Yeah I'll bet you thought you'd never see the day, but have at it.
Alright, what type am I?
Yeah I'll bet you thought you'd never see the day, but have at it.
SEI-SLE 2w8 cp sx/sp RLOEN sagittarius ESTJ k3,k1+,k4
Birthdate check... 12/20/81-- actually, I am Sagittarius.
I'm a 5w6 that I recall....
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
LII is obvious in my eyes. People are idiots on here; they don't know what Se is.
what he saidOriginally Posted by Ezra
INFp-Ni
You seem to be a prototypical LII, tcaudilllg.
LII > LSI > other Ti valuing type
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.
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.)
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?
why do people think LIIs can't be confrontational? or that being confrontational/aggressive = oodles of Se/Se valuing?
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.
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/
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.
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 youin regions that have never been
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
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)
No such thing (at least not in Socionics).
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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?)
What do you mean.. Machinetruc is one of my favorite posters... he's funny, merry and not veryat 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.Tcaud is about 50 times more confrontational then machinetruc. I mean.. ban Jessica/people like X should be eliminated... yea
Robespierre anyone?
Granted, even his type is disputed, as for which ti leading he was.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
(oh, I didn't care to read the thread, and I actually put dee on ignore lol)
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I see tcaudilllg as either a LII who's a bit too much into
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I'd guess that's the whole point.
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
Yes, of course. And I say that this standard is objectively right. Everyone should follow it when discussing serious scientific problems.
No, it's not Ti.
Totally correct.
Correct again but trivial and irrelevant. And it is exactly here, in your next sentence, you make your big logical mistake.
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).
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.
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.
Insane. You must be really stupid if you can consider EIE as a possible type for tcaudilllg.I see tcaudilllg as either a LII who's a bit too much into
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"