MatthewZ

Haha .. you can modify my signature? That is power indeed.

Well ok then.

I would have obeyed immediately had you not tacked on that "we have cookies" part. I've got cookies too.

Super Moderator!

But... I dunno, you learn that people can change themselves by listening to themselves talk, and that a lot of intellectual posturing is the result of trying to achieve a better relationship with the idea of the father. You learn what human beings are capable of, of being as interesting and smart as Hamlet, of suffering as much as Lear. You learn that personality change (and madness) tends to happen when one's semiotic relationships are disrupted. You learn what love is like, although not what being loved or loving are like. You learn to think at the speed of Mercutio. You learn what it's like to hate love. You learn what friendship is like. So, yeah... hope that gets the idea across somewhat. Let me know if it doesn't. Thanks for caring enough to ask though.

I cite Shakespeare because he's the best writer in English, and so it's the easiest to see how his literature contributes value to people's lives. But, well, what truth is in Shakespeare? The same truth that's in the world. Because Shakespeare's plays are convincing representations of the world, or static representations of change, we can study, say, King Lear and learn essentially what we would learn from knowing a man like King Lear in real life. What specifically are these truths? Well, you can't encapsulate them in a phrase, or everyone would just read that phrase and not bother with reading Shakespeare at all.

Well presumably I am mistyped, in the sense that the whole world is mistyped.

I thought about this, but it doesn't happen always, sadly. This reality (or "nature") contains ourselves as well, right? I see kinda everywhere that people have a flawed understanding, just think about how many opinions are on every subject, everywhere, they are maintaining like that, I don't see any good trend.

I think I can reduce all my activity to reacting to nonsense without judging anything else. Maybe I'll be able to develop a method to be more diplomatic with different types, I already tested some things - for example when I told Galloping Qwerty that she's an ESE while I was convinced that she's an IEE . In my experience IEEs react inversely to these kind of resolute suggestions.

I was talking about discussing, not understanding.
They're stressed for the purpose of:
- either people acknowledge their mistakes and retype themselves
- or others see how things are despite such situations.

Without such implication, things derail, people of a certain type posing as a different other distort the real nature of the latter, everything becomes a mess, do you agree? Awareness exclusively can maintain sanity in this field (as in other).
---

What's the purpose and assumptions of this investigation?

The same reason I'm talking about Socionics. Don't you consider correct typing significant in this context?

Technically speaking, yes we both are. Otherwise I'm more normal than you are.