Logos

[Logos]

It appears that it is my time for my trial by fire. My type as LII has come into question. I disagree with these assessments and I still think that I am LII, but I thought that I should entertain this possibility for them.

I think Logos is LSI, for more than one reason:
- he looks unable to understand some Intuitive concepts; it looks like he submits everything to strictly palpable and demonstrable reasoning from the beginning;
- he has a long trail of reference to establishments (at least in what I dealt with him) and acceptance to argument; I never heard such arguments from LIIs.

These are insightful:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Einstein is a well-accepted ILE amongst the Socionics community for a good reason. You may want to properly investigate the case.

Establishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Just to let you know, this discussion has been had before with more knowledgeable people of Socionics, and Odysseus has been consistently typed as an LIE. This has far less to do with my own confidence as it does with the thoroughness of previous arguments of discussion from esteemed members, so your attempts to discredit his LIE type via an attack on my confidence is juvenile and fruitless

Backing up with authority. He's trying to convince me with that .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
But I still want to know who these Russian Socionists that type Eastwood as an INTj are? I am not necessarily doubting, but such a truth-claim should not be made without being able to provide support.

He keeps the tail between his legs while there is a possibility to contradict "the law" - the things which he values most. Somehow in opposition to LII - the law has to prove itself. Actually I almost have no doubt after a forum search.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Ne, as an external function, cannot operate without objects.

Ne is internal. It's written in the canons of Socionics.

You could be right. I've often seen him (Logos) as all Ti, so much that the Ne doesn't seem to be there. It's like ego Ti-Ti makes more sense than Ti-Ne. Maybe it is really Ti-overly focusing on the minute issues, Ti-Se.

Other reasons for considering LSI that come to mind: He complicates things unnecessarily, which is something ISTj intellectuals do, but INTj's do not. See all the other INTj's in socionics who's explanations are simple and concise. See Brilliands recent dissertation in comparison to Logos on this thread. I'm aware that Rick has also noticed this difference in the LXI's. I suppose there may be some LII's who aren't as easy to understand, like maybe Labcoat, but the abstraction of intuition is at least there more than Logos, among other things, he doesn't complicate the matter, more than is necessary for the difficulty involved.

So what's my type?

[Brilliand]

His reaction to being typed LSI made me wonder - it struck me as a call for caregiving.

Et tu Brute?

I'm not debating circles and squares. It was a misquoted example. I don't want to explain away circles. I like circles. I kinda love circles, especially concentric ones. Even my HA is a . Don't make the circles in my life disappear.

His iron disposition went down fast.

Logos, what's your take on each of the instances cited by Ephemeros (if you can remember)?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mu4]

In precisely what ways does Logos complicate things unnecessarily and how is this indicative that he is not an INTj? Have you considered factors such as age and educational experience in your comparisons of Logos' posts to the posts of others? (For instance, it was to my understanding that Logos is/was a religious studies grad. student and thus would have a greater knowledge base on such matters than many other posters here. For all we know, he could also have an advanced degree in circles and squares. Demonstrations of such knowledge are not necessarily type-related.)

Relatively meaningless as far as the quality of data being produced.

Less study and more thinking tends to produce more original ideas, but it does make for a more risky and less stable life.

Too much knowledge and explanation without comprehension and understanding also can turn your mind into abstract mush.

I'm mostly a auto-didactic, but I don't doubt my philosophical knowledge against just about anyone.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Are you serious? This isn't a valid argument.

I suppose I could ask why not. Some further info might be useful.

Do Logos' replies not simply seem like informed approaches to the topic at hand (eg: the comment about the ancient Greeks)?

No, because it wasn't a history lesson, the point of the conversation was considering the idea of the earth being not flat but round before people were actually aware of it. It's, among other things, a pattern of behaviour that's been observed. The point of highlighting one or two examples of such things is to serve as a demonstration. If you've sort of followed conversations here and there, then it's easy to see for oneself, an overarching way. If you can't or don't recall/see it then there's maybe not a lot you or I can do. I'm not going to provide a dissertation of all his posts, would you? If you have something to bring to the table though, please do, it would be good to discuss/learn/be corrected.

It seems as though he's supplementing Ti with Te, if anything, as opposed to Se.

My point was how facts or knowledge is used. TiSe use it to protect, re-inforce, back up how things fit together in their world view, Te see knowledge and facts in terms of what they do with these tools. If there's Te there it's serving his Ti master so i'm not sure what point you make, or are you just trying to defend a friend? If so there is no harm in questioning his type; truth is truth, type is what we are not what we want to project to fit in.

Why are you using that fact that he doesn't partake in the aggrandising, self-styled intellectualistic waffle that one or two of the ILEs here are fond of partaking in to retype him? Where is the real Se?

You mis-understand me it would seem. I wasn't aware that Brilliand and myself type/are typed as ILE's, and the waffle you refer to was really just intuition on it's meandering course.

In regards to the Se, there's been a few points already made through the thread and I don't see why the onus is being placed by you on me to do most or all of the work, at least it seems that way or it could go that way. It would therefore be great to see you make a case for his Ne, so there's at least more to bounce around with the thread, i'll try not to be lazy and sum up your whole post with "Are you serious? This isn't a valid argument" .

Edit: until you present something of your own to the thread, I don't see the point in discussing with you.

[Gilly]

Were you even positing that rationale as a serious explanation? I thought you were trying to be ridiculous If not, I'll gladly make you look like a fool.

[mu4]

Lol. You're no Einstein, hkkmr.

Stop trying to diss me, since I was explaining why ILE often reject academia.

In most cases, I think that extensive study increases the likelihood of having better informed ideas and provides a greater pool from which to draw ideas from. I'm fairly certain that the Richard Bransons and the Donald Trumps don't invest in any old idea without thoroughly researching their market.

I don't think I haven't been studying. If you understand a concept, you can either try and describe the concept in detail or understand it's relation to other concepts. One is quite easy to do in academics, the other not so easy. I'm not trying to be marketable, I'm just trying to understand some stuff.

You don't know what you're talking about in asserting that higher education necessarily puts more importance on objective qualification than intuitive comprehension.

I don't think there is a known here in what I'm talking about because this is a opinion, a analysis of the current situation and many past situations thru history. But you're coming here with a authoritative statement here right off the bat. "You don't know...." For every person that succeeds, there's bound to be many that fail, this does not change the necessity and existence of the many attempts.

I have some experience with academics, I know plenty of PHD grads and higher education grads. Academics is sometimes just another job...

I think there is a necessity to have some paper so you can flash it like bling, I'll get it if I need it, but first I'm auditioning for pretty personal assistants.

[mu4]

What's stopping you from exploring relationships to other concepts in your own time though?

I do this.

Beyond the undergraduate classes, there are people that have diversified and/or switched fields entirely because they've followed through ideas relating concepts. There are research institutes that specifically focus on merging ideas from different fields.

I want to avoid homework, most test taking, most publishing, most of all the bullshit which I am not particularly fond of in my life.

I am more of a less working and more thinking person. I've done pretty good in my life doing this instead of what others do, but I do think I will need to prove some studies one day, I'm OK with getting some help to accomplish my goals which is why I'm auditioning for pretty personal assistants.

Yes, that's right. It's a matter of opinion and personal circumstance which renders comments such as these extraneous to anyone but yourself:

I don't think what I said is wrong, because I think there is a great deal of indoctrination that exists in all education. And I value my personal opinion quite a bit, I just hope it's also true some of the time. Pardon me if I don't give a shit about yours.

You definitely have some interest in defending higher education which I don't fault you for. I also value higher education, but I view higher education as a obstacle and challenge rather then a tool. The tool is my mind.

I talk with post-grads and PHD's all the time, consider my parents have multiple degrees and my friends often have masters going for something more. I always find that my comprehension is never lacking, only some mundane detail which I can utilize their expertise in taming. Where I find a issue with comprehension, I address this with research.

[Logos]

Logos, what's your take on each of the instances cited by Ephemeros (if you can remember)?

I guess I can break it down into case exhibits.

But I still want to know who these Russian Socionists that type Eastwood as an INTj are? I am not necessarily doubting, but such a truth-claim should not be made without being able to provide support.

This is not an appeal to authority. It is actually quite the opposite as it should be apparent. Someone else was pulling the authority card regarding Russian Socionists typing Eastwood as INTj. I was calling the bluff and wanted sources. I would have preferred if the poster made his own argument in this case or avoided the claim if he did not have support.

Einstein is a well-accepted ILE amongst the Socionics community for a good reason. You may want to properly investigate the case.

This is not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to a previously reached consensus with an extended encouragement for E to seek out those previous arguments on his own.

He is welcome to type Einstein as ILI, but E should first be aware of prior conclusions. If you pick a position that goes against the larger consensus, you will have to argue through the field. In upper level academics, you cannot just argue a case, you have to analyze the cases of people who have also talked about the same or a related subject. The same is true for typing well-known figures. You search the name and look for the prevailing attitudes, arguments, and opinion leaders. You may agree or you may disagree. If you disagree, you will need to argue against those prevailing attitudes, arguments, and opinion leaders. But in this case, I do think that evidence highly supports Einstein as an ILE. It was just largely an aside to main focus on the thread, which is why it was mostly sidestepped with "for good reason." Good reasons that exist to be delineated at another time and in another thread.

Just to let you know, this discussion has been had before with more knowledgeable people of Socionics, and Odysseus has been consistently typed as an LIE. This has far less to do with my own confidence as it does with the thoroughness of previous arguments of discussion from esteemed members, so your attempts to discredit his LIE type via an attack on my confidence is juvenile and fruitless. You can attempt to give all the reasons you want that Odysseus is an Si-seeking ILE, but at the end of the day, Odysseus is an Fi-seeking LIE with his ESI wife Penelope. Nevertheless, I will wait and listen to your arguments for why Odysseus is an LIE. Take your time.

Esteemed members has less to do with authority than it does with being knowledgeable. Smart resources should never be discounted or dismissed, especially when again they are opinion leaders. This is another case in which I had the discussion on Odysseus' type before. Also, I had come back from a break from the board, and more importantly, E was a noob.

- he looks unable to understand some Intuitive concepts; it looks like he submits everything to strictly palpable and demonstrable reasoning from the beginning;

I find this part somewhat hilarious. I think that you tend to ramble and overcomplicate matters in posts lacking substance. I really wish that you would say more while writing less. I do not see our points of contention as a matter of me not understanding Intuitive concepts, but from me disagreeing with your interpretation of Socionics. My desire to move to the palpable and empirical is partially due to A) a science background as child, and B) I have learned to better balance my Ti with Te in order reach across quadras better. This is the real shame of how people use Socionics. Socionics informs us of how we frequently fail to communicate with others, but instead of expanding, altering, or adapting our natural language to others, we dig ourselves in a hole while yelling, "I can't understand you! Why can't you understand me?!"

- he has a long trail of reference to establishments (at least in what I dealt with him) and acceptance to argument; I never heard such arguments from LIIs.

My longest trails of establishments are in referencing restaurants and other dining locations.

In precisely what ways does Logos complicate things unnecessarily and how is this indicative that he is not an INTj? Have you considered factors such as age and educational experience in your comparisons of Logos' posts to the posts of others? (For instance, it was to my understanding that Logos is/was a religious studies grad. student and thus would have a greater knowledge base on such matters than many other posters here. For all we know, he could also have an advanced degree in circles and squares. Demonstrations of such knowledge are not necessarily type-related.)

Well to be fair, so do Kant and Spinoza.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mu4]

Debate typings talk

It's not really necessary to debate typing too significantly, often you will get attached to a unprovable conclusion. Better to study and interact with people to understand the nature of the multitude of humanity.

Also you might have some more fun this way.

[Logos]

This would be debatable, but in any case not the opposite as you say. I ask you: does it matter what the Russians think? What were you discussing, Eastwood's type or something else? You showed your interest there.

It does not so much matter what the Russian Socionists think, but the accuracy of the original poster's (hitta's) assertion that their thoughts matched his own. I do not believe that Clint Eastwood is an LII, but rather, he is an LSI. But that is not what interested me, because I had already formed my opinion of his type prior to the thread. What interested me was hitta's inability to support what he said or to back up his claims.

Wtf are you talking about? Compared to you, I don't give a shit about everything is bold! Nothing, I think for myself.

I'm glad that you think for yourself. Do you want a gold star? But it is not enough that you are capable of thinking for yourself, but you must be able to think well and correctly.

YOU TALK AS IF I DID NOT BRING ANY ARGUMENT!!! What the fuck is this post? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post543661

I don't know. What the fuck is that post? You tell me. That is a separate thread that I have not read before. Believe it or not, I do not spend my time stalking your posts. I did not doubt that you did not have your reasons in one thread, but I strongly suspected that they were questionable since the conclusion you reached did not match mine, and so I disregarded yours like any good LII should do.

Ok, maybe you missed it, as long as the argue with me was in other thread, so you have an excuse. If you have something to add about it just tell me. I'm curious what will prevail in your opinion, the established type given by the "opinion leaders" or my arguments which don't match that typing. I'm extremely curious, because I'm almost sure about what type of answer you'll forward.

Ephemeros, I majored in political science (with my primary interest being public opinion and quantitative analysis) and public relations. The idea of "opinions leaders" does not come from my sense of authority, but from being repeatedly exposed to this facet of communications theory. So my own language games and vocabulary was formed by that. I say that, because you keep quoting "opinion leaders" as if this is some indication that I am incapable of thinking for myself. I tend to analyze forum dynamics in this manner, because that tends to stick out like a sore thumb and it has proved an impediment in forum relations that I have had to overcome.

But since you seem to think that my response to investigate elsewhere and check with other socionicists was somehow atypical of LII's let's look at the Einstein - ILE? thread. I am sure that this will satisfy your confirmation bias regarding my expected response.

idk, it's pretty scant evidence. There are plenty of other reasons
why Einstein is ILE (see socionics.us + a billion past threads).

I may post later when I have more time to gather the facts for my assertion of Einstein's ILE type.

That's in your point only, your LSI point of view!

If my type was determined by your ability to enlarge HTML, then I would certainly be an LSI.

Every LII would discard such information if it doesn't make sense, do you want me to read you the descriptions to fall asleep? And if the LIIs don't understand the issue they don't get involved usually. But you, definitely a Se type, you quickly grasp the power balance and get involved with only the assurance of the establishment. Establishment means most of what you've written: leaders, prevail, academic, consensus, etc.

You are unfairly misreading my actions and intentions.

You're using your Se to scorn my opinion on Odysseus, you forgot that my first post about it was written on 03-19-2009 ( http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post500590 ) and I'm here since May 2007.

You're not exactly using rainbows and sunshine yourself when talking about me or my type. You being registered since May 2007 does not exactly mean that you made your presence widely known; it just means that you primarily lurked until recently. I'm sorry if I did not notice you. But I can assure you that derision is not exclusive to Se-egos alone.

Not only that, but I proved myself understanding, at least partially, the inner of Socionics, by numerous discussions about functions (Ti vs Te, etc) and other things. But yeah, as you did not deal with me, you could think that, it was impossible for you to conceive that a "newbie" is able to challenge an established typing. Actually I did not take note of you before that, which made me the impression that you are some kind of a forum police.

That is debatable. It was not just that you were a noob, but more importantly, you had a conclusion and faulty reasoning, and an interpretation of Socionics that I personally disagreed with.

You call this argument: "that's not Si but Se". Period. Is that one?

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.

Ni.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Alpha NT > Gamma NT.

Pot and kettle.

What's my guilt because you did not answer the arguments? In the table example, remember that I change my opinion 2 times. But you vanished. [the above quote goes here]That's nothing, your worshiped "leaders" did not type the "rough table", what should I do, to wait for the Russians to come and have their say? That sentence was Si and come and argue about it if you can, all the sciences and academies and communities have built the opinions on simple discussions like that. But you were absent!

You are becoming irrational now. I have no worshiped leaders nor am I waiting for the Russians to type the statement. Why was I absent? Because glam answered your question and having me post a similar statement would be redundant. Why post when someone else has basically said what you wanted to say? Seems like quite the LII thing to do. Reduce the amount of work that you actually have to do.

But here would have been another more appropriate way to distinguish between Se, Si, and tables.

Se: "the table has a rough texture." - Here rough is a physical property of the table, either by the contours or material used in making it.
Si: "the table feels rough." - Here rough is defined as a dynamic sensory response to (presumably) the person's skin.

Why are you an LII? Because you want to? No. You should prove it, without any appeal to others' opinion, except they are justified (BY REASON!). Only then I'll speak to you again.

I have proven myself as an LII ad nauseum.

I think Logos is probably LII, althrough his Ne yard is a bit empty. Intellectual authority is more (Objective qualifications) rather then (Political gamesmanship).
Higher education tends to have a mind-numbing effect on people too, it provides a certainty of skills and qualifications that sometimes hinders intuitive comprehension.

It's no surprise that many ILE, Dyson, Spinoza, Marx, Einstein wholeheartedly reject academics until academics could no longer reject them.

I feel that this is largely an unfair criticism of me and my Ne, just because it does not meet your Ne-leading expectations. I do think that Spinoza is LII > ILE, but that is for another time.

[mu4]

I feel that this is largely an unfair criticism of me and my Ne, just because it does not meet your Ne-leading expectations. I do think that Spinoza is LII > ILE, but that is for another time.

Maybe I don't meet your expectations of fairness.

As for Spinoza, how about never.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

Now what? Who should respond to the arguments?

I think I'll be taking both sides on this issue, since I did not like his reaction. Of course Logos is here to speak in his own defense.

[Brilliand]

You declare a lot for an ILE.

Whaa?

[Joy]

You're OBVIOUSLY Ne and Ti ego from my perspective. LII > ILE. (imo, ILE isn't a completely crazy suggestion and may be worth considering, but you do seem more IJ than EP.)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Logos]

You're OBVIOUSLY wrong, Joy, LSI>LII>Lxx, P is impossible.

Oh, I am curious as to why your rhetoric for open-mindedness begins and ends with you. Leading-Intuitive is certainly not impossible if you were Ne-ego. What if I told you that ILE was my most frequently proposed alternative type? You also may want to cross-examine my vocabulary with IE Vocabulary on Wikisocion.

ETA: Also see above. I did answer your questions, for the most part.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Joy]

Man, what's the point of struggling to explain while you and Joy and so on just say "it's obvious" or "everybody".
Often used on you or not, it doesn't matter, as long as the forum opinions are in a high state of entropy. Eg you say that 3 users agree with you bein LII, but also they disagree on other users/celebs, and so on, who is right? It's the time to realize that the only option is to investigate the personality itself, forget about the majority!

So basically I'm returning her the same type of argument, I'll develop only when I deal with smart, receptive people. I'm a donkey to develop so much for deaf ears, I already spent too much on it.

I agree with what you say about the general consensus. I think it gives people a comfort in their opinions that ends up not allowing them to consider other possibilities openly.

I've always found that when challenging the general consensus about a person's type, the immediate reaction will always be "you're crazy". I've found more than a few times though that months later, the person's type will come up again, and this time what seemed like the "obvious" typing for them (based on the general consensus) will now be more openly questioned. Basically I'm saying that it takes time, but it's definitely not impossible for the general consensus to change.

Not that the general consensus is all that important in terms of determining what's accurate and what's not. I think it's best to always be open to the possibility that you're wrong, even if 90% of the people you know share your opinion.

The reason I made such a strong statement about Logos is because from MY perspective (which I don't expect others to share, of course), his Ne is just that apparent. I could be wrong, but if I am it would mean that I've made a very serious error about the nature of Ne. This is certainly possible, but right now I have no reason to suspect that such is the case.

I wasn't saying that he is obviously Ne ego... I was saying that from my perspective he's obviously Ne ego. See the difference? I'm not asserting that anyone else should agree with me.

[Logos]

Man, what's the point of struggling to explain while you and Joy and so on just say "it's obvious" or "everybody".
Often used on you or not, it doesn't matter, as long as the forum opinions are in a high state of entropy. Eg you say that 3 users agree with you bein LII, but also they disagree on other users/celebs, and so on, who is right? It's the time to realize that the only option is to investigate the personality itself, forget about the majority!

I provided you with options for you to explore at your leisure. It is not the will of the majority that makes it an important resource, but the evidence used by the majority in determining why this is the case. That is why I use it. Because, however old the evidence may be (or however much their knowledge of Socionics had advanced), it was still a possibility that was held and worth reexamining. You can reexamine the evidence used by the majority, my vocabulary, and just your general free-thinking knowledge (or lack thereof) to assess whether you freely confirm your pre-made conclusion that I am a LSI. I cannot help but wonder how long you will hold out on this farcical conclusion.

So basically I'm returning her the same type of argument, I'll develop only when I deal with smart, receptive people. I'm a donkey to develop so much for deaf ears, I already spent too much on it.

You seem to believe that people are only smart and receptive if they agree with you. Have you thought that you maybe missing something? If you are a donkey to develop, you may want to consider being an Se-ego.

Also, I answered your questions. I'm just curious as to why you would want me to answer them without actually providing me with your insight or perspective on things.

[Joy]

You're OBVIOUSLY Ne and Ti ego from my perspective. LII > ILE. (imo, ILE isn't a completely crazy suggestion and may be worth considering, but you do seem more IJ than EP.)

I was saying that if I had to give up either Ne ego or rationality, I'd give up rationality first. Basically, I see the Ne. His Ne reminds me of Elro's. "What about this possibility and that possibility. And you also haven't considered this or that." Etc.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Joy]

At last a considerable argument! I'll check is out.

I'm not sure how much of this you'll see from Elro on the forum. It seems to me that most of his points are made jokingly. I'm basing the comparison primarily on private conversations with Elro, so I'm not sure if you'll be able to see it in his forums postings or not.

[marooned]

It appears that it is my time for my trial by fire. My type as LII has come into question.

lol

[Joy]

Yeah. It's pretty difficult to give "serious consideration" to a type if the reasons why it doesn't work are glaringly obvious to you.