Phaedrus' Ideas and More Improvements in Socionics

[jason_m]

A lot of people around here don't like Phaedrus' ideas. I would suppose that this has more to do with the way he promotes his ideas than the ideas themselves. I haven't been able to find a thread that gets to the core of the issue, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that he promotes the notion that MBTI = socionics = Keirsey typing. I'm not going to say that it's true, but I can see how someone could come up with this idea. Socionics is not rigorously defined. The interpretation of how socionics should be tested at www.socionics.com (which is basically testing the four main dichotomies) is remarkably similar to the MBTI and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Therefore, if you buy into socionics.com's conception or the idea that the four dichotomies are the main determinant of type, then they all could be viewed as the same.

As I said, socionics is not rigorously defined. Someone has to come up with a standard method of typing people. This is an advantage that the MBTI has over socionics. If you have no emphasis on what parts of the theory are essential and you have no method of typing people, then everyone has a different conception of what comprises socionics, and everyone will be typing people differently. The theory is complex enough that few could fit every aspect of it. Therefore, if someone were to come up with some standards, there would be less confusion, and it would be much easier to type people. Ideally, the best way to type people would be to figure out what the essential aspects of typing someone are, while remaining true to the theory, and then coming up with a test that gives fairly reliable results. It might seem like a daunting task, but what about a test that measures each informational element and types people based on their two most used and compatible functions? Sure, there's a lot more to being an INTp than simply having , but for testing purposes, is it really necessary to get much more complicated than that? The only serious drawback that I could see would be the wording of the questions. There are so many subtypes of people who have, for example, dominant , that it can be difficult to generate questions that will correctly determine most dominant types. However, this doesn't mean that it could never be done.

As for Phaedrus' ideas, if a test similar to my conception were to turn out to be a valid measure, then Phaedrus' notion would seem less credible. But who knows, perhaps we could never be able to come up with an accurate test, and if that's the case, we could never say for certain whether Phaedrus is truly right or wrong. (It seems wrong to me, but without aspects of the theory that we consider to be critical, we could never know. And if you do believe there to be central parts to the theory, then how could, for example, Wikisocion and socionics.com vary so much?)

Tell me what you think.

Jason

[tcaudilllg]

His main argument is that they SHOULD match. He gets confused into thinking that they do match as the creators of either theory have defined them...

[Phaedrus]

Socionists in general indirectly agree that the types are the same in all three models according to the four dichotomies. Filatova surely assumes that they are the same in her book on Socionics, Lytov does not deny it, Ganin does not deny it either, and there is no strong reason whatsoever presented anywhere at any time by anyone to assume that the types are not the same according to the ABCD=ABCd thesis.

According to how the types are defined in Socionics (and in MBTT and Keirsey) the types are also necessarily the same, regardless of how many socionists realize that fact or not. And besides the fact that the types must be the same, the types are also described as very similar in behaviours and attitudes when we compare type descriptions. In addition to that, most people test and identify as the same type in Socionics and MBTT. And if we look at real life examples of each type, the types fit the ABCD=ABCd thesis perfectly according to V.I.

How much more evidence to you people really need in order to be convinced?

[Gilly]

There actually ARE strict definitions for the core terms used in Socionics, and they do not always coincide ( indeed, they are are sometimes completely at odds) with the vagueries provided by MBTI and Keirsey. For example MBTI says that ISFJ and ISTJ are dominant in Introverted Sensing, which is quite clearly not the case in Socionics. True, this is merely a terminological difference, and may not be indicative of the underlying truth of what those types represent, but if one were to examine, say, the typical MBTT INTJ portrait, it becomes quite apparent that the type being discussed most likely does not have Extroverted Sensing, as defined by Socionics, in the weakest place.

"Indirectly agree," lmfao.

[Not A Communist Shill]

There was a study where the 16 Keirsey type descriptions were sent to 108 Socionists, who then read them all and then identified which Socionics type best matched each description.

The results are on this page, about half down and under the heading 'Method 3'.

[Phaedrus]

There actually ARE strict definitions for the core terms used in Socionics, and they do not always coincide ( indeed, they are are sometimes completely at odds) with the vagueries provided by MBTI and Keirsey.

That is an irrelevant comment, because the types can be the same (and they are) despite the terms used to talk about the types are different in the three models. That the terms are different is exactly what we should expect (and no one has disputed it) since their theoretical explanations of the types are different.

For example MBTI says that ISFJ and ISTJ are dominant in Introverted Sensing, which is quite clearly not the case in Socionics.

Introverted Sensing (Si) is a completely different function from in Socionics. They have almost nothing at all to do with each other.

True, this is merely a terminological difference, and may not be indicative of the underlying truth of what those types represent, but if one were to examine, say, the typical MBTT INTJ portrait, it becomes quite apparent that the type being discussed most likely does not have Extroverted Sensing, as defined by Socionics, in the weakest place.

That is also an irrelevant comment, because everybody knows that the ordering of the functions (which in themselvers are also different) is different in the theoretical explanations of the types. And the theoretical explanations of the types are totally irrelevant for the truth ABCD=ABCd thesis.

[Gilly]

lol

I'm outa here. This is already going nowhere.

[Phaedrus]

lol

I'm outa here. This is already going nowhere.

The truth of the ABCD=ABCd thesis is already established. There is nothing to discuss. People should just accept it so that we can move on to more imoportant issues.

[jason_m]

According to how the types are defined in Socionics (and in MBTT and Keirsey) the types are also necessarily the same, regardless of how many socionists realize that fact or not.

Why is it that the types "must" be the same?

And besides the fact that the types must be the same, the types are also described as very similar in behaviours and attitudes when we compare type descriptions.

But not all of them are. I agree that most of the introverted types with sensing sound the same, but the INTj descriptions don't sound much like the MBTI INTJ descriptions. For example, socionics.com says that INTjs lack self-confidence. This is exactly opposite of what typelogic.com says about INTJs. In other words, I relate to most INTj descriptions but not most INTJ descriptions.

In addition to that, most people test and identify as the same type in Socionics and MBTT.

But only on tests similar to the one on socionics.com. I've read somewhere that there is only a 30% correlation between the typings of the two systems.

And if we look at real life examples of each type, the types fit the ABCD=ABCd thesis perfectly according to V.I.

I haven't seen any information about the visual identification of MBTI types. What evidence do you have that they are the same?

Honestly though, I can see how someone could say that some MBTI interpretation = some Keirsey interpretation = some socionics interpretation. I can't see how that equation works if we say replace the word "some" with the words "most every." In other words, they are all similar, but in order to say that they are all exactly the same, we would have to redefine a lot of the ideas in each system. That's fine if that's your interpretation of it. But if you're saying that they are exactly the same without any restructuring, then it's a lot harder to see how.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

Why is it that the types "must" be the same?

How can you not understand this? The types are defined by the four dichotomies, and the four dichotomies are the same in all three models. The functions are not the same, so they are irrelevant.

But not all of them are.

Wrong. All of the types are described as very similar.

I agree that most of the introverted types with sensing sound the same, but the INTj descriptions don't sound much like the MBTI INTJ descriptions. For example, socionics.com says that INTjs lack self-confidence. This is exactly opposite of what typelogic.com says about INTJs.

You are right about that detail in the type descriptions, but it is only a minor detail after all, and you have to look at the overall picture that emerges when you have read tons of type descriptions from Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. There is no other type than the INTj that is closer to how INTJs are described in MBTT and Keirsey.

In other words, I relate to most INTj descriptions but not most INTJ descriptions.

Is there any other type(s) in MBTT (and/or Keirsey) that fit you clearly better than INTJ?

But only on tests similar to the one on socionics.com. I've read somewhere that there is only a 30% correlation between the typings of the two systems.

Yes, and that's pure bullshit. Don't pay any attention to it, because it is irrelevant. They are not talking about the real types.

I haven't seen any information about the visual identification of MBTI types. What evidence do you have that they are the same?

My own observations of real life people. Everything fits perfectly.

[Expat]

Someone has to come up with a standard method of typing people. This is an advantage that the MBTI has over socionics.

That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.

If you have no emphasis on what parts of the theory are essential and you have no method of typing people, then everyone has a different conception of what comprises socionics, and everyone will be typing people differently.

That's one reason why people come to this forum, and why some of us try to meet personally. Not necessarily to reach agreement in everything, but to understand what each other is talking about, so hopefully we won't have extreme differences when typing people. But, in the end, each person must decide whether an individual typing makes sense or not.

Therefore, if someone were to come up with some standards, there would be less confusion, and it would be much easier to type people.

There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.

Ideally, the best way to type people would be to figure out what the essential aspects of typing someone are, while remaining true to the theory, and then coming up with a test that gives fairly reliable results. It might seem like a daunting task, but what about a test that measures each informational element and types people based on their two most used and compatible functions? Sure, there's a lot more to being an INTp than simply having , but for testing purposes, is it really necessary to get much more complicated than that? The only serious drawback that I could see would be the wording of the questions. There are so many subtypes of people who have, for example, dominant , that it can be difficult to generate questions that will correctly determine most dominant types. However, this doesn't mean that it could never be done.

There have been many attempts. You feel like trying as well, go ahead.

And if you do believe there to be central parts to the theory, then how could, for example, Wikisocion and socionics.com vary so much?)

Well, where do they disagree in the "central" parts?

[krieger]

According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

So there.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

So there.

So there what?

The reality is these relations work well from a US Gamma productive viewpoint. From an outsider looking in, US marriages, although perhaps materialistically productive, they certainly seem to be unhappy unisons.

The only thing you are proving more or less is that socionics is superior for intertype relations, but you already agree with that so I take it you agree with Phaedrus then?

[JuJu]

That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.
...
That's one reason why people come to this forum, and why some of us try to meet personally. Not necessarily to reach agreement in everything, but to understand what each other is talking about, so hopefully we won't have extreme differences when typing people. But, in the end, each person must decide whether an individual typing makes sense or not.
...
There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.

This is very accurate, IMO... Personally, it's taken me several years to grasp to Socionics to the degree that I have--and I still have a ways to go... Several more years, I imagine. (Hell, it took me almost two years to narrow down my type to XNFp!)

Typing ppl with Myers-Briggs or Keirsey is very simplistic compared with Socionics' comparable process... Ultimately though, as Expat said well, one can know much more about oneself, others, one's relationships with others, etc. by knowing Socionics... Thus, I've found it a rewarding process to learn how to type using Socionics--more rewarding than MBTI and Keirsey, systems that seem superficial by comparison.

Here's an example where XXXX (other theories) does not equal XXXx (Socionics.) Several days ago, I was attempting to type Michael Jordan using Socionics. Keirsey and MBTI practitioners have typed Jordan ISTp... This would seem to make sense, right? After all, Jordan seems quiet, which is a good indicator or Introversion in the aforementioned systems... After watching numerous interviews with Jordan, however, it became clear to me that he does not possess 'Delta values.' Jordan projects Se more than anything else, and responds much more to Fe than Fi. (It's been noted that Jordan despised former #1 pick Kwame Brown's--who is certainly ISTp--for his perceived lack of passion and unresponsiveness to Fe motivation.) That's not to say that Keirsey's or MBTI's typing of Jordan were way off--clearly, Jordan is XSTx... He's just not a Delta XSTx. IMO, the evidence points to beta XSTx.

As to consensus typings in Socionics, I agree with you--I wish that there could be more of them here on this forum. To be honest though, since Socionics takes such a long time to learn, and is complicated, the lack of consensus here makes sense. After all, most ppl here are in the process of figuring out the system themselves... There are very few experts, although some ppl are well on their way...

Let's keep in mind that this theory is relatively new to English-speakers... I believe that there will be more consensus in the future, as ppl learn the ins-and-outs of the theory...

I believe that it could be of great help if those who were 100% confident of certain typings could assemble a benchmark list, so that newcomers to Socionics could associate the Socionics functions about which they'll read to visuals, and sounds, etc. (In other words, we could compile interviews/videos of ppl.)

I believe that typing ppl strictly by the Jungian foundation, or by societal role leads to many mis-typings in Socionics. Those sorts of typings are fine for the other theories, which describe superficial characteristics more than anything... But for Socionics, which describes ppl's inner-motivations and relationships, one must learn the functions... And that takes time, for better or worse.

[Expat]

I believe that it could be of great help if those who were 100% confident of certain typings could assemble a benchmark list, so that newcomers to Socionics could associate the Socionics functions about which they'll read to visuals, and sounds, etc. (In other words, we could compile interviews/videos of ppl.)

I am not 100% confident of any typing. But there is already something like that in Rick's sites and in the wiki's list of celebrities.

I believe that typing ppl strictly by the Jungian foundation, or by societal role leads to many mis-typings in Socionics. Those sorts of typings are fine for the other theories, which describe superficial characteristics more than anything... But for Socionics, which describes ppl's inner-motivations and relationships, one must learn the functions... And that takes time, for better or worse.

Yes, but some people aren't willing to accept that.

[Expat]

Here's an example where XXXX (other theories) does not equal XXXx (Socionics.) Several days ago, I was attempting to type Michael Jordan using Socionics. Keirsey and MBTI practitioners have typed Jordan ISTp... This would seem to make sense, right? After all, Jordan seems quiet, which is a good indicator or Introversion in the aforementioned systems... After watching numerous interviews with Jordan, however, it became clear to me that he does not possess 'Delta values.' Jordan projects Se more than anything else, and responds much more to Fe than Fi. (It's been noted that Jordan despised former #1 pick Kwame Brown's--who is certainly ISTp--for his perceived lack of passion and unresponsiveness to Fe motivation.) That's not to say that Keirsey's or MBTI's typing of Jordan were way off--clearly, Jordan is XSTx... He's just not a Delta XSTx. IMO, the evidence points to beta XSTx.

I know nothing about Jordan or Brown, but your reasoning seems spot on to me.

[JuJu]

I am not 100% confident of any typing. But there is already something like that in Rick's sites and in the wiki's list of celebrities.

Yup, that's true... Maybe I should concentrate on putting up some typings on wikisocion. (I need to learn how to do it now, haha)

Yes, but some people aren't willing to accept that.

It's true... I'm not sure exactly how you type ppl, but I've noticed that I often agree with your typings, and the reasoning behind them... When I first came to Socionics, I believe that I would've doubted many of your typings b/c they'd have seemed counter-intuitive to me.

For example, I remember a particular thread about American presidents and G.W. Bush. In it, some ppl were arguing that Bush was an extroverted type because he seemed gregarious, and a perceiving type b/c he seemed pretty easy-going--I remember thinking something along the lines of: "how can Bush be an introverted type? He's always talking with ppl and joking..."

If I was typing him using just Jungian foundation, I would type Bush as EXXx. However, after learning more about Socionics, I realized that extroversion (in the most frequently used sense) was not a fool-proof indicator of a Socionics extroverted leading function. So re: G.W. Bush: the functions that he manifests most (i.e. are most noticeable) are Fi and Se... His personal values--not the values of the American presidency, nor his administration's policies--but his personal values are Gamma values... In Socionics, I'm pretty sure that he's ISFj. (Aside: Bush Sr, who arguably seems more of an introverted person than his son, in Socionics, has an extroverted leading function.)

If I remember correctly, you were the voice in the wilderness arguing for Bush as ISFj--and at the time I thought, "no." lol

But yeah, essentially what I'm trying to say is that I agree with how you seem to go about typing ppl.

[Expat]

but his personal values are Gamma values... In Socionics, I'm pretty sure that he's ISFj. (Aside: Bush Sr, who arguably seems more of an introverted person than his son, in Socionics, has an extroverted leading function.)

If I remember correctly, you were the voice in the wilderness arguing for Bush as ISFj--and at the time I thought, "no." lol

I don't remember ever seriously suggesting that Bush was ISFj; if I did, I don't know what I was thinking.

My present view, also after reading The Bush Tragedy by Jacob Weisberg, is:

President George W. Bush - ENFj
former president Bush - ESTj
Dick Cheney - ENTj
Condolleezza Rice - ISFj

[JuJu]

I don't remember ever seriously suggesting that Bush was ISFj; if I did, I don't know what I was thinking.

My present view, also after reading The Bush Tragedy by Jacob Weisberg, is:

President George W. Bush - ENFj
former president Bush - ESTj
Dick Cheney - ENTj
Condolleezza Rice - ISFj

Hmm... Yeah, I guess that wasn't you, lol.

I admit, I cannot currently see G.W. Bush as ENFj--but then again, I haven't read the book... I believe that he might play a ENFj role, i.e. the cowboy thing... It's very clear to me that he values Se rather than Si... The problem with a ISFj typing, for me, has been that he seems too aggressive--I admit, I cannot reconcile that... To be honest, I've never even thought about ENFj for him... I'm interested to hear why you think he might be that type, but maybe this thread isn't the best place for it.

As to the rest of them: I have Cheney as ESTp, (obviously values Se; I cannot see him valuing Fi.) Former Pres. Bush as ESTj, (we agree there.) Not sure about Condi Rice.

Consensuses are very hard to reach, indeed, lol

EDIT: Are there other types that you've considered for G.W. Bush, aside from ENFj? I just watched several interviews, including two one-on-ones, and you're right, it's pretty clear that his focus is more on Fe than Fi. Se>Si too... So that leaves only a limited number from which to choose... The problem with a ENFj typing, as I see it, is that he doesn't seem particularly open, or apprehensive, or anxious... Or even well-prepared for future events, (even in conversation.) In other words, his Ni doesn't seem to be working very well, hehe, at least from what I've seen--for a ENFj, that is... This is really interesting to me though. I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

[jason_m]

That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.

The problem isn't just that it's difficult to find, it's almost impossible to find. I've rarely seen any group of people come to a consensus about someone's type. The reason for this is because everyone is focusing on different aspects of the theory that they consider to be most important. If someone were to evaluate what aspects lead to the most accurate typings, then we would know where to look.

There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.

I didn't say that it has to be easy. Don't you think that some methods of typing yield more accurate results than others? If we were to crystallize these accurate methods and come up with some objective way of doing it, then there would be less confusion.

There have been many attempts. You feel like trying as well, go ahead.

I never said that I felt like trying. I'm simply not creative enough to come up with good test questions. But I think that the approach that I've mentioned would be a good start for someone who does have the ability to come up with them.

EDIT: Another possible approach would be to come up with several descriptions of each type, each about two paragraphs long. The testee could then rate each description, based on how much it fits them. Also, if a person gives a description a perfect score, then that score should be given more weight, and the approximate best weighting would be determined by testing the instrument against those who have known types. The type with the highest score would be the result. I think this would be quite effective, but somewhat difficult to create.

Well, where do they disagree in the "central" parts?

I'm not going to bother searching to find out where exactly, but I know that a lot of people around here don't consider socionics.com to be a good source of information, while they do consider Wikisocion to be good. I don't see how this would be possible if they both agreed on most things.

Jason

[jason_m]

How can you not understand this?

How could you think that this is easy to see when most people do not agree with you?

The types are defined by the four dichotomies, and the four dichotomies are the same in all three models. The functions are not the same, so they are irrelevant.

But not all types are defined by the four dicotomies. I will agree that this is so in with the MBTI and Keirsey, but socionics has no one way of defining the types. You could define them by the dichotomies, by the functions, by visual identification, by their relationships with others, etc. None of these features have officially been given precedence over the other, and no standard method of typing has been given. Hence, the confusion I stated in the original post.

Wrong. All of the types are described as very similar.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You are right about that detail in the type descriptions, but it is only a minor detail after all, and you have to look at the overall picture that emerges when you have read tons of type descriptions from Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. There is no other type than the INTj that is closer to how INTJs are described in MBTT and Keirsey.

I don't know about this. Keirsey's descriptions are kind of vague, but I think that the INTP description in the MBTI sounds closer.

Is there any other type(s) in MBTT (and/or Keirsey) that fit you clearly better than INTJ?

In the MBTI, I identify with most INTP descriptions, some INFJ descriptions, and some INFP descriptions. However, I don't identify with the socionics INTp descriptions.

Yes, and that's pure bullshit. Don't pay any attention to it, because it is irrelevant. They are not talking about the real types.

So you're saying that this is your own interpretation of socionics, not the general interpretation that most others use? If that's the case, I cannot argue with you, since, as I said, there is no official way of determining the types.

Jason

[jason_m]

According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

So there.

It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."

Jason

[JuJu]

It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."

Jason

Rick's got a good description of duality on his site, socionics.us. (Dunno if you've seen that.)

I agree that Socionics.com has some shaky parts, especially the celebrity typings and the VI thingy, (both often way off.) Some of the descriptions are pretty good, but yeah, I find Wikisocion's info better in general. That is to say, the info that's there--the IEE description is only half done, and some inter-type relations have overly pithy descriptions.

It is hard to get a consensus around here for exactly the reasons that you're addressing... I appreciate that you're trying to get to the bottom of it. I've always chalked it up to varying levels of understanding--but it's true, and Expat can speak to this I believe, even among Socionists, there are disputes regarding how to type. Awhile ago, Expat brought up an example regarding the typing of JFK that shocked me, i.e. some Russian Socionists typed him by how he 'embodied' his societal role as president (ENTp--in their opinion, the ideal American man--please correct me if I'm wrong, Expat,) not by his personal attributes (ENFj.) I'd argue that typing a 'role' this kinda defeats the point of typing a 'person...' But yeah, these differences of opinion exist, even among ppl who've been doing it for years.

I don't believe that there are many ppl here on this forum who type by role, fwiw.

[Expat]

The problem isn't just that it's difficult to find, it's almost impossible to find. I've rarely seen any group of people come to a consensus about someone's type. The reason for this is because everyone is focusing on different aspects of the theory that they consider to be most important. If someone were to evaluate what aspects lead to the most accurate typings, then we would know where to look.

Personally I don't think that reaching a consensus about anyone's type is that important; I think it's more important that we understand where everyone is coming from for their typings.

Also, we're talking about typing each other online, or typing celebrities. When people here actually meet, discussions on each other's types are much clearer.

EDIT: Another possible approach would be to come up with several descriptions of each type, each about two paragraphs long. The testee could then rate each description, based on how much it fits them. Also, if a person gives a description a perfect score, then that score should be given more weight, and the approximate best weighting would be determined by testing the instrument against those who have known types. The type with the highest score would be the result. I think this would be quite effective, but somewhat difficult to create.

Something like that has been tried, see for instance Hugo's test here:


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...nic_type_tests

I'm not going to bother searching to find out where exactly, but I know that a lot of people around here don't consider socionics.com to be a good source of information, while they do consider Wikisocion to be good. I don't see how this would be possible if they both agreed on most things.

It depends on what you're talking about. I think that most people here would agree that socionics.com is useful as a first introduction to socionics, due to its type descriptions (I think that the +/- ones are particularly good), the descriptions of the relationships, and the general ideas. I don't think anyone would say that those bits are wrong.

[Expat]

but it's true, and Expat can speak to this I believe, even among Socionists, there are disputes regarding how to type. Awhile ago, Expat brought up an example regarding the typing of JFK that shocked me, i.e. some Russian Socionists typed him by how he 'embodied' his societal role as president (ENTp--in their opinion, the ideal American man--please correct me if I'm wrong, Expat,) not by his personal attributes (ENFj.) I'd argue that typing a 'role' this kinda defeats the point of typing a 'person...' But yeah, these differences of opinion exist, even among ppl who've been doing it for years.

The "consensus" typing for JFK among the Russians is ENTj (not ENTp). At least one site (socionics.org) also types his wife Jackie as ISFj.

Talking about historical typings with Igor Weisband, one of the earliest socionists, he told me that at least he, personally, typed Kennedy as ENTj because that was the "American society" type, and Kennedy seemed to personify the ideal American man; so, ergo, Kennedy's own type was ENTj -- And I guess that the same logic (not by Weisband, perhaps) deduced that since they seemed to be an "ideal couple", then Jackie was ISFj (the possibility that that "ideal" appearance was intentional does not seem to have occurred to them).

Likewise, he typed Oliver Cromwell as ENTp for similar reasons - he seemed to think that anyone introduducing supposedly "revolutionary ideas" is ENTp (his own type, by the way).

I obviously disagree with this approach; it may be useful to give a first hunch, but it must be checked against individual evidence. I've read more on JFK than I probably should have, and to me it's very easy to make the case of ENFj for him; and his wife was either ESFj or ENFj herself.

Now, I don't know how many Russian socionists use this kind of reasoning, but I daresay some of them do. On the other hand, some published Russian articles on historical figures's types - as on Napoleon, for instance - do show them using specific evidence.

[Expat]

It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."

You can be "attracted" to a person, or to a type, for many reasons. In principle, what socionics says is that persons of your dual type are those with whom a close, longer-term relationship is the most favorable, comfortable, successful, etc - all other things being equal.

Other texts say that, indeed, you are attracted to your dual the moment you meet them -- well, I don't know that that's always the case.

Looking back at my own life, I have seen the pattern that I used to be attracted to, and inclined to start relationships with, ENFjs, which was sort of counter-productive.

[Phaedrus]

How could you think that this is easy to see when most people do not agree with you?

Because my arguments are conclusive. Don't you realize that? The four díchotomies are the same in all three models, god damn it! That many people don't see it is irrelevant.

But not all types are defined by the four dicotomies.

Wrong. They are. How can you be so blind? It's incredible.

I will agree that this is so in with the MBTI and Keirsey, but socionics has no one way of defining the types. You could define them by the dichotomies, by the functions, by visual identification, by their relationships with others, etc.

Irrelevant. The four dichotomies is one way of defining the socionic types, and since it is, we should focus on exactly that aspect of the types, because it allows us to see that the ABCD=ABCd thesis is necessarily true.

None of these features have officially been given precedence over the other, and no standard method of typing has been given.

Irrelevant. All of these ways of defining the types are equally valid as long as they correctly demarcate the boundaries between the different types. You think that you can dismiss one way of defining the types if it suits you. But you are wrong. Your type is necessarily defined by the four dichotomies, and they can never ever contradict the other aspects of your type. If they do, you are mistyped.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

No. You just have to accept what I say as the objective truth.

I don't know about this. Keirsey's descriptions are kind of vague, but I think that the INTP description in the MBTI sounds closer.

Only if you focus on the functions, which I have forbidden you to focus on. If you compare how their behaviours and attitudes are described, you will have to agree that I am right. I have also explained in detail why the INTP is the same type as the INTp in various posts on this forum. I hate to have to repeat this truth over and over again. INTPs are Objectivists, INTJs are Subjectivists (Reinin dichotomies) -- both in MBTT and Socionics. That fact is in itself enough (but there are lots of other arguments too of course) to establish that I am right about these two types.

In the MBTI, I identify with most INTP descriptions, some INFJ descriptions, and some INFP descriptions. However, I don't identify with the socionics INTp descriptions.

That's because you are only a beginner. Study them more. Compare Stratiyevskaya's and Filatova's type descriptions with the MBTT ones. And the fact that you identify with the INTP descriptions means that you probably can't read type descriptions correctly and that you don't understand them, because, as we all agree on, your correct MBTT type is most likely not INTP, is it?

So you're saying that this is your own interpretation of socionics, not the general interpretation that most others use? If that's the case, I cannot argue with you, since, as I said, there is no official way of determining the types.

In that case I must believe that you are an idiot. How can you brainwash yourself with such a stupid argument? The types can be observed -- if you open your eyes for once.

[jason_m]

Because my arguments are conclusive. Don't you realize that? The four díchotomies are the same in all three models, god damn it! That many people don't see it is irrelevant.


Wrong. They are. How can you be so blind? It's incredible.


Irrelevant. The four dichotomies is one way of defining the socionic types, and since it is, we should focus on exactly that aspect of the types, because it allows us to see that the ABCD=ABCd thesis is necessarily true.


Irrelevant. All of these ways of defining the types are equally valid as long as they correctly demarcate the boundaries between the different types. You think that you can dismiss one way of defining the types if it suits you. But you are wrong. Your type is necessarily defined by the four dichotomies, and they can never ever contradict the other aspects of your type. If they do, you are mistyped.


No. You just have to accept what I say as the objective truth.


Only if you focus on the functions, which I have forbidden you to focus on. If you compare how their behaviours and attitudes are described, you will have to agree that I am right. I have also explained in detail why the INTP is the same type as the INTp in various posts on this forum. I hate to have to repeat this truth over and over again. INTPs are Objectivists, INTJs are Subjectivists (Reinin dichotomies) -- both in MBTT and Socionics. That fact is in itself enough (but there are lots of other arguments too of course) to establish that I am right about these two types.


That's because you are only a beginner. Study them more. Compare Stratiyevskaya's and Filatova's type descriptions with the MBTT ones. And the fact that you identify with the INTP descriptions means that you probably can't read type descriptions correctly and that you don't understand them, because, as we all agree on, your correct MBTT type is most likely not INTP, is it?


In that case I must believe that you are an idiot. How can you brainwash yourself with such a stupid argument? The types can be observed -- if you open your eyes for once.

I'm starting to get a clearer picture about this. I think you have some sort of mental illness. I don't know if you're familiar with the psychiatric term "delusion", but in psychiatry, it refers to a fixed, false belief. No matter how many people disagree, no matter hard you try, you cannot convince such a person that their belief is false. And if you "attack" the belief, look out. That's exactly what happened above. Also, I don't care if you have mental illness. Personal attacks have no place in most any discussion. Most ten year olds know how to treat others with respect. Stop for a second and think about that. Let it sink in deep. What does that say about your level of maturity and/or intelligence? Do you simply not know any better?

That's the first possibility. The second possibility is that you are a troll. You take on a controversial point of view, claim that it is obvious (even though no one agrees with it), and then personally attack those who question your beliefs. Doesn't that sound like classic troll behaviour? Honestly, I'm surprised that I haven't read any other claims around here that you are a troll.

In any event, something is terribly wrong.

Jason

[jason_m]

Personally I don't think that reaching a consensus about anyone's type is that important; I think it's more important that we understand where everyone is coming from for their typings.

But if we only understand where everyone is coming from, then there is no final say as to anyone's type. For example, if I only know that you're using a method different from me, but not whose is better, then what have we accomplished? All we have are different methods of typing people, but no say as to which one is correct.

Also, we're talking about typing each other online, or typing celebrities. When people here actually meet, discussions on each other's types are much clearer.

I can't comment on that. I've never discussed socionics with any knowledgeable person in real life. I'm also not very good at typing people I know; there are only a select few that I'm fairly certain about.

Something like that has been tried, see for instance Hugo's test here:


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...nic_type_tests

That seems different from what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting several multiple paragraph descriptions of each type (e.g., five three paragraph descriptions per type), and have the testee rate each description. The reason for having descriptions would be because that is often the bottom line when determining someone's type. The reason for having multiple of them would be because one or two descriptions are not really enough to accurately say that the type is conclusive. I also suggested that if someone gives a perfect rating to a description (the scale should be fairly large), then that type gets extra points. This would be because a description that fits perfectly is much more likely to be one of the correct type, so this should be given extra credit. The real trick to designing such a test would be creating multiple accurate descriptions for each type. And, as far as I can see, this would be difficult.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

I'm starting to get a clearer picture about this. I think you have some sort of mental illness. I don't know if you're familiar with the psychiatric term "delusion", but in psychiatry, it refers to a fixed, false belief.

If anyone is having a fixed, false belief here it you and others who refuse to study the empirical material that is right in front of your eyes to see. My arguments are still conclusive, and you haven't provided any counter argument. You have just stated that you are skeptical. You are not arguing, you are just saying that you disagree. But you have no grounds for disagreeing, so are you just stupid? Are you unintelligent and unable to grasp the logical distinctions? Don't you know what you are talking about, or what is it? What is the real explanation for your idiotic behaviour?

No matter how many people disagree, no matter hard you try, you cannot convince such a person that their belief is false. And if you "attack" the belief, look out. That's exactly what happened above.

Yes, no matter how many objectively strong arguments I put forward to make it easier for you to see the truth, you stick to your prejudices and your unfounded skepticism. You want to belong to the ignorant crowd. I suggest that you think for yourself, and you refuse. That makes you a despicable idiot.

Also, I don't care if you have mental illness. Personal attacks have no place in most any discussion.

And yet you use them yourself. How consequential is that in your opinion?

Most ten year olds know how to treat others with respect.

But obviously you don't, since you are not treating me and what I say with respect. You don't show the objective truth any respect whatsoever.

Stop for a second and think about that. Let it sink in deep. What does that say about your level of maturity and/or intelligence?

Yes, do exactly that in relation to your own behaviour here.

Do you simply not know any better?

I surely know much better and much more than you, that's a certainty.

That's the first possibility. The second possibility is that you are a troll.

And I am certainly not a troll, even though some idiots like to suggest that.

You take on a controversial point of view, claim that it is obvious (even though no one agrees with it), and then personally attack those who question your beliefs. Doesn't that sound like classic troll behaviour?

No, not if the point of view happens to be true, which it is in this case. You just haven't studied the problem enough. I have.

Honestly, I'm surprised that I haven't read any other claims around here that you are a troll.

Those who have understood what I am talking about realize that I am not a troll.

In any event, something is terribly wrong.

Yes, people's insistence on ignorance and prejudices.

[Expat]

But if we only understand where everyone is coming from, then there is no final say as to anyone's type. For example, if I only know that you're using a method different from me, but not whose is better, then what have we accomplished? All we have are different methods of typing people, but no say as to which one is correct.

Well yes, in the end, you have to decide for yourself whether the picture you have makes sense or not. In my experience, a time comes when all the pieces fit into place and then it all makes sense.

That seems different from what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting several multiple paragraph descriptions of each type (e.g., five three paragraph descriptions per type), and have the testee rate each description. The reason for having descriptions would be because that is often the bottom line when determining someone's type. The reason for having multiple of them would be because one or two descriptions are not really enough to accurately say that the type is conclusive. I also suggested that if someone gives a perfect rating to a description (the scale should be fairly large), then that type gets extra points. This would be because a description that fits perfectly is much more likely to be one of the correct type, so this should be given extra credit. The real trick to designing such a test would be creating multiple accurate descriptions for each type. And, as far as I can see, this would be difficult.

It's not so different. If you take that test, a point comes where you have options based on one-paragraph descriptions (based on subtypes, but anyway), following previous selections based on one-paragraph descriptions of functions. So the logic is similar.

The problem with the kind of test you're proposing, and it has been attempted here many times, is that many people seeem to have difficulty in deciding which bits in each description are more or less important.

[jason_m]

If anyone is having a fixed, false belief here it you and others who refuse to study the empirical material that is right in front of your eyes to see. My arguments are still conclusive, and you haven't provided any counter argument. You have just stated that you are skeptical. You are not arguing, you are just saying that you disagree. But you have no grounds for disagreeing, so are you just stupid? Are you unintelligent and unable to grasp the logical distinctions? Don't you know what you are talking about, or what is it? What is the real explanation for your idiotic behaviour?


Yes, no matter how many objectively strong arguments I put forward to make it easier for you to see the truth, you stick to your prejudices and your unfounded skepticism. You want to belong to the ignorant crowd. I suggest that you think for yourself, and you refuse. That makes you a despicable idiot.


And yet you use them yourself. How consequential is that in your opinion?


But obviously you don't, since you are not treating me and what I say with respect. You don't show the objective truth any respect whatsoever.


Yes, do exactly that in relation to your own behaviour here.


I surely know much better and much more than you, that's a certainty.


And I am certainly not a troll, even though some idiots like to suggest that.


No, not if the point of view happens to be true, which it is in this case. You just haven't studied the problem enough. I have.


Those who have understood what I am talking about realize that I am not a troll.


Yes, people's insistence on ignorance and prejudices.

Actually, I think I've really figured it out. I just read that you have Asperger syndrome. I searched Google for -Asperger egocentric- and there were a few websites that stated that people with Asperger syndrome can be more egocentric than the rest of the population. I think that is the problem here. You are simply not capable of understanding how to treat others properly. For example, you used as an argument that I'm not treating you with respect, and therefore, I'm being contradictory. However, most people understand that if you treat someone badly, then you simply cannot expect them to treat you with respect. The fact that it is contradictory doesn't mean anything.

I figured that Asperger syndrome only meant that people with it don't grasp social conventions. However, it seems that some don't grasp social principles either. The principle here is this: how would you like it if someone called you an idiot because they thought that you're wrong? The fact is, you probably wouldn't. You would probably think that it is wrong. If we assume that others are similar to you in this respect (and we can), then we can infer that others won't like it either and will also think that it is wrong. Therefore, you don't say something like that. The problem is that you don't grasp these principles, but since it's due to your illness, I cannot really fault you.

However, if you want to be a functioning member of society, then you are going to have to somehow learn how to treat people with respect. Otherwise, no one will like you and you will make yourself into a target. You will find that no one will really listen to you and some will try and sabotage your efforts, simply because they don't like you. If you want to live a lifetime of frustration, then, by all means, be my guest. But if you want to make your life easier, you're going to have to learn. By the way, I have my own mental afflictions. I have OCD. It's gotten so bad that, at one point, I doubted every thought that I had. However, I have learned to deal with it, and so must you have to learn to deal with your problems.

An interesting moral corollary to this is whether it's right to punish a sociopath. We assume that because you have a disease that causes you to not be able to perceive social rules, it would not be fair to punish you when you violate them. But what about a sociopath? Their nature is different than the rest of us. Clearly, behaviour resides in the brain, so there must be something different about their brains. Therefore, can't we call this a disease? Usually, with psychological illnesses, what separates an abnormality from an illness is that the illness has a deleterious effect on one's life. Doesn't sociopathic behaviour have a negative effect on the lives of those who exhibit it? And if it is a disease, do we punish people who are insane or have illnesses like Asperger syndrome when they do wrong, or do we commit those who are sociopaths to confined treatment? It's an interesting question, but I think that the bottom line is that sociopaths are a danger to society, so they must be confined in some way. Anyway, I digress. Please, if not for our sake, but for your own, treat people with respect. You are free to disagree, but you are not free to harass or use personal attacks.

Jason

[Hitta]

I can't believe people are still arguing this with Phaedrus. You can't convince him otherwise. It doesn't matter what you say, or what your arguments are, Phaedrus is going to keep his opinion.

Btw, Phaedrus, there is no way in hell you are an INTp. Its just not possible. Of course you are just gonna ignore what I am saying, but I'm telling you straight up, you are not INTp. Hopefully some day you'll figure this out.

[jason_m]

I can't believe people are still arguing this with Phaedrus. You can't convince him otherwise. It doesn't matter what you say, or what your arguments are, Phaedrus is going to keep his opinion.

Btw, Phaedrus, there is no way in hell you are an INTp. Its just not possible. Of course you are just gonna ignore what I am saying, but I'm telling you straight up, you are not INTp. Hopefully some day you'll figure this out.

What you said here is pretty reasonable.

Jason

[JuJu]

I might sometimes, I try to consider "everything", this includes the "role" that each type has within the socion...an example is IEE, "the Reporter/Psychologist", a "role" that IEEs like Rick and tereg really fit well, I think.

Oh yeah, that kinda role--I do that sometimes too, I think haha... Rick and tereg def fit the reporter/psychologist role.

What I was thinking about was, well, something along the lines of what Expat described (Russian Socionist reasoning

1) America idealizes ENTj, for some reason
2) America idealizes JFK b/c he represents its 'ideal man'
3) JFK is ENTj

To me, this seems kinda silly... Just ignoring JFK's real personality.

[Phaedrus]

Actually, I think I've really figured it out. I just read that you have Asperger syndrome. I searched Google for -Asperger egocentric- and there were a few websites that stated that people with Asperger syndrome can be more egocentric than the rest of the population. I think that is the problem here. You are simply not capable of understanding how to treat others properly.

How I treat you or other people is totally irrelevant for the truth of my statements. And whether I have Asperger's syndrome or not is also totally irrelevant -- for exactly the same reasons that it is totally irrelevant for the truth of the theory of relativity that Einstein had Asperger's syndrome (which is a fact). You try to avoid addressing the arguments by focusing on my person, which is properly called cheating. You are wrong and I am right about the types and Socionics in general -- and that is simply a fact. Everything else is irrelevant for this discussion.

For example, you used as an argument that I'm not treating you with respect, and therefore, I'm being contradictory.

I did not use it as an argument. How incapable of using logic can you be? I only pointed it out so that you could see the total irrelevance of your own accusations against how I treat people (including you). If you still haven't understood that, you really are an idiot.

However, most people understand that if you treat someone badly, then you simply cannot expect them to treat you with respect.

I don't expect people to treat me with respect. Few people on this forum do, but that is irrelevant. I don't care how people treat me, but I do care about how they treat my arguments. And it is a fact that you -- and a lot of others -- dismiss logic and facts for completely irrelevant reasons. It is totally irrelevant how I treat you and how you treat me as long as you can argue logically, but unfortunately you seem to be incapable of such a task.

The fact that it is contradictory doesn't mean anything.

Wrong. It means that your argument was totally irrelevant and therefore should be ignored. You have still not addressed any of my arguments. You are so far nothing but a dogmatic skeptic, which is a sign of stupidity.

I figured that Asperger syndrome only meant that people with it don't grasp social conventions. However, it seems that some don't grasp social principles either. The principle here is this: how would you like it if someone called you an idiot because they thought that you're wrong?

*yawn* ... People call me an idiot all the time. And many people think that I am wrong. Why should I care about it? It is irrelevant what they think of me as a person. We are here to discuss Socionics and the truth of the types. Our opinions are irrelevant -- only objective truth counts. So far no one has been able to come up with any arguments that have forced me to reconsider my beliefs. If someone can, I will change my beliefs -- and I will do it regardless of whether the person expressing the arguments think that I am an idiot or not.

The fact is, you probably wouldn't.

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.

You would probably think that it is wrong.

No, not if it is accompanied with objectively strong arguments. Unfortunately that almost never happens.

If we assume that others are similar to you in this respect (and we can), then we can infer that others won't like it either and will also think that it is wrong.

It is not wrong.

Therefore, you don't say something like that. The problem is that you don't grasp these principles, but since it's due to your illness, I cannot really fault you.

What you refer to as social "principles" here are irrelevant. You have a totally wrong focus. You don't focus on the issue, you focus on the person. That is a well-known logical mistake.

However, if you want to be a functioning member of society, then you are going to have to somehow learn how to treat people with respect.

And if I don't care about being a functioning member of society, what shall you do then? Are you so deluded that you believe that my statements become automatically false just because I don't adhere to some social norms?

Otherwise, no one will like you and you will make yourself into a target.

Tell me something new. It doesn't matter how I put things, people make me a target anyway. But as I said, that is irrelevant.

You will find that no one will really listen to you and some will try and sabotage your efforts, simply because they don't like you.

So what? It is still totally irrelevant. If people are more interested in my person than in the objective truth, then they are idiots of course, because the objective truth is much more important than I am.

If you want to live a lifetime of frustration, then, by all means, be my guest.

My personal life is none of your business, and it is totally irrelevant for the truth of what I say. (Do you realize that you are only repeating what is irrelevant comments, whereas I am only repeating relevant facts?)

But if you want to make your life easier, you're going to have to learn.

*YAWN* ... When will you get to the point? When will you say something that is not utterly trivial and boring?

By the way, I have my own mental afflictions. I have OCD.

Good. Then we know something important about your personality structure. It is a rather strong argument that we are not the same type. If you want to understand your type better, you can read about the Obsessive personality pattern in Nancy McWilliams' book Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual. Even though all psychoanalytic perspectives are wrong (scientifically speaking) in their theoretical explanations, McWilliams describes the personality patterns quite well, and all those patterns are strongly linked to specific socionic types. The INTp's (and thus my own) personality pattern in a psychoanalytic perspective is called "Schizoid".

It's gotten so bad that, at one point, I doubted every thought that I had. However, I have learned to deal with it, and so must you have to learn to deal with your problems.

My personal problems are irrelevant in this context. I am not here to get help from you or other people. I am here to discuss the types.

An interesting moral corollary to this is whether it's right to punish a sociopath. We assume that because you have a disease that causes you to not be able to perceive social rules, it would not be fair to punish you when you violate them. But what about a sociopath? Their nature is different than the rest of us.

Yes. A psychopath is born evil. And if it is not always wrong to punish people, it is not wrong to punish a sociopath for doing wrong. A psychopath is no less free than the rest of us. Either we are all free, or none of us is free in the sense that is relevant to morality -- at least when we compare sociopaths (psychopaths) and "normal" people.

Clearly, behaviour resides in the brain, so there must be something different about their brains.

Yes.

Therefore, can't we call this a disease?

No. Diseases are processes and they are normally possible to cure. Sociopathy is not curable. Having a differently structured brain is not to have a disease.

Usually, with psychological illnesses, what separates an abnormality from an illness is that the illness has a deleterious effect on one's life. Doesn't sociopathic behaviour have a negative effect on the lives of those who exhibit it?

Schizophrenia is a disease that has negative effects on the lives of those who suffer from it, but just because somethign has negative effects on your life it doesn't mean that it is a disease. Asperger's syndrome is not a disease either. OCD might be called a disease, because it is curable with cognitive therepy. But Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder is not a disease because it is something you are born with. It is a personality type.

And if it is a disease, do we punish people who are insane or have illnesses like Asperger syndrome when they do wrong, or do we commit those who are sociopaths to confined treatment? It's an interesting question, but I think that the bottom line is that sociopaths are a danger to society, so they must be confined in some way.

Yes, sociopaths are born evil, and they are often a danger to society.

Anyway, I digress. Please, if not for our sake, but for your own, treat people with respect.

You haven't presented any good arguments why I should bother about that.

You are free to disagree, but you are not free to harass or use personal attacks.

I am as free as you are to do it. And I don't do it any more than you do here.

[Phaedrus]

I can't believe people are still arguing this with Phaedrus. You can't convince him otherwise. It doesn't matter what you say, or what your arguments are, Phaedrus is going to keep his opinion.

I will be convinced by objectively good arguments. It definitely matters what you say and what your arguments are. But I am not going to change my views for the objectively wrong reasons.

Btw, Phaedrus, there is no way in hell you are an INTp.

There is no way that I am not an INTp. And there is no way that you are an INTj. V.I. proves that you are not an INTj. You are an irrational type.

Its just not possible.

You believe that it is not possible because you are mistyped, and you compare me with yourself. You could perhaps be an INTp, but you cannot be an INTj. And I am an INTp for sure, because in contrast to you I have compared everything with reality. It is a proven fact -- empirically proven -- that I am an INTp.

Of course you are just gonna ignore what I am saying, but I'm telling you straight up, you are not INTp.

I know that you are saying that -- and I know for a fact that your belief is false.

[Phaedrus]

is this fun for you, Phaedrus?

No, not at all. It's rather boring actually, because I find it boring that people never learn and that people refuse to take reason. Instead they take the simple route and choose to dismiss objectively good arguments because they find it convenient. They are intellectually lazy, and some of them are just idiots that will never get it no matter how hard they try.

[Mediator Kam]

hm well... what do you find fun?

How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?

[Mediator Kam]

it isn't. I just want to know more about Phaedrus himself.

perhaps you could create another thread entitled "Fun and Phaedrus"