INTps and lack of capitalization and proper punctuation

[Lotus]

by saying grammatical errors lessen the efficiency of communication, he is arguing on the nature of what clarity of communication is. so her post is entirely valid, you can go fuck yourself.

He never said that.

[crazedrat]

He was not arguing what clarity of communication is, simply that it was more efficient than typing with grammatical errors in one's posts.

you said he said that right here

[Lotus]

you said he said that right here

Clarity of communication is more efficient than typing with errors. He never argued WHAT clarity of communication means. She can interpret it any way she fucking wants, it's still true.

What is more efficient? Clarity of communication or errors?

[crazedrat]

that is what we are arguing about. and her statement is relevant to this, as i will explain right here. the answer to your question will depend, first of all, on what you mean by errors. if we are thinking of errors as lack of proper capitalization and period usage (vs. perhaps a semicolon or comma), i will tell you it makes no difference in readability, and actually can grant your writing a certain relaxed and perceptive, flow of consciousness tone. whether this tone is more readily absorbed by the reader is a matter of their subjective mind, and their interpretation of clarity. we are dealing with subtleties here. no one is discussing a paragraph which is completely unorganized, and is one big error.
"clarity of communication vs. errors" is a falsely mutally exclusive statement. as i have just demonstrated to you, errors (as defined by deviations from proper semantics) can lend, in certain ways, further clarity to your communication (as clarity is defined by the readers tendency to properly perceive what you have written) .

[Lotus]

that is what we are arguing about. and her statement is relevant to this, if you go reread it; and as i will explain right here. the answer to your question will depend, first of all, on what you mean by errors. if we are thinking of errors as lack of proper capitalization and period usage (vs. perhaps a semicolon or comma), i will tell you it makes no difference in readability, and actually can grant your writing a certain relaxed and perceptive tone. even then, we are dealing with subtleties here. no one is discussing a paragraph which is completely unorganized, and is one big error.

Right now you are breaking down what clarity of communication could possibly mean. It doesn't matter. Clarity of communication = efficient. It doesn't matter what your perspective of it is... if its clarity of communication, then its efficient.

[crazedrat]

..... the point is "efficient" can mean a number of things to different people, and this is exactly what the alleged ESFp said in her quote which you attacked her for.
I am done with you allie. go get some sleep, stop tweaking, and get your shadow ENTj side under wraps.

[Lotus]

..... the point is "efficient" can mean a number of things to different people, and this is exactly what the alleged ESFp said in her quote which you attacked her for.
I am done with you allie. go get some sleep, stop tweaking, and get your shadow ENTj side under wraps.

okay i'm tired too. AND I'M NOT TWEAKING.

[aestrivex]

so it's settled; jung is ILI.

[reyn_til_runa]

i'm surprised nobody has suggested this tendency is due to low self-esteem.

[hoodrat]

i'm surprised nobody has suggested this tendency is due to low self-esteem.

ILIs have low self esteem?? That explains a lot ......

[reyn_til_runa]

ILIs have low self esteem?? That explains a lot ......

i was kidding.

explains a lot about what?

[strrrng]

its more efficient

In terms of short term, personal energy expenditure, yes.

Clarity of communication is more efficient.

In terms of long term, overall effects of one's language, yes.

from WHO'S perspective? i understand the ILIs here very easily. clarity of communication comes in many varieties depending on what you value.

Right, and that is the issue.

I'm not sure if the perspective really matters in this context.

I'm pretty sure it's what everything boils down to.

She said that it is 'more efficient' to type without capitalization and proper punctuation.

She was referring, as I stated above, to personal energy expenditure.

This is stupid because the entire point of an internet forum is to communicate with other posters (I am not arguing that with anyone. If you disagree, die.). So the most efficient way to achieve that objective is with clarity of communication.

And the crux is defining what clarity of communication is and examining how it varies for different people.

He was not arguing what clarity of communication is, simply that it was more efficient than typing with grammatical errors in one's posts.

How can he say it is more efficient, though? He is only speaking from his point of view. It is possible that many posters find it more efficient to type without focusing on grammar, and also find it more efficient to read things that way.

To say that "clarity of communication comes in many varieties blah blah blah" is irrelevant and retarded.

To ignore the fact that there is no clear-cut definition of "clarity in communication" is retarded.

He never said that.

Yes, he did. dbmmama said that typing with grammatical errors was more efficient, and he responded by saying that clarity in communication is more efficient, which implies that he believes less grammatical errors means increased clarity in communication.

Clarity of communication is more efficient than typing with errors. He never argued WHAT clarity of communication means. She can interpret it any way she fucking wants, it's still true.

Yes, he did argue what it was, by the mere fact that he took a stance. If he didn't believe that clarity of communication was/relied on a specific thing, he wouldn't have argued dbmmama's initial post.

What is more efficient? Clarity of communication or errors?

We cannot know unless we have an actual definition of what clarity of communication is.

"clarity of communication vs. errors" is a falsely mutally exclusive statement.

Correct.

Right now you are breaking down what clarity of communication could possibly mean. It doesn't matter. Clarity of communication = efficient. It doesn't matter what your perspective of it is... if its clarity of communication, then its efficient.

lol, nice reasoning. "clarity of communication = efficient" - the whole point is that there is no objective definition of what efficient or clarity in communication is. You say it doesn't matter what one's perspective is? Yet you're suggesting quite the opposite by promoting YOUR PERSPECTIVE on what it is, as if it is true. Again, efficiency and clarity differ for the individual. To ignore this belies stupidity.

[hoodrat]

i was kidding.

explains a lot about what?

about why ILIs don't love me as much as they should.... it's the only obvious explanation

[aestrivex]

about why ILIs don't love me as much as they should.... it's the only obvious explanation

there is another glaringly obvious explanation

[dbmmama]

crazedrat and strrrng are my heros!

[strrrng]

[Khamelion]

since when do Se dominants need heroes? ....especially IEI heroes....psshh

[dbmmama]

since when do Se dominants need heroes? ....especially IEI heroes....psshh

there's a difference between NEEDING a hero vs. appreciating what someone does on your behalf. i know i'm a hero to my man in ways that he doesn't have the balls to do himself. and he's my hero for stopping me before i charge ahead without thinking first with too many things sometimes.

[Lotus]

In terms of short term, personal energy expenditure, yes.

"Efficiency" is achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense. If she had said decreasing one's personal energy expenditure is more efficient, it would have been valid. But she never said that.

In terms of long term, overall effects of one's language, yes.

Clarity of communication is essential. Without clarity, you cannot communicate.

Right, and that is the issue.

No, it's not. It's completely irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure it's what everything boils down to.

Nope.

She was referring, as I stated above, to personal energy expenditure.

No, she wasn't. If she meant that, she should have said it. And saved all of us this time. Wow, if she had clarity in her communication it would have been much more efficient! Eh?

And the crux is defining what clarity of communication is and examining how it varies for different people.

No it's not. He doesn't need to define it.

How can he say it is more efficient, though? He is only speaking from his point of view. It is possible that many posters find it more efficient to type without focusing on grammar, and also find it more efficient to read things that way.

Yes, it may be easy to read things that way. But only if they still maintain clarity in communication. THAT is what is essential. Grammatical errors are NOT essential.

To ignore the fact that there is no clear-cut definition of "clarity in communication" is retarded.

Exactly. Why define it? Whatever clarity of communication means to YOU is most efficient. That's why we DON'T define it.

Yes, he did. dbmmama said that typing with grammatical errors was more efficient, and he responded by saying that clarity in communication is more efficient, which implies that he believes less grammatical errors means increased clarity in communication.

No, he argued what efficiency is. Efficiency is clarity of communication, not grammatical errors. Grammatical errors COULD be efficient (I suppose?) but only if they contribute to the clarity of communication. She's saying they do, and by saying that, she's agreeing that clarity of communication is important.

Yes, he did argue what it was, by the mere fact that he took a stance. If he didn't believe that clarity of communication was/relied on a specific thing, he wouldn't have argued dbmmama's initial post.

He argued what efficiency is.

Is efficiency grammatical errors? What IS efficiency? Given that this is an internet forum, the most efficient factor for discussion is clarity of communication.

We cannot know unless we have an actual definition of what clarity of communication is.

It doesn't matter. Clarity of communication, regardless of how YOU want to define it, is most important.

Correct.

She's arguing that the grammatical errors are most efficient. He argued that clarity of communication is more efficient. If she meant something else, she should have said it. Again, have some fucking clarity in your communication! It would have been so much more efficient!

lol, nice reasoning. "clarity of communication = efficient" - the whole point is that there is no objective definition of what efficient or clarity in communication is. You say it doesn't matter what one's perspective is? Yet you're suggesting quite the opposite by promoting YOUR PERSPECTIVE on what it is, as if it is true. Again, efficiency and clarity differ for the individual. To ignore this belies stupidity.

Actually there IS an objective definition of efficient, I used it above. Scroll up to the top of this post. Maybe it saves more of your personal energy to type with grammatical errors, but is saves loads more energy to communicate with clarity. Take this argument as an example.

crazedrat and strrrng are my heros!

Nick is probably arguing with me because I blocked him on AIM.
But he can piss off already.

[crazedrat]

this is basically why ISFjs are not philosophers.
everything which needs to be said to you has already been said. if you think anyone is going to write it all out for you again, just because you have trouble comprehending things while you're tweaked out and mind boggled from 3 days of no sleep, you are wrong. go reread it.

[strrrng]

this is basically why ISFjs are not philosophers.
everything which needs to be said to you has already been said. if you think anyone is going to write it all out for you again, just because you have trouble comprehending things while you're tweaked out and mind boggled from 3 days of no sleep, you are wrong. go reread it.

lol, precisely what I was thinking. I don't have time right now to respond to her, as I'm leaving in 5 minutes for a trial, but no worries, I'll make her argument look retarded when I get back, since she is clearly unable to see the holes in her own logic.

cheers!

[dbmmama]

lol, precisely what I was thinking. I don't have time right now to respond to her, as I'm leaving in 5 minutes for a trial, but no worries, I'll make her argument look retarded when I get back, since she is clearly unable to see the holes in her own logic.

cheers!

if you believe she is unable to see the holes in her own logic, use your time more wisely, friend. trying to make someone else look retarded only makes you look retarded.

[crazedrat]

you may be ESE .. i am not sure. why are you convinced you are SEE? or are you

[dbmmama]

you may be ESE .. i am not sure. why are you convinced you are SEE? or are you

NOTHING is ever set in stone....

[crazedrat]

uh .. yeah you're ESE

[Logos]

NOTHING is ever set in stone....

Are you familiar with the Rosetta Stone?

[strrrng]

Efficiency" is achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense. If she had said decreasing one's personal energy expenditure is more efficient, it would have been valid. But she never said that.

But it is what she was implying. Just as logos was implying that clarity of communication means less grammatical errors in his argument.

Clarity of communication is essential. Without clarity, you cannot communicate

And the whole fucking point is that clarity of communication is relative. Two brain-dead INTps could get together and spew gibberish that would be impossible to interpret by anyone else, but makes sense to them. It is relative. Is this so hard to see?

No, she wasn't. If she meant that, she should have said it. And saved all of us this time. Wow, if she had clarity in her communication it would have been much more efficient! Eh?

Not my problem you can't read between the lines. Blame it on her if she wasn't clear enough.

No it's not. He doesn't need to define it.

And this is where you go blind, so let me illustrate. In taking a stance on an issue, you implicitly define it. if you had no personal conception of what something was - even a vague definition - you would be unable to take a stance, as you would have no paradigm to operate from. This is basic philosophy, and i suggest you learn some.

Yes, it may be easy to read things that way. But only if they still maintain clarity in communication. THAT is what is essential. Grammatical errors are NOT essential.

Yes, precisely, and it is relative. Yet earlier you argued it as if it was absolute. And grammatical errors can be essential, depending on the person. What if two high and mighty ESTj's get together, in all their beautiful articulation? If they value grammar, clarity of communication will depend on proper grammatical usage.

Exactly. Why define it? Whatever clarity of communication means to YOU is most efficient. That's why we DON'T define it.

You just contradicted yourself.

No, he argued what efficiency is. Efficiency is clarity of communication, not grammatical errors. Grammatical errors COULD be efficient (I suppose?) but only if they contribute to the clarity of communication. She's saying they do, and by saying that, she's agreeing that clarity of communication is important.

Efficiency is NOT clarity of communication. Stop drawing facile correlations. This is poor logic on your part. He most definitely did imply that less grammatical errors = increased clarity of communication. To blindly say that efficency = clarity of communication is to make so many assumptions, I won't even begin to correct them. Again, basic logic. She said they were efficient. He said clarity of communication was more efficient. By doing so, he was disagreeing with her stance. Open your fucking eyes.

Is efficiency grammatical errors? What IS efficiency? Given that this is an
internet forum, the most efficient factor for discussion is clarity of communication.

And for the last fucking time, clarity of communication differs for the individual, so stop treating it as if it is absolute.

It doesn't matter. Clarity of communication, regardless of how YOU want to define it, is most important.

But everything rests on the definition. You cannot talk about something if you don't have an idea of what it is, hence having a definition of it.

She's arguing that the grammatical errors are most efficient. He argued that clarity of communication is more efficient. If she meant something else, she should have said it. Again, have some fucking clarity in your communication! It would have been so much more efficient!

Yes, and by him saying that, he was saying that grammatical errors were inefficient. Can you not see this? And don't tell me to have clarity in my communication; she's the one who was vague.

Actually there IS an objective definition of efficient, I used it above. Scroll up to the top of this post. Maybe it saves more of your personal energy to type with grammatical errors, but is saves loads more energy to communicate with clarity.

Your definition was pathetic and you saying it is objective only demonstrates stupidity. You are ONE PERSON, but ok, you awesome gamma, your definition on clarity is objective. rofl. You have a penchant for circular reasoning. "Clarity of communication = efficient" -- these two terms, as crazedrat pointed out, are not mutually exclusive. Do you know what this means? It means you cannot isolate them and draw such a direct correlation; there are other alternatives.

Take this argument as an example.

Yeah, I'll take this argument as an example of your ineptitude at logical reasoning.

Nick is probably arguing with me because I blocked him on AIM. But he can piss off already.

I'm arguing with you because you have shit reasoning. Nice attempt at ad hominem though. Silly child, don't try to degrade my position with public image attacks aimed at making you appear superior to me.

some old quotes of you:

Clarity of communication is more efficient than typing with errors.

This assumes you believe grammatical errors detract from clarity of communication. Can you not see how much you're contradicting yourself here?

To say that "clarity of communication comes in many varieties blah blah blah" is irrelevant and retarded.

Even though you conceded that it can differ from person to person, depending on what they find efficient and clear.

And now you can attempt to divert the discussion with petty rhetoric and baseless assumptions that you don't even understand the predicates or implementations of.

[strrrng]

An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion.[1] The deviation in an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in the path of reasoning that links the premises to the conclusion. In contrast to a formal fallacy, the error has to do with issues of ratiocination manifest in language used to state the propositions; the range of elements that can be symbolized by language is broader than that which the symbolism of formal logic can represent. Informal fallacies of deductive reasoning contain a fundamental disconnect between the premises and the conclusion that renders the argument invalid. This disconnect often stems from the presence of a hidden co-premise that, if presented, would validate the argument.

Example:
-S is a P
-S is also a Q
-therefore, all Ps are also Qs

There you go, Allie. You can learn something today.

[strrrng]

if you believe she is unable to see the holes in her own logic, use your time more wisely, friend. trying to make someone else look retarded only makes you look retarded.

lol @ your Fe lecturing.

If someone has holes in their logic, and you expose them, the other person looks retarded, not you.

[strrrng]

NOTHING is ever set in stone....

All this philosophical/spiritual crap you love to profess on such general levels reeks of Ti+Ne super id. An SEE would never consistently make such sweeping generalizations about things (super ego Ne + Ti).

[Lotus]

I'm too tired for this.

And for the last time, crazed: I AM NOT A TWEAKER.

[crazedrat]

And for the last time, crazed: I AM NOT A TWEAKER.

yes you are

[dbmmama]

lol @ your Fe lecturing.

If someone has holes in their logic, and you expose them, the other person looks retarded, not you.

thanks, does that sound like lecturing to you? i sure didn't mean it to. unsolicited advice bugs the shit out of me. i try very hard to not do that. a big part of my homeschooling is based on my kids interests and allowing them their own way without my advice, only when they ask me for it. i am very much a "responder" that way.

maybe i am ESE afterall. i don't care to make anyone look retarded. i prefer win/win when i can. maybe that really is Fe base talking and not wanting "hurt feelers" when having a discussion. and it really bugs me when others do take offense or get "nasty" or condescending about it with me.

something huge happened today that also made me think ESE.....i'm open...

[Khamelion]

there's a difference between NEEDING a hero vs. appreciating what someone does on your behalf. i know i'm a hero to my man in ways that he doesn't have the balls to do himself. and he's my hero for stopping me before i charge ahead without thinking first with too many things sometimes.

they didnt stop you before charging ahead in anything. it all depends on what they are doing on my behalf....most of the time i want to fight my own fights. if i privately complain to someone, then they have a window of whether or not to back up my side without annoying me....psshh