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?