Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 91

Thread: Alright, what type am I?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Alright, what type am I?

    Yeah I'll bet you thought you'd never see the day, but have at it.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    SEI-SLE 2w8 cp sx/sp RLOEN sagittarius ESTJ k3,k1+,k4

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Birthdate check... 12/20/81-- actually, I am Sagittarius.

    I'm a 5w6 that I recall....

  4. #4
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    no explicit reason to question INTj for you, however due to the fact that your posts are predominantly related to your theories and their presentation, etc., i think we may need more info. about how you actually are in real life(outside the context of theorizing) in order to make an educated guess.
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  5. #5
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LII is obvious in my eyes. People are idiots on here; they don't know what Se is.

  6. #6
    misutii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,234
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    LII is obvious in my eyes. People are idiots on here; they don't know what Se is.
    what he said
    INFp-Ni

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You seem to be a prototypical LII, tcaudilllg.

  8. #8
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LII > LSI > other Ti valuing type
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  9. #9
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He seems very obviously INTj to me too. And he does use Ne - he has all sorts of wacky new theories and ideas all the time. Contrast to Machintruc, whom I think is much more likely to be ISTj. Particularly, look at his signature.

    Ok well I found it and copied it. Here it is:

    Supporter of Classical Socionics : no exertion, no subtypes, no VI, no MBTT-influenced typing. Such concepts are totally retarded.

    ††† PRAISE CHRIST ††† - don't be afraid : seek and defend the Truth with boldness.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  10. #10
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom View Post
    He seems very obviously INTj to me too. And he does use Ne - he has all sorts of wacky new theories and ideas all the time. Contrast to Machintruc, whom I think is much more likely to be ISTj. Particularly, look at his signature.

    Ok well I found it and copied it. Here it is:
    Yep.

    Though sometimes I even wonder if machintruc could be SLE. (Not that I think it's more likely than SLI. Seems more likely than LII though.)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No. He just doesn't seem to have a Se PoLR. He's too confrontational. And beyond that, he's too comfortable being confrontational. And I don't see any evidence of Ne or Ne valuing. Put him in a room full of Alphas who share his religious beliefs and a room full or a room full of Betas who share his religious beliefs. Which group would he fit in with more?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    why do people think LIIs can't be confrontational? or that being confrontational/aggressive = oodles of Se/Se valuing?

  13. #13
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bleh. I'm not saying LII's can't be confrontational. When they do, though, they tend to go way overboard. They're more comfortable when they're not being confrontational. Not that LSI's are always confrontational. They're more even in how they apply confrontation though. And his all or none thinking seems less Ne than anything else about him.

    But if the Alphas are convinced he's Alpha, I'll back off. Perhaps I'm just associating him with my SLE mom more than I ought to simply because they're both so unreasonable about their moronic, cultish religions.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Note to the doubters: if you would redefine me, then you must do it completely on my terms. You must explain, via linguistic analysis (by which I mean TRACING MY SPEECH IN MODEL-A -- actually, scratch that: you must use model-B, function by function by function, and explain the relationships there involved.), why I could be nothing other than the type you propose. I will accept nothing less as proof that I am not an LII.

    I underwent a huge personality shift near the end of 2004. You'd best appraise my personality from the very beginning of my journal:
    http://lordgalbalan.livejournal.com/

  15. #15
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Ne is not wacky new theories and ideas all the time...
    Duh. But an Se type would be more likely to like "tried and true" methods and an Ne type would be more likely to like new theories and ideas. And I know that's not 100% either - I'm an Ne type who likes classic socionics. But I still think that is a tendency.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  16. #16
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Note to the doubters: if you would redefine me, then you must do it completely on my terms. You must explain, via linguistic analysis (by which I mean TRACING MY SPEECH IN MODEL-A -- actually, scratch that: you must use model-B, function by function by function, and explain the relationships there involved.), why I could be nothing other than the type you propose. I will accept nothing less as proof that I am not an LII.
    Why? I thought you were asking for our opinions? We hafta jump through some hoops as we do so?

    Well, I don't think I should have to do all this esoteric research just to say that I don't know what type you are other than that you in regions that have never been -ed before. Maybe I'm biased in my estimation because my brother, who I think to be INTj just seems so much more like Carla or Logos. There you go, you asked a question. I answered it to the best of ability and experience. Take it or leave it but that's all I can give you.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find it interesting that people believe that ROBESPIERRE is not confrontational. Like, what the hell? The man put tens of thousands of people to death by organizing a committee of his peers which he led. (just as I tried to do with the Jessica thing, but the forum was against it...; obviously I wasn't going to put her to death, just ostracise her.)

    Notice that my campaign against Jessica was, like Robespierre's, one of justice. (from my vantage-point)

  18. #18
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    proof
    No such thing (at least not in Socionics).
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  19. #19
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe he wants a reductio ad absurdum to show that his being LII generates a contradiction?
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You have no right (morally, scientifically) to question tcaudilllg's self-typing if you cannot make a very strong case for it. And of course you can't, because no one can. He really is an INTj. Those who question it are idiots.

  21. #21
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    You have no right (morally, scientifically) to question tcaudilllg's self-typing if you cannot make a very strong case for it.
    Depends how you define "right". Also depends how you define "question".

    Each of us has a "right" to say whatever we want to say. Of course, we have to accept the consequences of saying it, positive or negative.

    And if "question" means saying "I know for a fact that he's not LII", that's one thing. Saying "he doesn't really come off as LII to me, but that's just my impression" is another.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  22. #22
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    You have no right (morally, scientifically) to question tcaudilllg's self-typing if you cannot make a very strong case for it. And of course you can't, because no one can. He really is an INTj. Those who question it are idiots.
    Some might argue that if you make a thread aimed in the vein of 'what type am I', then it's fair game. Besides, we're talking about opinions, not facts. People may choose to elevate their opinions as evidentially as they will and let the hearers be the judge. Is that so unreasonable?
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Saying "he doesn't really come off as LII to me, but that's just my impression" is another.
    Yes, and no one is interested in knowing what kind of impression he (or someone else) has on you (or anyone else) if you cannot provide a strong case why tcaudilllg's (or someone else's) self-typing is incorrect. That was my point.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Besides, we're talking about opinions, not facts. People may choose to elevate their opinions as evidentially as they will and let the hearers be the judge. Is that so unreasonable?
    Yes, that's unreasonable. Opinions are irrelevant if you cannot explain why you have a certain opinion. And opinions are totally irrelevant and uninteresting if they go against a person's self-typing. The only thing that counts in those cases are very strong counter arguments. Therefore you have no right to question tcaudilllg's self-typing by just stating another opinion.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    No, they DO have a right. An impression or an opinion might be a bad one or an unreasonable one or whatever, but everyone still has a right to make/have one.
    No. Not in the sense I am talking about here, which is about morally justified scientific validation of statements. You can of course say whatever you want if you are only chatting, having a non-serious conversation, or something like that. But who cares about that in this context? No one should care about such trivial stuff when we are discussing types -- especially not if we are discussing a person's self-typing. If you form an opinion on someone's type without having made a serious analysis of the types in general and how that particular person describes him- or herself, you are not taking the types seriously. And that is both morally and scientifically wrong.

  26. #26
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Yes, that's unreasonable. Opinions are irrelevant if you cannot explain why you have a certain opinion. And opinions are totally irrelevant and uninteresting if they go against a person's self-typing. The only thing that counts in those cases are very strong counter arguments. Therefore you have no right to question tcaudilllg's self-typing by just stating another opinion.
    lollerblades

    As has been repeatedly attempted to be made clear in previous posts by multiple people, there is a vast difference between possessing an opinion and enforcing that opinion on the person to whom it may or may not bear reference.

    If someone says that I do not seem INFj, then I shrug and things are ok. If it isn't something they can easily explain, or even want to bother with, that's ok as well. Their having such and such an opinion has no bearing on who I, in fact, am. They may attempt to convince me or they may not, but they are certainly not idiots for weighing in on the matter particularly when I'm eliciting their opinions in the first place.

    A parallel analogy might be my saying I think this tastes good and asking someone else what they think. They don't have to quote me the physical or chemical laws for why they think it doesn't. They just have to tell me what they think. It doesn't mean I have to change my position or they have to change theirs. We disagree. It is what it is. Awesome! We're both thinking and deciding for ourselves. That's usually a good thing in these parts.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    A parallel analogy might be my saying I think this tastes good and asking someone else what they think. They don't have to quote me the physical or chemical laws for why they think it doesn't. They just have to tell me what they think. It doesn't mean I have to change my position or they have to change theirs. We disagree. It is what it is. Awesome! We're both thinking and deciding for ourselves. That's usually a good thing in these parts.
    No, you're wrong. If you and the other person disagree on how good it tastes, you should both argue for your opinion. And you should not stick to your opinion if the other person can make a better case for why his or her taste is better than yours. At least one of you must be wrong if you disagree, because aesthetical issues (what's good and what's bad) are no different from ethical issues (what's right and what's wrong) or scientific issues (what's true and what's false) -- both of you cannot be right if you contradict each other.

  28. #28
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    No. Not in the sense I am talking about here, which is about morally justified scientific validation of statements. You can of course say whatever you want if you are only chatting, having a non-serious conversation, or something like that. But who cares about that in this context? No one should care about such trivial stuff when we are discussing types -- especially not if we are discussing a person's self-typing. If you form an opinion on someone's type without having made a serious analysis of the types in general and how that particular person describes him- or herself, you are not taking the types seriously. And that is both morally and scientifically wrong.
    You do realize that you're enforcing a particular standard on everyone here they need not and do not all share. You demand Ti and will only accept Ti and that's only a very small part of everything. It can only explain a portion of what goes on. It will not solve all problems, even if that's what you want it to do. To say that nothing is serious that is not typed and double-spaced in Ti font is disingenuous, misses the mark, and, frankly, is quite a limited perspective. Anyone who makes up a diagnosis on a whim and thinks it wields the force of fact is retarded. Anyone who thinks that people can't think something without explaining it explicitly according to the satisfaction of everyone else is an idiot.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  29. #29
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    No, you're wrong. If you and the other person disagree on how good it tastes, you should both argue for your opinion. And you should not stick to your opinion if the other person can make a better case for why his or her taste is better than yours. At least one of you must be wrong if you disagree, because aesthetical issues (what's good and what's bad) are no different from ethical issues (what's right and what's wrong) or scientific issues (what's true and what's false) -- both of you cannot be right if you contradict each other.
    Please explain convincingly, in logical form if possible, why I and every other individual here should accept a viewpoint such as this as the basis for any and all further discussion on this forum. The fact that I find jalapenos pleasing and someone else finds them distasteful does not make either of us wrong. People value what they will. Sometimes those values might conflict and get conflated into some battle of epic proportions, but to say that one's values are inherently, matter-of-factly, absolutely, without-a-doubt superior to another's just because I can pull out the health benefits of regular capsaicin in my diet is foolish.

    Let me try to put this as simply as I can. Just because all theories/conceptions/ideas which can be proven are true, does not imply that all true theories/conceptions/ideas are provable.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  30. #30
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphin View Post
    -sigh-

    When can I be like this? When can I be as cool as munemori??? When when when? When? When when? Wheeeeeeeeen......
    Give it some time, read some books, live, go to college and keep changing your major for six years.

    Actually, nevermind. Just be yourself and follow your heart. Sounds vague, I know, but I guess the above was all it meant for me. I imagine you'll probably turn out better! I wasn't nearly so cool as you at that age...
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  31. #31
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll offer my opinions or impressions whenever I damn well please. You're free, of course, to regard them however you please. You may say I'm illogical, unscientific, immoral... whatever you'd like. This does not, however, change the fact that I said what I wanted to say and will continue to say what I want to say.

    (And you do know that everything you've said in this thread just comes off as you being overly guarded about your own self-typing, right?)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  32. #32
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    What do you mean.. Machinetruc is one of my favorite posters... he's funny, merry and not very at all. And here you have two Alphas who think that Machinetruc is alpha.

    He is more obviously the LII then Tcaud, who I think of as a beta rational.
    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Tcaud is about 50 times more confrontational then machinetruc. I mean.. ban Jessica/people like X should be eliminated... yea PoLR... bullshit.. he's usually asking some sort of authority to do what he thinks is just.
    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    I completely agree.

    Robespierre anyone?
    Granted, even his type is disputed, as for which ti leading he was.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  33. #33
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    (oh, I didn't care to read the thread, and I actually put dee on ignore lol)
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  34. #34
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see tcaudilllg as either a LII who's a bit too much into or an EIE who's too much into . Probably the former. As Ezra said, I can't see him as a ego.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  35. #35
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    (And you do know that everything you've said in this thread just comes off as you being overly guarded about your own self-typing, right?)
    I'd guess that's the whole point.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  36. #36
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you think that INTjs are not confrontational you know nothing about INTjs. INTjs weak function is +Se. Lets use a little common sense here and understand that INTjs PoLR has to be the ESFps dominant function. ESFps are not confrontational, they are submissive. If ESFps are submissive, then INTjs can't be submissive to authority. I swear the people heres logic makes very little sense.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    You do realize that you're enforcing a particular standard on everyone here they need not and do not all share.
    Yes, of course. And I say that this standard is objectively right. Everyone should follow it when discussing serious scientific problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    You demand Ti and will only accept Ti and that's only a very small part of everything.
    No, it's not Ti.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Please explain convincingly, in logical form if possible, why I and every other individual here should accept a viewpoint such as this as the basis for any and all further discussion on this forum. The fact that I find jalapenos pleasing and someone else finds them distasteful does not make either of us wrong.
    Totally correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    People value what they will.
    Correct again but trivial and irrelevant. And it is exactly here, in your next sentence, you make your big logical mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Sometimes those values might conflict and get conflated into some battle of epic proportions, but to say that one's values are inherently, matter-of-factly, absolutely, without-a-doubt superior to another's just because I can pull out the health benefits of regular capsaicin in my diet is foolish.
    To value something is not at all the same thing as finding something pleasing or distasteful. When you say that something has a high value, you claim that it is objectively good. You claim that you are right in assigning the value you in fact assign to the phenomenon. And if another person says that what you think is good is not good but bad, then one of you is necessarily wrong. It's a simple matter of logic.

    Values can never conflict if they are correct. And when you make a value statement you believe that your statement is correct (true). Which means that another person's contradictory value statement must be wrong (false) if your value statement is right (correct, true).

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Just because all theories/conceptions/ideas which can be proven are true, does not imply that all true theories/conceptions/ideas are provable.
    Correct. I agree completely. Here you are making the exact same point that I have made several times on this forum (especially in discussions with INTjs). You are confusing concepts that are logically distinct and separate.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I'll offer my opinions or impressions whenever I damn well please. You're free, of course, to regard them however you please. You may say I'm illogical, unscientific, immoral... whatever you'd like. This does not, however, change the fact that I said what I wanted to say and will continue to say what I want to say.
    We seem to agree on everything here. You think that you are justified in dismissing justifications and a serious attitude when discussing scientific issues such as the types, and I claim that you are wrong about that. Only one of us can be right in this case. You believe that you are right and that I am wrong, whereas I believe that I am right and that you are wrong. A rather common phenomenon actually.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    I see tcaudilllg as either a LII who's a bit too much into or an EIE who's too much into .
    Insane. You must be really stupid if you can consider EIE as a possible type for tcaudilllg.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •