Sergei Ganin

[Creepy-bg]

you're talking like Tcaud Phaedrus... please stop.

[Gilly]

You're so full of shit it hurts my inner sense of justice, faith in logic, and hope for the greater good of human kind to read your posts.

[Hitta]

Rocky wrote:
So what's "true" is relative.

Incorrect conclusion (which if true would contradict the premises and therefore be logically inconsistent.)

So we have a paradox? Its not very surprising at all, since our entire existence is based upon them.

[Phaedrus]

There are at least two problems with LII-a:

1. LIIs in general do make decisions rather easily. They know what they want. ILIs, in contrast, have much more trouble coming to decisions.

2. LIIs are less passive and less childlike than ILIs.

If we compare these two types further we should realize that it is the ILIs who are the knowledge seekers, whereas the LIIs are the system thinkers. LIIs seek meaning (maybe that has something to do with "understanding"), whereas ILIs seek truth.

This is a post you made before, um, you could have some misconceptions about INTps and INTjs.

The point about being childlike is not important, but all the other points are, and they are all true -- which you would realize if you read some socionic LII and ILI type descriptions. If you disagree with what I say there, you disagree with official Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

you're talking like Tcaud Phaedrus... please stop.

Why? Don't you like Tcaud?

[Gilly]

Types are based on type descriptions

O YA TOTALLY AGREE 100% MATE

[Hitta]

There are at least two problems with LII-a:

1. LIIs in general do make decisions rather easily. They know what they want. ILIs, in contrast, have much more trouble coming to decisions.

2. LIIs are less passive and less childlike than ILIs.

If we compare these two types further we should realize that it is the ILIs who are the knowledge seekers, whereas the LIIs are the system thinkers. LIIs seek meaning (maybe that has something to do with "understanding"), whereas ILIs seek truth.

This is a post you made before, um, you could have some misconceptions about INTps and INTjs.

The point about being childlike is not important, but all the other points are, and they are all true -- which you would realize if you read some socionic LII and ILI type descriptions. If you disagree with what I say there, you disagree with official Socionics.

um.... Ti is a slow developing function. An INTj actually needs time to think. Te is more of a reactive function. The only official socionics you are referring to is according to you.

[Phaedrus]

You're so full of shit it hurts my inner sense of justice, faith in logic, and hope for the greater good of human kind to read your posts.

That's interesting. If you disagree with what I say in my posts, you don't understand the types, so you could learn something by reading them. But if it makes you feel ill, perhaps you should stop reading them anyway. Tough choice ...

[Hitta]

I have finally found god.... Phaedrus.

[Phaedrus]

Types are based on type descriptions

O YA TOTALLY AGREE 100% MATE

I don't agree with that, and the quote is false. Idiotic behaviour. Why do you want to mislead people by lying?

[Gilly]

Of course, Phaedrus. You're a regular fucking Galileo, aren't you? You see it all, and you've got it down perfectly, but the rest of us just won't listen! Boo-fucking-hoo!

[Gilly]

Types are based on type descriptions

O YA TOTALLY AGREE 100% MATE

I don't agree with that, and the quote is false. Idiotic behaviour. Why do you want to mislead people by lying?

Because this is essentially what you are saying by directing people to type descriptions instead of trying to help them actually understand Socionics, which you, coincidentally enough, clearly do not.

[Phaedrus]

The only official socionics you are referring to is according to you.

Please read a bunch of socionic type descriptions. You obviously haven't.

I have finally found god.... Phaedrus.

According to my INTj father's interpretation of Christianism, that is actually true. He reasons that since God shaped us in his own image, we are God(s) and should behave as such. I don't really buy that, since I believe that there is no God and that religion in general is immoral, evil, and a bunch of crap. But you might be enlightened if you listen to my Word, and it probably won't do you much harm if you belive in me.

[Rocky]

Something can only be true if you agree on rules that make something true.

Wrong. Typical relativist-subjectivist-assumption-mistake, and an example of the general tendency among Subjectivist Ti-philosophers to put more emphasis on Meaning than on Truth (facts).

But rules are abstract and many people have have different sets of rules for everything they believe in.

True, but trivial, and therefore irrelevant.

So what's "true" is relative.

Incorrect conclusion (which if true would contradict the premises and therefore be logically inconsistent.)

Don't argue with me.

That's what the Relativists want -- to sabotage any rational debate by refusing to think logically. And then they expect to be respected for such an idiotic attitude. No, sir. That won't work, Fox Muddlerer.

I usually don't like to go to ad hominem attacks anymore, but the thing is, we already had a long discussion about this, in which you only proved your overall stupidity. So when I say, "Don't argue with me", it's because you already did in a different thread that lasted pages, and you embarrassed yourself, and I don't feeling like doing it again. I'm not going to argue with you, and I don't care about you, I'm just letting you know that what you think is "factual" or "true" is simply wrong. Oh and for the attack, I'll just say something that everyone else is probably thinking- SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Hitta]

Yup, I'm agnostic. All I can think about is dying and no longer existing.

[Expat]

Because this is essentially what you are saying by directing people to type descriptions instead of trying to help them actually understand Socionics, which you, coincidentally enough, clearly do not.

Yeah, that is pretty much it.

[Expat]

We agree on the overall picture you describe here, but you are one of few people on this forum who realizes and accepts that this is a general difference between INTjs and INTps. Essentially, it is the difference between Subjectivists and Objectivists.

You have previously agreed that the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is the same as the difference between preferring or . Which is nothing new; it's one of the most straightforward dichotomies, easy to see in model A.

Are you saying that only "few people on this forum" are aware of that? That INTjs prefer and INTps prefer ?

[Phaedrus]

I usually don't like to go to ad hominem attacks anymore, but the thing is, we already had a long discussion about this, in which you only proved your overall stupidity. So when I say, "Don't argue with me", it's because you already did in a different thread that lasted pages, and you embarrassed yourself, and I don't feeling like doing it again.

I don't care if I embarrass myself or not. And what you feel or don't feel like doing here is irrelevant. When you are wrong you should be corrected, and that's what I'm doing here.

I'm just letting you know that what you think is "factual" or "true" is simply wrong.

Of course. Exactly the same thing as I am doing.

Oh and for the attack, I'll just say something that everyone else is probably thinking- SHUT THE FUCK UP.

And the more you do it, the less likely it is going to happen. You should know that ILIs don't take orders -- especially not from idiots.

[Gilly]

I'm smarter than Rocky.

Oh, now that you put it that way...

[Phaedrus]

You should consider taking a quoting course, Gilly.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Would you hold it against me if I said you had a beautiful body?

I can't quite get the hang of this.

[Logos]

Would you hold it against me if I said you had a beautiful body?

I can't quite get the hang of this.

No, it's "If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?"

[Creepy-bg]

Stop quoting yourself!

Stop quoting yourself!

Stop quoting yourself!

Stop quoting yourself!

[Gilly]

You should consider taking a quoting course, Gilly.

You should consider taking a course in thinking.

[Not A Communist Shill]

You'll never be me

I was you, not that you would know

I hope I don't argue with myself in the future, that would be too confusing...

You've got issues...

[Creepy-bg]

lol this thread's been alphabetized

[Logos]

Get out of my head!

Get out of my head!

Get out of my head!

Get out of my head!

[Creepy-bg]

A douchebag says what?

What?

[Blaze]

A douchebag says what?

What?

wtf?

[Logos]

I see a little silhouetto of a man,

Scaramouche, scaramouche will you do the fandango-

Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me

(Galileo.) Galileo. (Galileo.) Galileo, Galileo figaro

Magnifico I'm just a poor boy and nobody loves me.

[Creepy-bg]

[Not A Communist Shill]

genius.

[Creepy-bg]

yeah nice one Logos

[Rocky]

I usually don't like to go to ad hominem attacks anymore, but the thing is, we already had a long discussion about this, in which you only proved your overall stupidity. So when I say, "Don't argue with me", it's because you already did in a different thread that lasted pages, and you embarrassed yourself, and I don't feeling like doing it again.

I don't care if I embarrass myself or not. And what you feel or don't feel like doing here is irrelevant. When you are wrong you should be corrected, and that's what I'm doing here.

I'm just letting you know that what you think is "factual" or "true" is simply wrong.

Of course. Exactly the same thing as I am doing.

Oh and for the attack, I'll just say something that everyone else is probably thinking- SHUT THE FUCK UP.

And the more you do it, the less likely it is going to happen. You should know that ILIs don't take orders -- especially not from idiots.

Well, this post from you is pointless since you forgot that me, Gilly, and Expat are all smarter then you. You're not even just wrong. You're so far twisted it's painful.

[Phaedrus]

Well, this post from you is pointless since you forgot that me, Gilly, and Expat are all smarter then you.

I wish that were true, because then there is hope for you. Then you might realize that I'm right some day.

You're so far twisted it's painful.

I'm sorry that you have to take all the pain, but I don't know what to do about that. I don't feel anything.

[Phaedrus]

We agree on the overall picture you describe here, but you are one of few people on this forum who realizes and accepts that this is a general difference between INTjs and INTps. Essentially, it is the difference between Subjectivists and Objectivists.

You have previously agreed that the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is the same as the difference between preferring or . Which is nothing new; it's one of the most straightforward dichotomies, easy to see in model A.

Are you saying that only "few people on this forum" are aware of that? That INTjs prefer and INTps prefer ?

Yes, so it seems. Either they don't understand the nature of and , or they don't understand what the implications are for our undestanding of the types INTj and INTp.

[Rocky]

Well, this post from you is pointless since you forgot that me, Gilly, and Expat are all smarter then you.

I wish that were true, because then there is hope for you. Then you might realize that I'm right some day.

You're so far twisted it's painful.

I'm sorry that you have to take all the pain, but I don't know what to do about that. I don't feel anything.

"Right"? Right about what? Do you even know what the word "right" means? If you really want to relive this, just read through this thread again.

[Gilly]

*pets the kitty*

[Phaedrus]

If you really want to relive this, just read through this thread again.

Yeah ... Thanks for reminding me. That was fun!

[Expat]

Yes, so it seems. Either they don't understand the nature of and , or they don't understand what the implications are for our undestanding of the types INTj and INTp.

Well, if they don't, I think you have contributed to make complicated what should be simple.

INTps and INTjs - like all quasi-identicals - have superficial similiarities, but what makes them tick differently is very clear and explained by socionics. By droning on and on and on about a supposed mess, sustained by relying on MBTI descriptions, which muddle the issue rather than make it clear, you have called attention to a problem that only exists to those who don't understand socionics, as you don't.

As I have explained, it was precisely the superficial similarity between quasi-identicals - but with very real inner differences, as demonstrated by the relationships - that led Augusta to even think about types. What you've been trying to do is to unnecessarily re-invent the wheel.