I just found it sort of ironic that, regardless of your type, much of your protests against being Fi seem to be driven by Fi-style concerns.
Do with that what you want.
This also opens up the problem of quantification again. So one thing represents Ti, and another represents Fi, but what amount of these thing must be presented to qualify someone as a Feeler or a Thinker?
To me, it's relational, not a hard quantification.
For instance, if a Thinker only used Ti as you describe, then no Thinker would ever have a concept of "flaming" or "trolling" as a violation.
Clarification:
1. I haven't usually logged in [recently] on this issue of your type. That's because I was just collecting data points.
2. When the balance swung over and the conversation happened to bring it up, I mentioned it.
3. Thus, I'm not talking about isolated events, I'm talking about a general aura of behavior surrounding your approach to situations. Use Ti all you want, there's no law against it.
As another point, Ti's also can be flamers and violators. But for other reasons than perhaps what the other-function-heavy people might have for their trolling behavior. So again, when taken in conjunction, it's possible to distinguish.
Now, since people obviously don't work this way, where is the line drawn? I certainly do what is attributed Ti, constantly.
You do?
Um... okay.
The case for me being a Feeler has never so much been the absence of Ti processes, but the highlighting of the presence of what are allegedly Fi processes in my behavior. So what do we make of this?
It would probably depending on the relationship between lots of variables in how you interact with others online.
Do I use more Fi than Ti? I would argue that this assertion is simply not true.
All right. You may argue, go ahead.
I would argue, however, that every human being is guided by Feeling. Thinking does not provide motivation, by definition.
True.
TP's end up being quite passive in nature if they are not constantly being stimulated by the environment. FPs seem more driven internally by comparison.
What does this have to do with you, though?
Is your logic here, "Everyone shows F behavior regardless of being T/F -> Thus, my behavior that shows F is not indicative of being F?"
That's not much of a logic statement.
It's just a "reasonable doubt" strategy.
Interestingly, I think T's (like I said above) end up being more passive than F's when it comes to having no information to evaluate; where they have to make personal decisions or ones that are not "objective," they tend to sit and twiddle.
So again, you can still use that as data points in comparing T vs F archetypal behavior.
So this would really be an useful measure for distinguishing people. Then things are further complicated by context. For example, there are some topics in which nearly everyone comes across like a Feeler, because the focus of the topic itself does not demand much Thinking. So anyone that bothers to post in it is likely to express Feelings, like a farewell thread. So what does one make of all of these things when determining type?
You're talking in such broad generalizations that you're not committing to any hard detail here. It's an effective strategy to obfuscate the issue but it doesn't resolve anything.
I think people need to take "context" of a discussion as part of determining what's motivating a person and why they behave they way they do. But (1) context is just ONE aspect to be considered and (2) there are still nuances that play themselves out in when someone's showing T (for example) as a primary versus a tertiary and so on.
And what of the dichotomies? Is it possible that I apply more Thinking and Feeling than most people? I have to say that most attempts to prove that I am a Feeler have actually done more to make me doubt the validity of the entire MBTI.
Can't you see what you just said seems far more F than T?
"I don't agree with you; therefore, the whole theory must be wrong."
That is a pretty large leap.
I know I would never invalidate an entire system based on simply how it categorized ME.
Do you think that could be one T vs F difference? Probably not on its own... but taking in conjunction with other points? I don't know.
(I'll give you the N -- you hinged this whole comment on the possibilities rather than a derived conclusion, giving it the weight of an entire argument when it's not an argument at all -- sort of like the closing argument for a lawyer gunning for the "reasonable doubt" strategy. That's typical N at work.)
In any case, if you're a T, you're running off inferior F right now.
If you're an F, then your response is indicative of F.
(And no, I don't really care what type you are -- you simply said a lot of things in your post that I thought were worth rebutting in terms of how to approach typing.)
That being said, it does remind me of testing increments, and every test I've ever taken has made me a T. So, testing is out of the question.
Guess it's a wrap, then.
