# Thread: Logic vs Principle: Contravailing experiences of Ti

1. ## Logic vs Principle: Contravailing experiences of Ti

Well I thought to make this statement clear in front of everyone, because it's pretty essential to our further understanding of socionics. I'm a bit in shock about it though.

The short answer is that I've discovered at least a big chunk as to why a person's other functions are weaker than the base. The long answer is that the chunk is completely a factor of politics.

I'd been thinking that there should be four forms of -Ti: organizational, principle, law, and something else. I knew that I experienced -Ti as principle, and that principle is that aspect of mechanation which is conserved between situations: 2 + 2 always equals 4, for example. Well if you take a hard look at why 2 + 2 always equals 4, then according to computer science it's a product of boolean logic. Meaning, that principle exists due to logical necessity. I myself have a habit of integrating any principle I become aware of into my own logic, so for me +Ti is logic. But here we have the problem of principle also breaking down to logic, so there is a definite +Ti in the -Ti I experience.

Here's the thing: if for me -Ti is principle, then if I use +Ti based on based on principles which I have differentiated -- without telling anyone else -- then my logic should in theory transcend the logic of those who do not accept the existence of the principle. Let's say someone somehow, for some reason, limited their own observation of principle. (the opponents of supersocion theory would be a case in point). A person who is accustomed to modifying their logic as soon as they became aware of a new principle would given the same context of information reach the exact same conclusion as myself with regard as to what modifications should be reached. There are only a limited set of principles, and all existing logic is governed by principles, therefore a person who is exposed to a new principle should immediately integrate it in their logic on top of all previous principles and in exactly the same way as everyone else, provided they are aware of all principles previous to it. If they are unaware of the previous principles, then they will not know how or even why to fit the higher-level precept in their logic.

If everyone of similar education, under the above pretense, were successfully integrating every principle they came across as it were derived, then there would be no disagreements between people on matters of either logic or principle: X test was made, therefore Y principle exists, and the proper means of response is change in logic Z. But we do have disagreements on these matters; in fact, the Right vs Left divide itself consists partially of disagreements over principle, experienced subjectively, vs logic. Therein lies a clue: the Right's positions are principled, often denying logic outright. The Left is more "cerebral" on the whole, because their subjective experience of Ti from a thinking standpoint is universally logical. Let's take it a step further, and inquire as to what either side would stand to lose from acceptance of the other. The Left stands to lose their sense of idealism, in that the existence of principle means that there is no such thing as a magic formula which solves all of your problems. The Right stands to lose their sense of innate righteousness by accepting the existence of logic: what if the logical solution to a situation is the killing of a loved one? Principle is cruel; logic is cold. Accepting either equates to the loss of one's own aspirations or one's ideals.

The postulation of +Ti's dual identity as both subjective logic and principle, once tested, yields fruit. Consider the near-universality of LII support for the right to abort: an LII on the SCOTUS would be a reliable pro-choice vote, provided that they were not determined to exhalt +Ne over -Ne. (experienced in that situation as the apparent potential for a person to develop post-conception taking priority over the potential of the mother apart from the pregnancy). We can observe that Ti leading persons -- typically -- have a non-partisan perspective on matters of logical consistency. This conclusion explains, among other things, the profound disaffection of the scientific community for notions of the divine. Even those LIIs who do practice religion are very careful to seperate their faith from their science: they refuse to let the two intermix.

3. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Well I thought to make this statement clear in front of everyone, because it's pretty essential to our further understanding of socionics. I'm a bit in shock about it though.

The short answer is that I've discovered at least a big chunk as to why a person's other functions are weaker than the base. The long answer is that the chunk is completely a factor of politics.

I'd been thinking that there should be four forms of -Ti
I stopped here. Augusta never said anything about "+Ti" or "-Ti", so I'm not interested.

4. Originally Posted by Ezra
I stopped here. Augusta never said anything about "+Ti" or "-Ti", so I'm not interested.
But Gulenko did.

5. I think this is really good debate material and well worth discussing. I'll go a step further and observe that every single conflict I have with other people on this forum is on basis of this phenomena.

Allow me to illustrate.

-Ti+Ne (Model A)

reduces to

+Ti <- -Ti <= -Ne <- +Ne (my expansion of Model B, titled B-contra)

where "<-" means "to impress upon" and "<=" means "to imply". +Ne impresses on -Ne, the result of which implies the -Ti to impress upon +Ti.

Liberals and conservatives have different ways of experiencing this. Liberals see it as the following:

logic <- principle <= inherent potential <- situational potential

Conservatives see the inverse to that:

principle <- logic <= situational potential <- inherent potential

6. Tcaudillllg, if you aren't wrong, you state the bleedingly obvious...and always in language that isn't at all becoming.

7. Originally Posted by Subterranean
Tcaudillllg, if you aren't wrong, you state the bleedingly obvious...and always in language that isn't at all becoming.
Oh, so you've known by in large liberals are naturally more intelligent than conservatives for some time now?

It's "obvious" that you are lying.

8. And now, the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
You cunt, I'm not a queer
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain

I've lived a life that's full
And each and every highway
And much, much more than this
I did it my way

But then again, too few to mention
But I did ... what I had to do
I'll see it through without devotion

I planned, each chartered course
Be careful thought along the highway
And more, much more than this
I did it my way

There were times, I'm sure you knew
When there was fuck, fuck fuck else to do

But through it all, when there was doubt
I shot it up, or kicked it out
I faced the wall ... and ... the wall
And did it my way

I've loved in bed last night
I've had my fill, my share of looting
And now, the tears subside
I find it all so amusing

To think, I killed a cat
And may I say ... not in the way
"But no, no, not me"
"I did it my way"

9. I think you waste too much time with metalanguage.

10. As for what someone like Ezra would willingly recognize:

rule <- strategy <= ideal <- pragmatism (for traditionalists like MysticSonic)

strategy <- rule <= pragmatism <- ideal (for adaptists like thehotelambush)

Compounding either of these with either of the other two yeilds a contextual assessment: traditionalism and adaptism define the action that can be taken; liberalism and conservativism define the experience of the situation observed. Taking action can change your experience; unsatisfactory experience prompts action.

Now when the situation in question is under the transcendent function, the situation changes subtly. In that case the alter ego is accepted for what it really is, not what you would like it to be. This implies a switching of the signs and the order of consideration:

For LIIs with a traditionalist alter ego:

rule <- strategy <= ideal <- pragmatism

is seen for how it really is:

strategy <- rule <= pragmatism <- ideal

By observing it from the other side of fence, self critique may be leveled against one's own views. By such means one becomes a better person than they were previously able.

11. Ezra (peace be upon him) would say "you're talking a load of shit".

12. Originally Posted by Subterranean
Ezra (peace be upon him) would say "you're talking a load of shit".
Cease and desist from further posting in my threads. You have never yet said anything of importance in any thread I've ever made.

13. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Cease and desist from further posting in my threads. You have never yet said anything of importance in any thread I've ever made.
Why would I follow the command of someone who has such double standards?

14. Accepting Ti is choice of standpoint. To IxTjs the possibility to take a standpoint is an argument in itself.

Creating Pe is a singled out interpretation where no standpoints EXCEPT one is left about.

15. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
But Gulenko did.
To be honest, who is Gulenko? What did he do to socionics? How does he further the theory? How does "+" and "-" further the already very practical and almost ingenious model of socionics?

16. Originally Posted by Ezra
To be honest, who is Gulenko? What did he do to socionics? How does he further the theory? How does "+" and "-" further the already very practical and almost ingenious model of socionics?
Because it describes how the functions work. We know what the functions do; +, - describes how they work.

It actually makes a lot of sense when you consider that anything which evolves must grant the opportunity for advantage over the environment. A system which breaks things down into "good for you" and "bad for you", like +, - does, is just what the witch-doctor ordered.

17. Why I am So Wise?
The happiness of my existence, its unique character perhaps, lies in its fatefulness: expressing it in the form of a riddle.
Why I am So Clever?
Why do I know more than other people?
Why, in general, am I so clever?
I have never pondered over questions that are not really questions.

18. Originally Posted by Bertrand
Why I am So Wise?
The happiness of my existence, its unique character perhaps, lies in its fatefulness: expressing it in the form of a riddle.
Why I am So Clever?
Why do I know more than other people?
Why, in general, am I so clever?
I have never pondered over questions that are not really questions.
nobody cares... go back to your crypt.

19. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Cease and desist from further posting in my threads. You have never yet said anything of importance in any thread I've ever made.
neither have you lol

20. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Even those LIIs who do practice religion are very careful to seperate their faith from their science: they refuse to let the two intermix.
Violation! I happen to mix the two. I also am against abortion, but I am not active enough right now to bother about that thread...

It's impossible to postulate an idea which cannot be supported from some given element. Some ideas may be more rare in this day and age, but that doesn't mean anything absolute.

Nice to see you adding negativism to Socionics, though, tcaud - that ILE back at the start really left somethign out.

21. Originally Posted by Brilliand
Violation! I happen to mix the two. I also am against abortion, but I am not active enough right now to bother about that thread...
Then you are an evil person. You should be condemned.

22. Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Then you are an evil person. You should be condemned.
Define "evil," "condemned" and "you."

Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Then are an person. should be.
That much is perfectly true.

23. To illustrate the contrast, I offer this hypothesis. My hypothesis is thus: Christianity and Mormonism are both sustained by false claims. This is only a hypothesis. Christ was never resurrected; John Smith's claims were false. This would miss the point of either religion however, that one believes for the sake of belief alone. Leave logic, even consistency at the door, because belief in anything, even the impossible, has its place in the human experience.

The Jesus/John Smith claim was a hypothesis; the bit about belief in the impossible having its place is not.

24. Every person who is against abortion is an immoral and evil person. Such a person should be strongly criticized. There is no excuse for being against abortion.

25. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
To illustrate the contrast, I offer this hypothesis. My hypothesis is thus: Christianity and Mormonism are both sustained by false claims. This is only a hypothesis. Christ was never resurrected; John Smith's claims were false. This would miss the point of either religion however, that one believes for the sake of belief alone. Leave logic, even consistency at the door, because belief in anything, even the impossible, has its place in the human experience.

The Jesus/John Smith claim was a hypothesis; the bit about belief in the impossible having its place is not.
All logic has to draw its assumptions from somewhere. I take quite a bit of interest in "Pascal's Wager," by which I mean, "if I should believe something, that makes it true." And quite a bit follows from that.

Certainly, an LII can make all statements as if-then statements (valid but not necessarily sound logic), but I doubt society would tolerate that for long. Eventually, we have to believe something.

And only when we have done that can we say anything with certainty.

Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Every person who is against abortion is an immoral and evil person. Such a person should be strongly criticized. There is no excuse for being against abortion.
OK, so "evil" and "immoral" are defined as opposing abortion. However, how is the act of criticizing a person who is evil or immoral to be done? Why would I need an excuse for being against abortion?

26. Originally Posted by jxrtes
Well, that's not entirely fair in my estimation. Whether they're right or wrong in the end, many people who don't believe in abortion would claim that it's out of moral respect for both the mother and the unborn child.
The mother has a right to abort. The unborn "child" has no moral rights, at least not at the age we are talking about here. It's perfectly fair to say that people who are against abortion are immoral and evil, because that's exactly what they are.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
I'm completely undecided though.
Then you are blameworthy, although not necessarily an evil person. But you are definitely wrong. It is your duty to think this through, and the only right stance is to be for abortion.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
I had a fairly religious upbringing but I don't want that to interfere with my final decision.
I certainly hope not. That would be an evil in itself.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
I haven't grasped a complete definition of what constitutes a human being yet either, thereby stalling my efforts to answer this question.
Then you have some serious philosophical work to do.

27. Originally Posted by Brilliand
OK, so "evil" and "immoral" are defined as opposing abortion.
Certainly not. How illogical are you? Why do you make incorrect logical inferences?

Originally Posted by Brilliand
However, how is the act of criticizing a person who is evil or immoral to be done? Why would I need an excuse for being against abortion?
Why would you need an excuse to defend an evil stance? Why would you need an excuse to have immoral beliefs? Well, who can answer that question?

28. Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Certainly not. How illogical are you? Why do you make incorrect logical inferences?
I asked you for a definition, and you provided me with a statement from which a definition could be derived. Do you have a better definition?

Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Why would you need an excuse to defend an evil stance? Why would you need an excuse to have immoral beliefs? Well, who can answer that question?
Would you like to try again to define "evil" and "immoral"? Because without those words, this quote means nothing.

29. Originally Posted by Brilliand
All logic has to draw its assumptions from somewhere. I take quite a bit of interest in "Pascal's Wager," by which I mean, "if I should believe something, that makes it true." And quite a bit follows from that.
...There is a reason Pascal died young.

Certainly, an LII can make all statements as if-then statements (valid but not necessarily sound logic), but I doubt society would tolerate that for long. Eventually, we have to believe something.

And only when we have done that can we say anything with certainty.
Eh... belief must be balanced with experience. The LII must witness something before believing it. (although history is important too, and can shape belief. But history is a record of experience, at least).

OK, so "evil" and "immoral" are defined as opposing abortion. However, how is the act of criticizing a person who is evil or immoral to be done? Why would I need an excuse for being against abortion?
My answer is a triumphant call to arms and a stand against the evil person. Evil has always been dealt with through social isolation; the individual crumples in the severity of the isolation and loses the will to live. Different evils have different means of self-defense. If the evil one has a barrier against isolation -- say, through sympathy -- then the barrier must first be broken through and the individual encircled. Thus was Hitler disposed of in WWII. (although to be fair, Stalin was intent on capturing him). There are a decent percentage of evil people as regards the whole population (although nowhere near a majority); but only a few of them are genuninely dangerous. One person alone can do little; but should they tap on a deep seated fear in others and bring it to the fore as a determined bid for power, then they become an engine of malice. We all have the capacity for that to some extent, but a few are incapable of appreciating even a genuine call for reconciliation. It is those persons who define the meaning of evil and act as its living vessel.

Being against abortion means denying the person the right to manage their own body as they see fit. That's what it's about. It's not like anyone is telling abortion opponents that they must have an abortion in certain circumstances; that would be completely wrong and oppressive. You need to understand that people on the Left prioritize their own choices like you prioritize natural potential; and if you try to take away those choices from the people we hold so dear, so help me god you will face the stiffest resistance we can manage -- and we can manage a lot --, followed by a counterattack that will ensure that you are never again in a position to threaten them. I'll be frank, the Left has a bias for that which is capable of emotional response to them, nor do we take time into account: that which is not emotionally responsive today but maybe tomorrow, doesn't figure into our perception of a person. If you run against that bias then you will reap the consequences, especially if you yourself appear emotionally unresponsive to us.

30. Originally Posted by Brilliand
I asked you for a definition, and you provided me with a statement from which a definition could be derived. Do you have a better definition?
You are not using the word "definition" correctly. I am talking about immoral acts, not about the words that are used to express a statement about what acts are right or wrong. You cannot deduce any definition from what I am saying, and nor should you try to do it. If you want to know the meaning of concepts like "evil" and "immoral", you should go to a philosophical dictionary. To condemn abortions is an instance of an immoral act. Surely you must understand what I mean when I say that.

Originally Posted by Brilliand
Would you like to try again to define "evil" and "immoral"? Because without those words, this quote means nothing.
You want me to give you a lecture in ethics? Don't you have any sort of education? Didn't you learn anything in school? Evil is the exact opposite of good, and immoral is the exact opposite of moral.

31. Originally Posted by Phaedrus
You are not using the word "definition" correctly. I am talking about immoral acts, not about the words that are used to express a statement about what acts are right or wrong. You cannot deduce any definition from what I am saying, and nor should you try to do it. If you want to know the meaning of concepts like "evil" and "immoral", you should go to a philosophical dictionary. To condemn abortions is an instance of an immoral act. Surely you must understand what I mean when I say that.

You want me to give you a lecture in ethics? Don't you have any sort of education? Didn't you learn anything in school? Evil is the exact opposite of good, and immoral is the exact opposite of moral.
Oh, very well. I was just toying with you, anyway.

Ah, Tcaud, I happen to be in a society with different social norms (i.e. my own religion), so much of your argument is simply cultural competition - although in case it was not meant as an argument, it is very insightful.. As for my reason for considering an unborn child a person, the most significant events relating to a child being born are conception and the birth itself; anything other cutoff point is necessarily arbitrary, and therefore no more than a social norm (which cannot be forced upon other societies). Birth is merely a change in location (from inside to outside the womb), and the destruction of an organ (the umbilical cord) which is not necessary for survival. However, conception is the joining of two objects that cannot rightly be considered creatures to form one thing that can indeed be considered a creature of some sort, even if you aren't willing to call it a human. Therefore, I consider any later cutoff point inferior. Any earlier cutoff point is unusable because the parts are routinely destroyed by the human body, and therefore cannot be considered to have any more than a material value (as opposed to a moral value).

32. The absolute cutoff point is the attainment of consciousness. Anything less is not human, because humans are defined apart from animals by their consciousness. But I cannot deny that anything below consciousness.

I think the abortion debate is not defined by a mother's commitment to her fetus, but by our commitment to each other. We have so system in place to effectively replace abortion. Think about it: the only reason we have money still is not to reward people -- with socionics research we could appease the brain about as well as most people are appeased today under the current system. (you'd be surprised what dedicated people can accomplish when working in service to their own motivations). We have money because we need some way of restraining population growth. Capitalism in the modern age = lower population growth. Just look at the European nations where abortion is legal, and they have near zero population growth. Some growth is good, but baby-booming cannot be sustained. (even if it can, there is no guarantee of this, and thus we would be marching into the future at our own peril, the price of failure being either a war or what happened on Easter Island). With limited funds available families are faced with poverty to the degree passion masters them, or giving up children for adoption. What if this gets out of hand? All the alternatives to abortion, duely considered, turn out much worse than abortion itself. A (non-conscious) life for an apocalypse tomorrow. Is that a worthy trade? Certainly not to those who doubt the existence of a humanity-independent providence. (and let me make the point that that hand is in fact the people who are today defending the right to choose. Iraq, for example, is not succeeding because "God willed it", but because the Iraqi Left wants their lives to improve, and are accepting Bush's hand up as opposed to batting it away. The Left alone is looking beyond the religious divisions that divide that country).

Abortion does not exist soley for the benefit of the mother: there are economic and social reasons also.

33. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
The absolute cutoff point is the attainment of consciousness. Anything less is not human, because humans are defined apart from animals by their consciousness. But I cannot deny that anything below consciousness.
This definition doesn't work, because there is no way to prove whether anything outside yourself is conscious. The only way that I know that you are conscious is that you are similar to me, and I am conscious. There is also no way to prove that you are conscious to anyone besides yourself.

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Abortion does not exist solely for the benefit of the mother: there are economic and social reasons also.
Lesser of two evils? The same argument applies to all forms of murder (once you dismiss the argument that the fetus is not conscious).

34. Originally Posted by Brilliand
This definition doesn't work, because there is no way to prove whether anything outside yourself is conscious. The only way that I know that you are conscious is that you are similar to me, and I am conscious. There is also no way to prove that you are conscious to anyone besides yourself.
That is opinion, and is imminently false. Have you never extended your consciousness to include another person?

Lesser of two evils? The same argument applies to all forms of murder (once you dismiss the argument that the fetus is not conscious).
I did not say it was lesser of two evils. No, the criterion for humanity is consciousness. I observe others as having consciousness because I can feel their reflection in myself. If you pay attention to a dog's eyes, it has no consciousness: it is aware and has feeling, but it is emminently a beast and not a person.

35. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
That is opinion, and is imminently false. Have you never extended your consciousness to include another person?

I did not say it was lesser of two evils. No, the criterion for humanity is consciousness. I observe others as having consciousness because I can feel their reflection in myself. If you pay attention to a dog's eyes, it has no consciousness: it is aware and has feeling, but it is emminently a beast and not a person.
Interesting... what element is that? ? That does sound like a good reason, but I'll have to test it myself, as it's all too easy for one person to see something that isn't there.

Assuming that's correct, though, how would you detect consciousness in a fetus? You can't exactly look into its eyes.

I'm sure you mean consciousness in a different sense from "he is unconcious" - but to be sure, is consciousness still detectable in an unconscious person? It would be crazy to legalize murder just because the guy bumped his head five minutes ago.

36. It's Fe. I'm adept at sending accomodating signals to people. They respond subconsciously as expected; every movement they make carries a meaning which I interpret instinctively. Now it follows that if something is not conscious, then it won't respond to subconscious signals of accomodation. People always do; animals don't. That doesn't mean they don't feel, have emotion, etc.; just that those feelings aren't capable of emulating another person inside themselves. They aren't emotionally responsive and thus, are not conscious.

Also, when utilizing my alter ego I can read others' subconscious signals for their intent. Animals have mechanistic, almost alien intent; the intent of a beast which is trying to satisfy itself. Newborn babies do too, although they express modicums of interest after a few months or so and, of course, a great deal of confusion. You ask when a fetus becomes conscious, I say once its empathy system has developed. I've noticed that newborn babies behave a lot like snakes, actually....

It's not enough for something to be a human life-form; it must be a human being. Until a sense of being is attained -- of differentiation of self from the rest of the world, the all-important "I" -- a life form is just an animal. That said, once a baby is outside the womb it should be allowed to live.

37. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
It's Fe. I'm adept at sending accomodating signals to people. They respond subconsciously as expected; every movement they make carries a meaning which I interpret instinctively. Now it follows that if something is not conscious, then it won't respond to subconscious signals of accomodation. People always do; animals don't. That doesn't mean they don't feel, have emotion, etc.; just that those feelings aren't capable of emulating another person inside themselves. They aren't emotionally responsive and thus, are not conscious.

Also, when utilizing my alter ego I can read others' subconscious signals for their intent. Animals have mechanistic, almost alien intent; the intent of a beast which is trying to satisfy itself. Newborn babies do too, although they express modicums of interest after a few months or so and, of course, a great deal of confusion. You ask when a fetus becomes conscious, I say once its empathy system has developed. I've noticed that newborn babies behave a lot like snakes, actually....

It's not enough for something to be a human life-form; it must be a human being. Until a sense of being is attained -- of differentiation of self from the rest of the world, the all-important "I" -- a life form is just an animal. That said, once a baby is outside the womb it should be allowed to live.
Er, wait... I thought you considered yourself INTj? Anyhow, I think feeling is so tuned to humans that it can't be trusted with regard to telling whether something that is somehow different is different enough to no longer count as a human. It's too easy to tie feeling to what you expect to see - you don't have a case here.

Consider again: what sort of line are you looking for? A sense of being is developed, it isn't part of what you are except in the sense that whether or not you are capable of developing a sense of being is part of what you are. After conception, the baby requires only nutrients to develop a sense of being; other than that (which adults need as well), it does it essentially on its own. Conception is the only point at which the baby changes in any meaningful way.

Your location has nothing to do with whether you are human or not...

38. Originally Posted by Brilliand
Er, wait... I thought you considered yourself INTj? Anyhow, I think feeling is so tuned to humans that it can't be trusted with regard to telling whether something that is somehow different is different enough to no longer count as a human. It's too easy to tie feeling to what you expect to see - you don't have a case here.

Consider again: what sort of line are you looking for? A sense of being is developed, it isn't part of what you are except in the sense that whether or not you are capable of developing a sense of being is part of what you are. After conception, the baby requires only nutrients to develop a sense of being; other than that (which adults need as well), it does it essentially on its own. Conception is the only point at which the baby changes in any meaningful way.

Your location has nothing to do with whether you are human or not...
That is an extreme perspective.

39. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
That is an extreme perspective.
Extremely logical? Extremely accurate? What's wrong with it, man?

OK, it's a perspective. Reading your post as an perspective, I can see where you're coming from. That doesn't mean that I agree with you, and I still don't think that you're qualified to make human vs. nonhuman judgments on those grounds, but I can see why you would draw those conclusions, based on the ego functions of an EIE.

So, let's move this conversation down a different track. When differing ego functions draw differing conclusions, that's easily compared to the allegory of the blind men, who alternately called an elephant a tree, a snake or a wall. How are our viewpoints to be reconciled? Do certain elements each have their own area of authority, or is each possible ego block valid in every situation?

How would an LSI have responded to your reasoning, and how would an ESE have responded to mine - assuming that the LSI initially held my view, and the ESE initially held yours?

Another question: Why do you now consider yourself an ENFj now? From my perspective, you seem to have dodged the question by turning into something that does not have to argue with me!

40. Originally Posted by Brilliand
Extremely logical? Extremely accurate? What's wrong with it, man?

OK, it's a perspective. Reading your post as an perspective, I can see where you're coming from. That doesn't mean that I agree with you, and I still don't think that you're qualified to make human vs. nonhuman judgments on those grounds, but I can see why you would draw those conclusions, based on the ego functions of an EIE.

So, let's move this conversation down a different track. When differing ego functions draw differing conclusions, that's easily compared to the allegory of the blind men, who alternately called an elephant a tree, a snake or a wall. How are our viewpoints to be reconciled? Do certain elements each have their own area of authority, or is each possible ego block valid in every situation?

How would an LSI have responded to your reasoning, and how would an ESE have responded to mine - assuming that the LSI initially held my view, and the ESE initially held yours?

Another question: Why do you now consider yourself an ENFj now? From my perspective, you seem to have dodged the question by turning into something that does not have to argue with me!
Argument should have integrity despite the disposition to type. Your argument has no integrity.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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