can someone recap I'm confused
can someone recap I'm confused
No, not at all. Everyone doesn't cognize like that.If only you had the ability to stop to think for a second to get what my original reasoning was.
your original reasoning wasn't based in reality.
Like I said I'm not going to repeat the explanations that all went over your head.
Well these are the gist of explanations you provided in regards to the question of your type:
"Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"
"It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."
"Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."
"I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."
That is not Ti-dom. Ti-doms don't provide those type of airy ad-hominem "explanations" to people challenging their type.
Also if the quoted sentences are Ne dom then you are Ne dom... and everyone else is, too.
Squark is just pointing out the hypocrisy. The logic was identical to the logic used in the Peterson thread eight days ago where I made a post using Jung to define elements. You clicked constructive for that post. Then in a post just Four days later on this thread you claimed that this identical application of definitions from Jung's book was "directly matching MBTI logic" and concluded it to be an "idiotic reading". You stated that Jung wasn't God and that although only some of his stuff was just ...'ok'...., needed an update in favor of information from "advances" in the science of psychology; though, you never actually name these advances. Not long after that, HotelAmbush notified a post declaring to you that the Jung/MBTI blockheads will never understand Socionics (a post you clicked like for) and suggested you stop wasting your energy. In your next post, you said you were done "explaining" things.Originally Posted by Myst
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-16-2018 at 11:31 AM.
iff=IFF= if and only if
I should have capitalized it to begin with so there'd be no confusion.
nIFFer have I IFFer expected someone to use that on a forum where K4M exists
You still didn't stop to think about it.
Wrong, while I did write in a strong style about your disconnect from reality, I provided actual explanations about the topic too. Quote those too to be consistent.......Like I said I'm not going to repeat the explanations that all went over your head.
Well these are the gist of explanations you provided in regards to the question of your type
Good luck proving that this is Ne dom."Also if the quoted sentences are Ne dom then you are Ne dom... and everyone else is, too."
No, not at all. Everyone doesn't cognize like that.
Wasn't identical. So no hypocrisy. But you will never stop and think about what I said about that.Squark is just pointing out the hypocrisy. The logic was identical to the logic used in the Peterson thread eight days ago where I made a post using Jung to define elements.
So the rest really went over your head and this is all you managed to pick up from what I said.You clicked constructive for that post. Then in a post just Four days later on this thread you claimed that this identical application of definitions from Jung's book was "directly matching MBTI logic" and concluded it to be an "idiotic reading". You stated that Jung wasn't God and that although only some of his stuff was just ...'ok'...., needed an update in favor of information from "advances" in the science of psychology; though, you never actually name these advances.
If you want to hear about the advances, ask.
You are listing unconnected things again.Not long after that, HotelAmbush notified a post declaring to you that the Jung/MBTI blockheads will never understand Socionics (a post you clicked like for) and suggested you stop wasting your energy. In your next post, you said you were done "explaining" things.
Kill4Me isn't reading my actual argument (just the parts with strong language, ofc) and I'm fed up with the ILE bs lol
yeah sometimes its like he constructs sentences as if by algorithm where all the parts are there but no meaning. sort of like a human sokal hoax, or a cargo cult of personality theory
You mean like urself?
I think it's probably a frame of reference thing, as in you're drawing from different experiences, and have a different frame of reference. Take people speaking two different languages as an example, if you don't know the alphabet they're using, you won't see how they got from A to Z. So when he says A, B, you don't see that the next letter is C.
I think this is a pretty common thing happening on the forum and any discussion of socionics as each person builds their own understanding from quite different parts.
The explanation for what was happening however was drawing from his logic (using his logical alphabet so to speak) so not seeing how the pieces were connected probably just means that's not your alphabet. You can draw conclusions from this that one of you is Te and the other Ti if you wish, or just take it without socionics at all that you're coming from a different kind of understanding.
true on some level he's totally right about everything, just like a cargo cult has significance for its worshipers etc. I don't debate any of that, my point was to capture the larger dynamic. in Aion Jung illustrates the structure of intuition itself as it becomes more sophisticated, its a spiral ladder-like development [1]. sophistication is integrating everything on the lower level and knowing more, in principle such a thing is possible. your point, while aimed at a charitable read that we are all equally sophisticated, I think is only half the story. people can encapsulate other people's understanding accurately (to capture it as "cargo cult") and while it can be said to be merely a matter of personal meaning and language, it ignores sophistication which is an unsophisticated move itself
in other words, yes its a miscommunication. but its a miscommunication for reasons. if two people miscommunicate and one understands the reasons and the other doesn't, the one who understands is more sophisticated. for a third party to come in and interject "its just a miscommunication", while true, is a trip down the ladder. now you might say, well each party fancies themselves equally sophisticated, but we judge that by what the theory can do, which is where ethics comes in. what is at stake is an ethical consideration. I have had this conversation with K4m before and he doesn't admit ethics as a consideration, which is to say, he believes in a radical equality between all motives, which is part and parcel to crafting communication that appeals to the broadest array of people. by this I mean that if inability to judge sophistication makes the less sophisticated thing appear equivalent to the more sophisticated in the eyes of the judge, the goal is to simply say the least sophisticated thing to the broadest array of equally unsophisticated people, and use a quantitative measure, i.e.: numbers/force to arbitrate the correctness. in all of this is a militant form of leveling. that this is the psychological mode many live in is to say nothing more than we have a lot of betas around here
[1] Aion pg 259 collected works of Jung vol 9 pt 2
it really starts on 257, and is one of the most profound things I've ever encountered
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-17-2018 at 04:31 PM.
Well, I'd argue that your inability to follow his meaning speaks more to your lack of having a complete knowledge-picture, while assuming that you do.
But given your own interpretation here, if it's truly less-sophisticated than your own understanding then it should be easier for you to understand, not less so. In other words, if you don't get why his cargo plane landed where it did, you're a step behind understanding the connection of the plane with the runway, not a step in front of it. So, if he has a cargo cult mentality, yours would be a degree less sophisticated if you cannot understand why those connections were being made.
Sorry I'm just popping into the thread titled Se polr in INxjs, just trying to find some insights here. Didn't realize its a battle type thread. I will see myself out.
well for me sophistication is self evident so if someone reduces that organizing principle out under the banner of pure "miscommunication" I understand there is a nugget of truth to it, but its the kind of "miscommunication" between newton and einstein, etc. I understand that society itself orders itself into rungs of people that can comprehend this and people that view all causes as more or less equal and simply get behind whichever one comes their way. this is a fundamental inability to recognize ethics of relations, thats all it is (LSI is notoriously beholden to chance in their relationships). now it entails tradeoffs, there are gains to be had for making that trade. the point is each views the other as inferior from their point of view. inasmuch as this means betas end up together is a truism, and I likewise acknowledged that K4m's posts do have merit in the sense of a case study, as does his own socionics system, because who knows what truth he could uncover in pursuing his used car-selling to its conclusion. its the wisdom of trump. I love you guys, and appreciate you coming in here to defend them because it hopefully means theyll find the energy to continue for the benefit of humanity to learn from
to call it socionics, or jung, is a lot like calling trump presidential, but hey times change. in some sense the cargo cult can become reality if enough people buy in, but it would be naive to simply say we can substitute our own force going forward for the forces of the past that made us who we are. by this I mean you can make people accept things and they may even do so but it doesn't make it a good idea, truth is nevertheless judged by some higher criterion, such is the lesson of communism... so there is a deep circle that sits on a certain rung in the socion that adopts these self reinforcing positions and plays them out, but it lacks a sense of the biggest picture by definition, this confers a degree of punching power, but to what end..? what is SLE? is all of this just simple "miscommunication" or is there something profound to it? the simplest example is why does SLE admire LIE--because they see in them someone who can do what they do and more--they are looking at the next step in development--that it is "a step" in "a direction" does not make them all equivalent except in some empty logical categorical sense
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-17-2018 at 05:03 PM.
Ah, well, I have no intention of speaking for him. I was talking solely about his assessment of the interaction between himself and another individual when I said "his explanation for what was happening." I'm not really interested in discussing any of your previous arguments with him or your judgement on the degree of socionics understanding he possesses.
Thanks however for the Jung reference and recommendation. I may take a look at that.
will also be checking out the Jung reference because it feels like a hidden meaning or something.
https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org...art%202%29.pdf
its on pg 314 in the pdf there
it doesn't really do the print version justice though
It's kind of funny (to me) how this happens. I mean, I responded to starrangel's question, tried to keep it general and neutral and actually thought I was helping to clear things up. I haven't even been thinking about socionics. I was only here because I was sick and lazing about on my computer, and didn't expect to end up in a discussion at all. I found his argument easy to follow and wasn't sure why it wasn't understood so I said something. I don't know him, have never interacted with him, and have no idea of his typing methods or socionics approach. Now, without any intention, I'm part of the beta system, coming out of the woodworks to defend one of our own and so on.
Anyway, I have no knowledge of his history with you or otherwise. But I do think that many socionics arguments do come about because of differing reference frames. Just consider if someone is going pure-Gulenko, and someone else is going pure-Jung, and a third person has a background in MBTI and has carry-over from that system, and you ask these three people to not only agree on someone's type, but the best method of typing, and what each element in their type means. . . And here we have a forum of people who are all borrowing in different measures from various schools of thought. Of course there will be disagreements and misunderstandings. And of course each will be painting the others as having a less-nuanced, less-sophisticated, less-accurate method than their own. It's to be expected.
yeah but this is exactly psychology, that people are driven by forces they are not fully aware of
this is precisely why quadra values are real, albiet unknown (or unconscious), because they function like gravitational bonds
for a psychologist to assess them it sounds like they're making it up, but its more like (per your own thesis) that they see something you don't
its just how "quadra values aren't real" but at the same time the question of their reality divides people into easily ascertainable patterns. its like how real do you need. obviously they want to to see quadral values in concreto, so theres a certain irony in professing the validity of differences of opinion as an intuition in principle, but then immediately going on to reject any other intuitions as unreal because they lack concrete instantiation. it makes me think the only reason they believe anything is because it was printed in a book somewhere. it goes to the beta way of "declarations" over reality in working out their system, at the same time paradoxically being the most "realist" i.e. concrete in their approach. the bottom line is not everything that is real is thinking/sensing material, which is the achilles heel of so much of their philosophy moral or otherwise
in other words, there is a deep irony in selectively admitting some intuitions but not seeing them as all hanging together as one (in other words, categorical openness to the legitimacy of intuition as such). the Ti formulation that attempts to admit that is insufficient moving forward, it can only still the progression and subordinate itself and others to power games. in other words, its declarative not real (rational "verbal" not irrational abstract perception) intuition that functions as anti intuition as we see play out here (Ti construction employed only to constrain and deny legitimacy to competing intuitions). in the same way beta uses everything as a stick to beat people with without regard for the underlying ethical reality that binds everyone together as one (even as they focus and rely on politeness and other proxies to "get the job done" Fe). another way to put it is their ethics are subconsciously local while declaratively global--global struggle when its really about elevating themselves and so forth
this returns us to the algorithmic character of K4m's constructions, they are like sticks engineered to drive a point home, without respect for what it really represents. while you can do that in matters of sensing/logic [1], it fundamentally purports itself to be a psychological analysis, and to that end it represents androids from an alternative universe, which is precisely how IEE views SLE if they could step inside their perceptions (The Stranger). the animating spirits and physical appearances would be totally different, so maybe to be generous we can call it "a different school of psychology"--but certainly not analytic psychology in the vein of Jung, despite the occasional I-don't-think-that-word-means-what-you-think-it-means reference to his writing, as if the mechanical act of citing itself proved the point, God help us all. it entails all sorts of assumptions about interpretation, and interpretation of the world is precisely what's at issue. you don't get to just assume that away without having the conversation. that is what all my posting on this issue is. interpretation of the world is precisely what psychology is. there is constant attempt to reduce that itself to a rubric, and socionics has a strain of people who view that as its entire purpose, true, that is a purpose, but its really small ball in regards to its potential. that it can in principle function as a determinism is played out anyway. you see singu longing for a complete determinism to come take him away, but he is disappointed in socionics precisely because he's seen its a false God. we agree that socionics is not capable of meeting that goal, we only disagree as to whether that is cause for disappointment or joy
why would anyone go to a psychologist if this weren't on some level true. psychology is just the new priesthood, but it doesn't come by dogma. the transformation of the old priesthood into an order of dogma is precisely what rendered it obsolete
[1] you can construct many things out of legos, but to make a human out of it is monstrous--see: Frankenstein
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-17-2018 at 09:51 PM.
Anytime somebody posts as much long-winded word vomit as Bert does from one post to the next has to be full of shit. Aside from the occasional long-winded post, people who aren't bullshitters will have much less to say.
...
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-18-2018 at 04:41 AM.
Biggest projection ever.
That's not what you previously acknowledged. I can post what you previously acknowledged if you want to keep on streaming your bullshit.nasmuch as this means betas end up together is a truism, and I likewise acknowledged that K4m's posts do have merit in the sense of a case study, as does his own socionics system, because who knows what truth he could uncover in pursuing his used car-selling to its conclusion. its the wisdom of trump. I love you guys, and appreciate you coming in here to defend them because it hopefully means theyll find the energy to continue for the benefit of humanity to learn from
Your assumptions about my "used car-selling" and what you alleged yesterday as a "kind of scam" lack any basis in reality.
It's just baseless speculation. I hope you don't ever become a lawyer, because the concept of facts and evidence is lost on you.
We've never had any such conversation. You don't know what I believe in. You are projecting more nonsense.I have had this conversation with K4m before and he doesn't admit ethics as a consideration, which is to say, he believes in a radical equality between all motives, which is part and parcel to crafting communication that appeals to the broadest array of people. by this I mean that if inability to judge sophistication makes the less sophisticated thing appear equivalent to the more sophisticated in the eyes of the judge, the goal is to simply say the least sophisticated thing to the broadest array of equally unsophisticated people, and use a quantitative measure, i.e.: numbers/force to arbitrate the correctness. in all of this is a militant form of leveling.
More with your passive-aggressive garble, disassociated projections, baseless speculations and overall propensity for bullshit.
your use of "we agree" and "we only disagree" indicates you are desperate for agreement.
Are you on drugs? You sound severely disassociated.
welcome back @squark !! ✧・ﾟ:*☆✧・ﾟ:*☆
More information about Bert's schtick (shadow projection):
Even socionic functions/quadras are screens that Bert uses to project his ethically vacant shadow on:Carl Jung stated the shadow to be the unknown dark side of the personality.[4][5] According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to psychological projection, in which a perceived personal inferiority is recognized as a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections remain hidden, "The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object—if it has one—or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power."[6] These projections insulate and harm individuals by acting as a constantly thickening veil of illusion between the ego and the real world.
" Gulenko seems to bring more Fi role sensibility into it with his emphasis on the humanitarian aspects, which is precisely how the clock is supposed to proceed, with ILE venturing an idea and LII refining it into a more working (i.e.: balanced) prototype. I think one of the reason 1d Fi types resist moving on from augusta or otherwise limit the scope to these narrow constructions and goals is for precisely the same reason, which is they have trouble viewing relations in terms other than logical relations or pragmatic ones. in essence, for them, typology becomes a kind of "technology", see my recent exchange with K4m, not unlike a sex doll or some other form of substitute (ethically empty but "effective") for directly managing relations, (although far less crude, etc).."
"the Ti formulation that attempts to admit that is insufficient moving forward, it can only still the progression and subordinate itself and others to power games. in other words, its declarative not real (rational "verbal" not irrational abstract perception) intuition that functions as anti intuition as we see play out here (Ti construction employed only to constrain and deny legitimacy to competing intuitions). in the same way beta uses everything as a stick to beat people with without regard for the underlying ethical reality that binds everyone together as one (even as they focus and rely on politeness and other proxies to "get the job done" Fe)."
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-18-2018 at 03:37 PM.
can you explain what you mean by that, I'm not sure what you're saying
I do think projections are inevitable and no one is above them, me included
You're a textbook example.
In general, people may use innocuous forms of projection to make deductions about behavior or situations. Some typologers favor the "sticky method" where you project different motivations onto a person's behavior and then determine whether that motivation sticks or not based on forecasts about behavior. In war or war-like situations, it's typical for people to engage in this reasoning. There could be other forms of projection as well that don't revolve around scapegoating/disowning ethically vacuous parts of the self onto "screens" in the environment.
With you, I'm referring to shadow projection as articulated by Jung and considered to be a psychological defense mechanism. You have to remember that there are many different defense mechanisms, including but not limited to, projection, disassociation, splitting, rationalization, repression, and denial. Keep in mind that some typology systems even associate different defense mechanisms with different personality types. There's generally a mixture of two or three people reflexively favor when psychologically unhealthy (Disassociation and projection appear to be your stand-out combination).
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 05:03 AM.
right, I get that projections occur and they can be invalid, but I'm curious as to how that applies here
They occurred on this thread, in your posts. I provided a few examples. In the legal profession, it would just be called baseless speculation or blanket assertions. That's why I said don't ever become a lawyer unless you want to end up getting sued for malpractice.
alright thanks for the career advice, but can you point out the exact assumptions I made and articulate why they're wrong, particularly with reference to contrary facts. here let me show you how
your argument seems to be a circular one predicated on an assumption of the insufficiency of my own, bolstered by reference to a future state predicated on the same assumption, namely that you're right and everyone agrees with you, particularly courts of law. but at no point does it seem to reach bottom with anything other than equally dubious self satisfied declarations. not to put too fine a point on it, but even if your weird ass appeal to the majority of the imaginary future were valid, it would still not necessarily make anything I've said thus far innacurate, because its certainly possible they could all still nevertheless be mistaken, despite being in agreement. this brings me to my next point
I would also like to point out that juries exist precisely to determine the facts when they are unknown i.e.: indeterminate, which is the state of knowledge in a live controversy; this is settled by courts which defer to their agreed upon inference as what must, or even simply could have, occurred in the gaps. this is accomplished via persuasion and presentation of circumstantial evidence on behalf of representation. the best attorneys are precisely the ones who can fill this information gap with a persuasive telling of their case (supplying the missing links, connecting the dots in a compelling way) in order for the jury to adopt. the ones who can't do this are being replaced by spreadsheets, since algorithms can make formal deterministic links much quicker and cheaper
if you want to know more about how the law and courts actually function I suggest you actually go to law school, like me. sounds like you assume the courts adopt your own criterion for truth when they demonstrably don't, but you wouldn't know that unless you actually educated yourself. because you're fundamentally mistaken in your understanding of what makes something true, and because you erroneously assume the court system shares that understanding, your argument fails to persuade
edit: oh I see you edited it out, well I guess that's kind of like conceding you're wrong. so Ill take it in the spirit is offered, despite not getting a nice juicy concession and retraction in an entirely new post
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-18-2018 at 09:50 PM.
I see paragraphs,for progress.
Last edited by Muddy; 03-18-2018 at 09:51 PM.
I'm just pointing out that you're projecting and that these projections don't pass for insights into socionics or people. Your shadow projections are epistemologically unsound and indicates a weak mind. I already provided you with examples. For example, "technology" embodies all the ethical emptiness from your shadow side. 1d Fi types is the screen for your mind to project/dump some of your own ethical emptiness onto. Because you are leading with projections from your shadow, you are coming up with tortured reasoning to make your projections fit into the screen you have chosen. At most, your shadow projections provide the reader with insights into you.
You're not pointing out holes in an argument. You are making blanket assertions that don't follow from reality. Much of it wouldn't even make it into an actual trial because no judge of sound mind would allow you to go in there spewing bullshit out of your ass under the presumption its an information gap.I would also like to point out that juries exist precisely to determine the facts when they are unknown, and this is done with deference to their inference to what must have occured in the gaps. this is actually accomplished via persuasion and circumstantial evidence. the best attorneys are precisely the ones who can fill this information gap with a persuasive telling of their case for the jury to adopt. the ones who can't do this are being replaced by spreedsheets, since algorithms can make formal deterministic links much quicker and cheaper
Law school is not the real world of actual legal practice.if you want to know more about how the law and courts actually function I suggest you actually go to law school, like me. sounds like you assume the courts adopt your own criterion for truth when they demonstrably don't, but you wouldn't know that unless you actually educated yourself. because you're fundamentally mistaken in your understanding of what makes something true, and because you erroneously assume the court system shares that understanding, your argument fails to persuade.
You are incredibly uninformed. Juries exist to aide in finding the truth between two opposing sides. They are intended to render judgments on the merits of a case. The prosecution presents evidence and makes arguments based on the evidence. They also introduce witnesses. The jury evaluates the evidence and the defense has an opportunity to raise a doubt in the jury's mind as to the prosecution's arguments, either by pointing out holes in the prosecution's case, attacking the credibility of the witnesses, and/or by introducing their own evidence/witnesses. The defense must have a basis in reality for raising this doubt. They just can't go pointing out holes in evidence and attacking witness credibility without a basis in reality for inferring said holes/lack of credibility.
Your blanket assertions do not constitute evidence and instead lack it in spades. That you may believe your projections equate to some deep insight does not count as a good-faith basis for your positions. It would be considered defamatory in the real world and make you an easy target for legal malpractice. Furthermore, your reflex for blanket assertions would likely run you afoul with the rules of responsibility in the legal profession, so you'd probably land yourself in a probation or suspension if you do in the real world what you do here. Judges are there to prevent lawyers from spewing out the type of baseless, long-winded, unsubstantiated rubbish you spew out here on a daily basis. They also have courts of appeal in the event the jury has been misled by somebody like you just talking out of their ass.
All in all, your cognition indicates that you would make a horrible lawyer and that you are wasting your money. So I would strongly advise you to never become one. My advice to you.
if "no judge.." then I'm protected from malpractice since it can't happen, right..?
also its weird because your entire post reads like exactly what you're trying to accuse me of, which is basically just a bunch of fluff. guess we need a jury
there's also the point that psychological facts, especially within the domain of personality are itself of the kind not accessible by the kind of knowledge standard you're purporting to represent. this is in fact what personality is, a kind of as-yet unmeasurable pattern. so there's a weird irony in bringing courts and evidence into this, as if circumstantial evidence isn't all we have. like there's something crazy resorting to courtroom standards, beyond the fact that despite whatever copy paste job you inserted is wrong, not because the words are inaccurate but because they fail to make the point you try to get them to make, i.e. it is a non sequitor in your reasoning, but setting that aside, theres something crazy to trying to somehow post up on the side of fact and objective knowledge and decrying inference as useless imagination when that's precisely what personality theory is and cannot not be. that is however, not the standard for it nevertheless being true. you might say the better standard is the most true things are not real but hyper real, the patterns that govern behavior precisely because they're unseen. which is really what Jung was all about in calling it "fate"
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-18-2018 at 10:40 PM.
You're not going to avoid a judge. The judge is relevant at all stages from the time you file a complaint to a trial.if "no judge.." then I'm protected from malpractice since it can't happen, right..?
It's not a fluff at all. It's the real world of the profession you aspire to, that you apparently haven't learned enough about to even sensibly articulate.also its weird because your entire post reads like exactly what you're trying to accuse me of, which is basically just a bunch of fluff. guess we need a jury
You would make a horrible attorney with a cognition like that. Look at it. You called me a used car salesman, compared me to a sex doll, claimed socionics new wave is a "kind of scam", and just claimed I am a plagiarist, without any connection to facts whatsoever.
Just saying, do something that plays to your strengths. You would be better off going into politics...you would have more leeway to spew your nonsense.
Naturally, I recommend fiction writing, so you can make all the characters you want to dump your shadow junk into.
Your post is entirely out of sync to my post. Talking to yourself?there's also the point that psychological facts, especially within the domain of personality are itself of the kind not accessible by the kind of knowledge standard you're purporting to represent. this is in fact what personality is, a kind of as-yet unmeasurable pattern. so there's a weird irony in bringing courts and evidence into this, as if circumstantial evidence isn't all we have. like there's something crazy resorting to courtroom standards, beyond the fact that despite whatever copy paste job you inserted is wrong, not because the words are inaccurate but because they fail to make the point you try to get them to make, i.e. it is a non sequitor in your reasoning, but setting that aside, theres something crazy to trying to somehow post up on the side of fact and objective knowledge and decrying inference as useless imagination when that's precisely what personality theory is and cannot not be. that is however, not the standard for it nevertheless being true. you might say the better standard is the most true things are not real but hyper real, the patterns that govern behavior precisely because they're unseen. which is really what Jung was all about in calling it "fate"
Makes sense. I posted that at 3:10. You followed up with all that by 3:12.
You weren't making inferences. You were making blanket assertions. Go read it again. Look up the differences between inferences and assertions.
I haven't inserted a copy paste job you crazy buffoon. I only just pwned you about the realities of the legal profession. Go me.
You go to law school and don't even have a basic education about the reality of the legal practice.
Your allegation of plagiarism has no basis in reality. I repeat, don't ever become a lawyer, because the concept of facts and evidence is lost on you.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-19-2018 at 05:05 AM.
Gotta say I love it and IRLOL anytime Kill4Me says "indicates a weak mind"
Yeah, if his mind were strong, why would he need to tell everyone to kill for him instead of just doing it?
Politics and fiction writing... sounds like an awesome idea. Now, tell me what you've done that's better?
hey the paranoiac from the black panther thread.
don't worry, his shadow projections have nothing on you
Oh my God this is the worst battle-type thread on the whole site. Then Cuivienen bitches about people who don't exist. Way to go 16t
We want your soul
when you say shadow projections, is that on the basis of me being LII? are my shadow projections my shadow as Jung concieved of it (which would make them Si/Fe) or are they the non valued functions per model A? Whatever the shadow functions are, can you explain how they operate to derive conclusions from information on the basis of projection? please break down exactly how you think projections are coloring what you meant to say vs what I took it to mean. I'm legit curious and I really want to know how you understand projection to function. this context is as good as any, since you've said its happening right in front of us
First provide the quote [s] from Jung for the following statement:
Clearly you did not get my reasoning. This is based in reality.
"Wrong, while I did write in a strong style about your disconnect from reality, I provided actual explanations about the topic too. Quote those too to be consistent......."
You didn't write in a strong style. Everything I pointed out was taken right from your posts.
the "reality" you speak of me being disconnected from is merely an opinion you have about your type. the opinion you have about your type is just that, your opinion...the reality of your type is not defined by the opinion you have of your type.
Lol, so it's supposed to be defined more by your opinion?
See, you didn't get it if you just call it a "formal explanation".Aside from your airy ad hominem "explanations", the flimsy formal explanation you attempted wasn't based in the reality of what I posted and made no sense.
That's pretty weak for "proof"..."Good luck proving that this is Ne dom."
It is Ne-dom. Everybody doesn't do that. That you think everybody does that has you imagining another possibility.
It would be great if this one wasn't based in reality because that would mean you will indeed stop and think about what I reasoned about."Wasn't identical. So no hypocrisy. But you will never stop and think about what I said about that."
You're making another assumption about what I stop to think about. Your assumptions aren't based in reality.
No, I never disagreed with the use of Jung to define elements. Incredible how much you missed my argument because it was not about criticizing Jung's definitions. At all."So the rest really went over your head and this is all you managed to pick up from what I said.
If you want to hear about the advances, ask."
It's not all I picked up. I was pointing it out in response to your claim that you aren't disagreeing with the use of Jung to define elements. It appears you do have an issue with using Jung to define elements.
For a Ti-dom, it wouldn't be a matter of updating Jung by incorporating stuff from these alleged advances in the science of psychology but rather to make correlations between socionics and other typologies or disciplines. Ti-doms are not updaters of systems. They are correlators.
Your view of what Ti does is very narrow. Ti leads do refine systems. Ti creative doesn't care about that as much, that's true.
And you call me Ne base? lol seriously"You are listing unconnected things again."
Not at all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
