I'm Curious

[silke]

I've only been browsing this forum for a couple of months but from the posts I've seen I'd have to go with LII. I can't pick up any Fi in you. Usually it stands out quite prominently in ILIs for me. You seem to be inclined to defend your reasoning and judgements, which corresponds to introverted logic, but not any values or topics that have to do with introverted ethics.

[Pa3s]

Sorry ESC, but if you can't convince those who think you're LII, you'll have to accept their opinion and let it be. I know that you probably wanted some obvious evidence why they think so, but I guess you won't get more than this. It's not that important anyway, if those arguments didn't convince you as well, there is no need to discuss this issue if you're sure of your self-typing.

[Korpsy Knievel]

But the community needs to be there. Arcades don't work without communities. I staff a nearly dead site and twice we've tried arcades to no avail.

Role Fi, DS Fe. ILI and community building aren't typically hand-in-glove.

* Alpha types typically follow through on their ideas in the form of group activity.

You people have no sense of humor. All I want to do is discuss, and I can't even do that.

No one's discussing anything, it's all arguments...

Gilly taunted me
Gilly made a thread about me
I became well-known
More attention was paid to every post I made, especially the theories I let out(which were crushed instead of developed)
People focused on the person making the post instead of the actual discussion
I had to stay on my toes resorting to my Id, suppressing my Ego / natural state.

I didn't change myself on purpose, but I can't even make one constructive and productive post about Socionics here now without being singled out.

* Alpha types tend to enjoy participating in groups where there is free exchange of positive emotional expression in an atmosphere pleasing to the senses.

* Gamma types don't tend to form or maintain groups based on fun, emotional interaction, but only take groups seriously that perform some common productive activity or discuss serious topics.

But you don't realize that most everything I speak of on this forum is theoretical.

* Alpha types are inclined to discuss highly theoretical concepts as a source of intellectual stimulation and fun rather than for their practical merits.

* Gamma types tend to give more value to ideas and concepts that are firmly connected to factual information.

I just went along to avoid problems, path of least resistance.

I wasn't that active until Gilly forced me into the limelight, now I'm everywhere cause everyone's seen my name now. It was better being a small fish.

* Alpha types prefer to avoid the discussion of controversial and unpleasant subjects regarding personal relationships while in groups, especially if leading to confrontations.

* Gamma types reject the idea that it's best to avoid confrontations so as not to spoil the mood of those present, they prefer directness in settling or at least discussing disagreements.

I entertained [Maritsa] because it was harmless fun just going along with her naivety, all the while engaging in other discussions on this board. I have truly agreed with maybe a few things she said, although what she agreed with me on is an entirely different subject...Maritsa hadn't had the time to annoy me to the point of most members here. I just didn't give a damn if she was her or not, she didn't really bother me.

* Alpha types are inclined to be tolerating of minor past misdeeds by others, giving priority to reconciliation and a convivial atmosphere.

* Gamma types take a hard-line approach regarding ethical principles and the punishment, even revenge, on those who break them.

* Gamma types like to discuss personal relationships in a realistic manner and are skeptical that "jerks" can ever become "nice people", for instance.

[Absurd]

You see EyeSeeCold, I told you won't regret making a thread of your own. Surprisingly I happen to be full of good advice.

[EyeSeeCold]

I've only been browsing this forum for a couple of months but from the posts I've seen I'd have to go with LII. I can't pick up any Fi in you. Usually it stands out quite prominently in ILIs for me. You seem to be inclined to defend your reasoning and judgements, which corresponds to introverted logic, but not any values or topics that have to do with introverted ethics.

I haven't opened up to this forum yet. It's too damn hostile. However, I have voiced some of my rants, and you must have never seen any of the quoting I do from the Bible around here.

What is stupidity, but a relatively undeveloped ability in an area of functioning?

Matthew 7: 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

- KJV

Your Consistency Score

Your moral consistency score is 92% (higher is better) This score suggests that you are admirably consistent in the way you view morality. In fact, only 28% of the people who have completed this activity demonstrate greater moral consistency in their responses than you manage. But don't feel too pleased with yourself. Most people don't think about morality very clearly!
=====

Stupid test, giving ultimatums...like any of this applies to reality..and even if it did, our own actions are not so predictable under pressure...It's worthless.

All it measures is moral pretense. It should be testing for your motivations behind your choices not analysis of your consistent choices.

But that's just it... The kid realized the futility of it all. Yes I think it is profound to say he is his own hope, but we cannot escape collective existence in which there is no hope at all. What one needs is integration not conservation. The hope he bears needs to manifest in other people, but what's the point of one, maybe two, being saved? If the masses are still doomed, nothing has changed. The cycle continues.

You're trying to cling to reality, but it's slipping through your fingers
like sands through an hourglass. Some of the people you've held on
to through memories and thoughts, but there's no character, no
substance. Even your own self has become replaced by thoughts of
what you used to be. The only thing that is real is "rage (or despair)".
You know everyone else has moved on, and even if you could bring
them back, it wouldn't be the same; everything has changed.

YouTube - 01-01-2011 Suddenly Everything Has Changed - The Flaming Lips

Delta is deep, sometimes it's almost scary. I must admit.

Those raw emotions they let out are the combined sum of eternal suffering.

But where's the incentive???

This piece of expository writing is over generalizing in what people want out of life. Maybe some people like to work hard. Maybe some people like to be down and depressed. Everything being imperfect, gives us something to live for - emotional fulfillment.

Why would we care about "research and development, the creative arts and crafts, travel and exploration, and participation in all of the other limitless horizons the future has to offer" if we already have it made?

Basically I'm against a highly 'd society, it's just too dehumanizing.

You see EyeSeeCold, I told you won't regret making a thread of your own. Surprisingly I happen to be full of good advice.

Yep, now I see how many people don't have a clue. And also how ambiguous Socionics is.

I'm not entirely sure but I thought you leaned more on the Ti side from threads like these
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=35120
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=34994

but I don't really have a solid opinion either way except that I couldn't see you as Ti ignoring/Te dominant

This is where I think people focus too much on the presentation and not the intention. Yes, I clearly see that was being used, but for what purposes? I wanted to discuss those concepts I had and see what was useful about them. Both threads went nowhere, I never had a chance to get people to work with the concepts.

Not to mention, there is synthetic thinking(Dialectic-Algorithmic) in that Dynamic/Static thread.

You see so much now, because the truth is - either I'm ILI or I'm not. I, with full confidence, see myself as ILI. When people contradict with LII, my worldview is fucked, I have to be one or the other, and I need to know the truth and prove it to myself(which also entails the external perspective corresponding with the internal perspective), before I can move on.

When one experiences a problem regarding [the Demonstrative] function, one must correct it as it does play a vital part in a person's worldview.

[stray]

When people contradict with LII, my worldview is fucked

I think before anyone (including you) attempts to argue about anything, you need to stop being dramatic. It's not that bad.

[EyeSeeCold]

I think before anyone (including you) attempts to argue about anything, you need to stop being dramatic. It's not that bad.

My choice of words is not meant to be taken with serious emotive weight.

[Absurd]

I haven't opened up to this forum yet. It's too damn hostile.

Yea, since Maritsa made a voluntary decision to leave this forum for a month, this place starts to scare the crap out of me.

However, I have voiced some of my rants, and you must have never seen any of the quoting I do from the Bible around here.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again, you sound a bit like Maritsa.

Yep, now I see how many people don't have a clue. And also how ambiguous Socionics is.

Haha!

[EyeSeeCold]

Sorry ESC, but if you can't convince those who think you're LII, you'll have to accept their opinion and let it be. I know that you probably wanted some obvious evidence why they think so, but I guess you won't get more than this. It's not that important anyway, if those arguments didn't convince you as well, there is no need to discuss this issue if you're sure of your self-typing.

I don't mind if people have an opinion, however it becomes a problem when my contributions are subverted by type analysis. This is why I have a hard time seeing k0rpsey as ILI. He's too focused on analysis and he has this cocky ass ego, he obviously condescends. More likely he's IEI, I'm not sure, but a valuing type.

[Absurd]

This is why I have a hard time seeing k0rpsey as ILI. He's too focused on analysis and he has this cocky ass ego, he obviously condescends. More likely he's IEI, I'm not sure, but a valuing type.

I can't say I haven't been waiting for this. What makes you "not sure but a valuing type" for korpsey ? I know this tune well - Ashton "accused" of being SLE, so it is only a matter of time someone is going to propose IEI for korpsey. Well done

[EyeSeeCold]

Alright. I understand the purpose of this thread now

It wasn't to prove or disprove anything.

It was to provide counter evidence to give people a more informed opinion and a wider perspective, because I thought people had ignorant opinions and made ignorant decisions.

[Absurd]

Alright. I understand the purpose of this thread now

It wasn't to prove or disprove anything.

Hehe, hey this is your thread, you created it, you telling me you didn't understand why in the first place ?

It was to provide counter evidence to give people a more informed opinion and a wider perspective, because I thought people had ignorant opinions and made ignorant decisions.

...alright. Make a list of forum members you're sure about and post in that thread "forum members typings" or something.

[EyeSeeCold]

I can't say I haven't been waiting for this. What makes you "not sure but a valuing type" for korpsey ? I know this tune well - Ashton "accused" of being SLE, so it is only a matter of time someone is going to propose IEI for korpsey. Well done

k0rpsey demonstrates trying to analyze everything. is less analytical and more "surface level" comparative.

is known for analysis and classification. Every single reply thus far from him has been a static analysis of my posts, especially the ones in this thread. He points out the obvious, meaning "I know it already", which implies he's speaking to my Super-Ego/Id.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again, you sound a bit like Maritsa.

It's the Maritsa Effect. Happens by over-justifying how ambiguous concepts relate to your actions.

[EyeSeeCold]

Hehe, hey this is your thread, you created it, you telling me you didn't understand why in the first place ?

I never understand why I do anything in the first place.

To be honest.

...alright. Make a list of forum members you're sure about and post in that thread "forum members typings" or something.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...d.php?p=758307

[Absurd]

k0rpsey demonstrates trying to analyze everything. is less analytical and more "surface level" comparative.

is known for analysis and classification. Every single reply thus far from him has been a static analysis of my posts, especially the ones in this thread. He points out the obvious, meaning "I know it already", which implies he's speaking to my Super-Ego/Id.

You do sound like Maritsa. I don't know shit about korpsey only that he threw two types at me, which is not very impressive yet, so I'll leave him alone and let him run freely.

It's the Maritsa Effect. Happens by over-justifying how ambiguous concepts relate to your actions.

So it is settled and decided - Maritsa is gamma and ESI. Get her in your quadra so when she comes back I can say to myself "I knew it and pat myself on the back". And yea, you won't ride far talking Maritsa talk with me so please be my supervisor and drop this bullshit.

[EyeSeeCold]

So it is settled and decided - Maritsa is gamma and ESI. Get her in your quadra so when she comes back I can say to myself "I knew it and pat myself on the back".

Sure, as long as we agree Jung is ILI.

And yea, you won't ride far talking Maritsa talk with me so please be my supervisor and drop this bullshit.

Well since you put it like that..

[Absurd]

Sure, as long as we agree Jung is ILI.

He's dead anyway. A good ILI is a dead ILI, wouldn't you agree ?

You typed guys who say you're LII and not ILI EII, LSE and LIE respectively, that is laghlagh, me and Ashton but you "left out" Ssmall, Capitalist Pig and Jinxi - why is that ? Wasn't korpsey right posting what he posted in response to you:

* Alpha types are inclined to be tolerating of minor past misdeeds by others, giving priority to reconciliation and a convivial atmosphere.

?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

*channels Jessica*

Nobody cares omg. Do you care what type I am? Why would anybody here think about who you are?

People only like you for what you can give them, not 'who you are!' But this is the way that it should be. GET OVER YOURSELF and actually contribute something that is interesting to others.

YOU WILL NEVER BE LOVED FOR WHO YOU ARE. Nobody CARES. They will just BULLY YOU. You will only be loved showing people what you're worth. And that requires having a focus that is outside of yourself!!!

that was actually meant to inspire you, but I'm not katy perry so I don't do a very good job of it. Just think about what ur asking.

AND STOP TALKING ABOUT MARITSA. At least she actually knew where her heart was, all you guys do is try to make everything into some dumb intellectual thing. She was an easy target because she actually had a heart, you guys are such high school cliches. Get over yourself, nobody cares about how smart you are they only care about what you can help them with. And stop thinking this is an unfairness or injustice either.

[Absurd]

Nobody cares omg.

What the fuck are you doing on here, then ? Go write a poem or something.

People only like you for what you can give them, not 'who you are!'

What you can give makes you, what makes you, you are.

AND STOP TALKING ABOUT MARITSA. At least she actually knew where her heart was, all you guys do is try to make everything into some dumb intellectual thing. She was an easy target because she actually had a heart, you guys are such high school cliches.

I'm really sorry

[Jinxi]

*channels Jessica*

Nobody cares omg. Do you care what type I am? Why would anybody here think about who you are?

People only like you for what you can give them, not 'who you are!' But this is the way that it should be. GET OVER YOURSELF and actually contribute something that is interesting to others.

YOU WILL NEVER BE LOVED FOR WHO YOU ARE. Nobody CARES. They will just BULLY YOU. You will only be loved showing people what you're worth. And that requires having a focus that is outside of yourself!!!

that was actually meant to inspire you, but I'm not katy perry so I don't do a very good job of it. Just think about what ur asking.

AND STOP TALKING ABOUT MARITSA. At least she actually knew where her heart was, all you guys do is try to make everything into some dumb intellectual thing. She was an easy target because she actually had a heart, you guys are such high school cliches. Get over yourself, nobody cares about how smart you are they only care about what you can help them with. And stop thinking this is an unfairness or injustice either.

Good response. The kid is obviously seeking. He needs validation from the community to come to acceptance of his own type. He's also insecure and has engrafted ILI into his mind. Don't try to convince him. Let him live in his delusions. Plus, he's already stated that he'd have to re-learn socionics from the LII POV if he changes his type.

EyeSeeCold, you have taken Maritsa's crown. Enjoy it.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Yep, now I see how many people don't have a clue. And also how ambiguous Socionics is.

Self-serving bias, attributional error, blame shifting, finger pointing. You're remarkably resistant to personal accountability. Kinda reminds me of how you justified being lazy and dependent on your sister to clean around the house, or the sad boast of slothfulness in your signature. Sure seems infantile.

When people contradict with LII, my worldview is fucked,

That's your inversely proportional role Fi speaking up, suppressing your base Ti when Fe is unavailable to support your Te, plus more weak Si/Se.

I have to be one or the other, and I need to know the truth and prove it to myself

Categorical thinking, poor ability to navigate shades of gray. Your love of absolutes like never, always, every, none, etc. is quite well established. Ti+/Te-. Blindness to homeorhesis? Devalued Ni.

(which also entails the external perspective corresponding with the internal perspective), before I can move on.

Role Fi and DS Fe scramble your weak HA Si, PoLR Se, and demonstrative Te again. Infantile alpha.

My choice of words is not meant to be taken with serious emotive weight.

You give and take away in the same motion. Not only a very safe tactic for a sensitive soul (enneagram SP lead, methinks) but also another admission of fakeness. Weak but valued Fe.

This is why I have a hard time seeing k0rpsey as ILI. He's too focused on analysis and he has this cocky ass ego, he obviously condescends.

Tu quoque, whining, player hater.

Alright. I understand the purpose of this thread now

Has anyone seen the goalposts?

It wasn't to prove or disprove anything.

And yet it's shown the klutziness of your pervasive dissembling. Weak Ni didn't anticipate that either.

k0rpsey demonstrates trying to analyze everything.

Red-handed parapraxial reference to ILI's demonstrative Ti. To avoid confusion with jargonized terms you could have easily said displays, exhibits, instantiates, manifests, utilizes, etc. This shows lacking awareness of consequences or significance, which stems from more piddly Ni. Oh, look here:

Ni - I am hypersensitive to meaning; I am aware of what many words, symbols, situations, appearances or other things indicate by how they are related with other things in both spatial and temporal context. I contemplate and follow these indications to increase my understanding of what things mean.

Nice description. So why do I have to keep telling you to clean up your sloppy language, such as in your eye motion equations, where I suggested the ophthalmological term "saccades" to describe something you'd erroneously dubbed "ballistic"? Weak Ni. The same goes for your tone-deafness that leads you to think that specious bulldada won't be recognized for what it is rather than accepted as convincing and true.

is less analytical and more "surface level" comparative.

Since I don't recall all fallacies offhand I'm comparing your transparent quibbles and wriggles to various lists describing species of crap logic. Besides which:

Does not ILI posses both and with which to produce and argue?

is known for analysis and classification. Every single reply thus far from him has been a static analysis of my posts, especially the ones in this thread.

Your posts contain very little actual content for Te to work with, but they're definitely shot through with Ti equations and formulae. These are definitely fixed aspect of your presented thought. Between that and your general self-protective stance that discloses little discernible personality it's necessary to address Ti with Ti. Furthermore, you know full well that "[NTs] are natural theorists."

He points out the obvious, meaning "I know it already", which implies he's speaking to my Super-Ego/Id.

Right, like your role Fi, PoLR Fe, ignoring Te, and demonstrative Ni.

I never understand why I do anything in the first place.

Devalued Ni.

To be honest.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

[Exodus]

ESC, have you seriously thought about your super-id functions? Do you really like ? It seems to me like you like .

[EyeSeeCold]

He's dead anyway. A good ILI is a dead ILI, wouldn't you agree ?

Can you tell the difference?

You typed guys who say you're LII and not ILI EII, LSE and LIE respectively, that is laghlagh, me and Ashton but you "left out" Ssmall, Capitalist Pig and Jinxi - why is that ? Wasn't korpsey right posting what he posted in response to you:

* Alpha types are inclined to be tolerating of minor past misdeeds by others, giving priority to reconciliation and a convivial atmosphere.

?

? I included Jinxi and Cpig, I left out Ssmall.

That description goes for Gamma too, in the sense that things aren't taken personally unless they actually were intended to be personal. "It's just business".

ESC, have you seriously thought about your super-id functions? Do you really like ? It seems to me like you like .

Yes. I have an ESE mother and grandmother; I have an SEE sister, ISFj cousin; three SLE friends; two SEE friends; one ESI friend, one IEI friend.

So I understand the difference between and and I know what they look like. Keep in mind Gammas still prefer +. If we're discussing whether or not I enjoy Fe, we should focus on "limiting negative atmospheres"(-Fe) vs unrestrained atmospheres (+Fe).


Here are some typical examples of what I go through:


1.) ESE mother - Always assuming things about me without asking(), even if the assumptions are correct they are irrelevant and not intended to be emphasized(suppressed ). Occasionally asks what did I like about something(), I respond with "It was just [insert whatever it was]" or "it was alright"(Suppressed ). Always tries to persuade me to go to places I don't want to go by talks of me "missing out" etc(LII SuperId expectations). Is loud as hell on the phone, talks 24/7(), I can't think when she's around(Acc > Cre ; Cre > Acc Supervision). I condense my verbalizations to one liners around her( PoLR). Nags me about things around the house like every day().

2.) ESE grandmother
Pretty much the same things as above, however, with much more intensity: throws insults like nothing, occasionally calls me and checks up on me(), sees me as dependent in the areas of making food and doing what I'm supposed to do in life(). Constantly guilt trips about not spending enough time with her().

[Korpsy Knievel]

Inadmissible. Citing facts not in evidence. Neither of these women are available for independent analysis. You could easily have them mis-typed, particularly if you're mistaken about ILI > LII for yourself.

[EyeSeeCold]

Ti+/Te-

Te-/Ti+

Declared twice. So you agree with Te-/Ti+?

ILI is Te-/Ti+
LII is Te+/Ti-

I'm glad we could settle this. So I am ILI and Jung is ILI. Excellent.

[EyeSeeCold]

Ah, mea culpa. That was declared twice in error. I should have said Ti > Te for LII and Te > Ti for ILI. None of my other comments require retraction.

BS, you admitted it. Game over.

Actually I'm glad we could finally agree on you being ILI and Jung being ILI.

[EyeSeeCold]

Reopened.

Since last thread got locked before I had time to reply to it I'll add this here:


Quoting the Bible i.e. referencing an outside source to see what is acceptable ethical practice would be the work of extraverted ethics actually - Fe. Introverted ethics is formulating your own ethical stand point as it is a Ji funcion. This is what I meant to say that I have never seen a discussion where you would be defending your own individual ethical judgments as types would do. Taking on what is collectively considered to be ethical such, as what the Bible says, is expression of Fe.

Don't Betas and Gammas share the same flavor of T/F? Or +Fe, -Fi?

I don't see how quoting the Bible is strictly when the subject is morality and appealing to human conscientiousness.

EDIT: Hey EyeSeeCold, what's the point in locking your thread, you're outnumbered here. Is this you saying "I give up, I am LII ?" Yes or no ? I think yes.

Allowing energy to flow into a now pointless topic is a waste of resources. I thought I'd get compelling perspectives but they are all biases, fitting information into a preconceived type instead of proposing the possible types or possible elements. Nothing is substantial enough to shift me from my position. Ignorance? I suppose so, though ignorance does not equate to being incorrect or inaccurate.

Outnumbered? Possibly. I've always preferred Quality > Quantity though.

[Creepy-]

I never understand why I do anything in the first place.

Isn't this the opposite of /? in particular, I thought valuers only do things they need to do so as to not waste energy (at least by its association with "efficiency"). Doesn't this imply that they know why they are doing something? With a specific purpose in mind?

[EyeSeeCold]

You're reading too much into it lol. I was referring to Irrationality.

[EyeSeeCold]

I think you're literalizing the term 'irrational' a bit much.

Maybe, maybe not:

extroverted perceivers - their actions or impulses (blind)
introverted perceivers - their perception (hypnotized)
extroverted judgers - thought explication (fated?)
introverted judgers - thought implication (the only free type? which imlies our only freedom is value creation?)

Sometimes I don't realize things until after I'm done doing them.

[EyeSeeCold]

What the hell are you pasting that shit from?

It's Smilingeyes, I thought his work was well-known.

[EyeSeeCold]

Got into thread late.

That's a good synopsis of Holographical-Panoramic cognitive style (which includes LII); I'd pointed out something similar to him a couple weeks ago when I said this:

"From my vantage point, you more readily strike me as LII > ILI, as among other things you seem to possess a characteristic habit of inventing reductively generalized ascriptions in explaining complex phenomena—something suggested as a key feature of types with Holographical-Panoramic cognitive style (which includes LII). As far as I've been able to tell thus far, none of the other ILIs (CPig, k0rpsey, Aiss, etc.) appear to do this. It's more akin to what I see from LIIs like Krig, labcoat, and Crispy."

Given the existence of the Forer Effect, I honestly cannot say that I identify with Holographical-Panaramic. I realize that I come up with graphs based on inductions of observations, but I don't always think like that...

Many times I have exhibited synthetic thinking(Dialetical-Algorithmic) which has constantly been ignored as evidence. I pull other people's theories which I've accepted as operational and I form my own deductions. Not to mention I constantly exhibit this, I always have since middle school:

Its advantages are obvious: it is the most subtle and flexible style. It can easily switch to an opposite direction, and possesses predictive ability, accompanied by an effective type of associative memory. Algorithmic thinking is also good at solving problems of classification, given their gift for recognizing complex patterns. Beyond the circumstantial conditions of a problem, it perceives a fundamental algorithm for its solution.

...

The other version is slow suggestion, primarily based on entrainment through rhythmic vocalization and/or sound, multiple repetitions of the same phrase with variation. Variations in this case are particularly significant, working akin to the chorus in a song. Gradually a trance state is reached—external relaxation with internal concentration. The greater the monotony, the sooner a deep trance is reached. Hence why some people rapidly settle down and fall asleep under a monotone 'bubnezh' TV.

I've been sleeping to music since high school. I'm known to everyone as the guy who can do "beats" with vocally and I constantly make rhythms unconsciously. But again this is all subjective right?

Which is a given, and I don't think anyone's raising the theoretical nature of your statements as an objection to you being ILI—rather, its the style in the way you present theory that is more akin to LII > ILI.

I can't help but bring up the phrase " When in Rome do as the Romans". I'm not saying I consciously alter my presentation style to reflect that of LIIs, but if I'm going to present a theory, would I do it with ? With ? With ?

I see two explanations.
1.) You have never witnessed ILI's Demonstrative to such an extent.
2.) I am LII

The former is probable because this forum does not host enough certain ILIs to really compare them, not to mention they are not in my situation.

Unless you've mistyped others and/or misevaluated the intertypes you believe to experience with them.

Intertypes are difficult to interpret as a meaningful form evidence if your own self-typing is wrong. Generally speaking, intertype relations have greater epistemic utility as a form of post-hoc confirmation, not the other way around.

I am completely certain of the typings. It is truly all or nothing.

There's expected to be quite a bit of difference between the two. ILIs devalue and don't actively express in their communication— shouldn't be something observable in their statements—whereas you seem to express prolifically.

I understand. I propose accentuation or ILI-Ti.

Sounds like you're misdiagnosing your PoLR as something it isn't; that has little if anything to do with the Serious dichotomy (source).

If anything, as a Decisive quadra (/-valuing), γ doesn't shy away from adversity.

Yes, significant adversity. But in general do you really expect Gamma Extraverts to be as confrontational as Gamma Introverts? I don't think you're taking that into consideration. ILI is naturally Harmonizing with the IP temperament and has less energy to exert than other Gammas. So the path of least resistance, that basically describes dom - DS, until a real conflict comes up and not a petty squabble.

Why? So you can use that information to invent ad-hoc justifications about how you're really ILI after all and people were merely 'misinterpreting' you?

I seriously just wanted their perspective on the matter, but I somehow felt oppressed with the need to argue back against attempts to destructure my worldview(i.e. me being wrong about ILI and Socionics in general).

This thread is awash in people giving you their perspectives and telling you why they see it that way. What more could you possibly want that hasn't been given already?

Dunno, like I said, it's automatic as I feel oppressed somehow.

If ILI uses at all, it's utilized only in a latent auxiliary manner as an unconscious information process (per Model A). It shouldn't be part of an ILI's active cognition or something that readily avails itself verbally.

If that were not the case, we'd have a very difficult time reliably delineating LII from ILI at all.

I understand.

It is either:
ILI with accentuated Ti
ILI-Ti
LII-Ni
LII

I heavily doubt LII as I clearly understand what it means to be Rational and Irrational. I know for certain I am not a Rational type. I don't have the Rational attitude.

Maybe it's just me… but I suspect you'd have an easier time with it if you weren't so perpetually self-referential in all of your arguments. The disposition you describe of yourself here sounds very much like a orientation.

I can't help it, I don't do it on purpose but at the same time I don't any other way to prove my own point by identifying my own "proof".

FWIW, "no u" isn't exactly a viable argument.

NO U is always viable.

I don't see the point of launching into suppositions about your subtype when your base self-typing is questionable.

I understand, but the reason I attemped so was because I wanted to search the probability of an ILI appearing as an LII yet still being ILI. It just so happens no one was open minded enough to explore that avenue of thought.

What evidence have you given to support typing yourself as ILI though, aside from personalized theoretical formulations you've invented?

I don't know if I can. Isn't anything I produce from the self and therefore subjective in nature?

At 1st it was just a hunch—based on what you explained to see / as, which to me sounded explicitly . Since then, I've considered and re-considered your type multiple times over in light of various observations on things you've said and the way you've said them, and I was ineluctably forced to converge over time upon the conclusion that LII indeed makes the most sense for you.

I can't really say anything on this as it wasn't as accentuated as it is now yet still evident.

I'm not sure what "surface level" comparative means. And FWIW, I gather that k0rpsey is probably one of the most blatant ILIs ever to tread this board; the essential conditions of this debate between the two of you, is fairly representative of what I've typically seen occur in γ-NT vs. α-NT discussions.



Looks to me like he's just exposing various flaws in your reasoning and why one should be skeptical of the justifications you trying to make. There's nothing contrary to about this. I even wrote up a list of "Socionics Fallacies" at one point—the intent of which wasn't to analyze and classify, but to inform and educate on the manifold problems I see apparent in Socionics and in discussions about Socionics.

I just don't agree here(with the flaw identifying I do). However I have been in many arguments with other INTPs and they are nothing like this. The approach k0rps3y takes isif he is Static and analytical.

See below where I quote Director Trevor and I and you will see what I mean.

In arguing, I can handle "facts", framing, integrity, and the tossing of information but when it comes to actual logical progression and the careful avoidance of fallacies, I am weak. IMO this is clearly a sign of > . Not for being trained in fallacies but for focusing on the exchange and dynamic content rather than what is actually being presented for analysis.

Another point, I can handle your posts easily. But it's a strain to acknowledge k0rps3y. If me and you were in an argument, I'm sure I'd be able to keep up but k0rps3y presents in a whole different style that I just have no care for.

Further, if these points were so "obvious" to you, then why do you commit these errors?

Because they are ignored for the main point I am focusing on. I don't need his points that he points out.

Personal anecdotes re: relations with people that 3rd-party observers here don't know and can't observe themselves, are a specious form of evidence with little to no epistemic weight.

Already covered, but yes.

These are redundant, IMO. For example: Ti- equals Ne+. And so on.

That may be so, but Ti and Ne are still different aspects, are they not?

What is "aspect"?

I think Ti and Ne are two different things. If that helps.
I also think Ti- equals Ne+ but i already said that.

I am operating under the assumption that a type has 2 functions, not 4, not 8. The rest naturally follows. Of course I might change the assumption under which I'm operating but atm I have no reason to do so.

-___-. This is being a jackass.

Why do you have to knowingly deceive? Of course there are only two aspects to a type, a j and p tetrahedron.

But we are emphasizing specific functions by taking on a perspective.

A pimp implies a hoe but a pimp != hoe.

Or rather, you are emphasizing specific contexts types find themselves in?

I should have known. LII.

No further questions.

. I am glad we have resolved the issue.

[717495]

This.

EyeSeeCold, I wanted to clarify that this statement was just a joke. I'm open-minded as to anyones type, and don't like stamps being impressed on people out of little or no valid explanation, or the usual 'you can't be this type because I'm this type' excuse. It gets even worse when someone begins to nitpick at all the technicalities of what someone else said, instead of staying with a quality point. With that being said, let the hollow back-and-forth nitpicking proceed.

[Absurd]

Can you tell the difference?

Yes, I poke it with a stick to check whether it is dead or alive, then I poke it once more to make sure it's not faking.

...in the sense that things aren't taken personally unless they actually were intended to be personal. "It's just business".

I like what you did there, making them supervise each other.

Outnumbered? Possibly. I've always preferred Quality > Quantity though.

Well, you're not alone but who or what is this quality ?

Isn't this the opposite of /? in particular, I thought valuers only do things they need to do so as to not waste energy (at least by its association with "efficiency"). Doesn't this imply that they know why they are doing something? With a specific purpose in mind?

Yup...

It's Smilingeyes, I thought his work was well-known.

He speaks some weird language I can't decipher. So far only folk on here that I know are reading him, are self-typed LIIs like labcoat and Director Trevor.

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm just going off what I can see and find interesting. If you'd like, you're free to disregard every premise I've made founded on Gulenko's cognitive styles re: your type. It makes little difference to me, as there's plenty of other things that substantiate LII > ILI in your case.

Very well, but I can see where you're coming from at least, I just can't bring myself to agree.

That's cool, but you still don't seem ILI in the way you go about it.

Possibly. Or maybe I'm not sure of what Dialetical-Synthetic looks like.

Can you identify the thinking style used by each respondent?

03-07-2011 05:53 PMnil

A Cretan says "All Cretans are liars."

Premises:
a. Cretans are liars
b. The man is a Cretan

Solution:

Either:

1. The man is not Cretan, and is simply lying about him being a Cretan
|_ 1a. In addition, not all Cretans may be liars.
-OR-
2. The man is lying about all Cretans lying, and the assertion that he is Cretan is false.

EyeSeeCold
A Cretan says "All Cretans are liars."

Premises:
a. Cretans are liars
b. The man is a Cretan



1.) The Cretan meant all Cretans are liars and they lie every chance they get
- True
Paradox
-False
Not a paradox
2.) The Cretan meant all Cretans are liars and they randomly lie
- True
Not a paradox
- False
Not a paradox
3.) The Cretan meant all Cretans are liars and they lie opportunistically / methodologically
- True
Not a paradox
-False
Not a paradox

Seems a rather secondary detail not worth emphasizing too much, and I was under the impression Gulenko was illustrating it merely as a figurative example, not a signature characteristic of D-A cognition.

Alright, so some parts the Cognitive Styles descriptions are not exclusive and therefore not reliable.

Inference to the least complex explanation suggests 2) is most likely. I think there's enough ILIs here for purposes of type comparison; why should one need more than a few? Obviously a larger sample would be preferable, but we're not doing controlled studies here. Further, I've typed dozens of ILIs and have yet to see any demonstrate to the extent you do, and I sincerely doubt that you're some kind of special outlier that bucks the trend.

Alright, it would seem unlikely that I'd be the rare, divergent strain of ILI.

I don't like the idea of theoretical extensions like IE accentuation or 8-subtype models. They just make Socionics a more convoluted mess of a theory than it already is. The more compounded with extra revisions and additional corollaries a theory becomes, padding it with explanatory room for (supposed) special cases and exceptions, the more likely it is the resultant frankenstein monstrosity of a theory will be wrong.

Okay I can see your point, but are you saying it is completely unreliable and/or invalid?

If not, there is still the possibility of accentuation, however unlikely.

I'm assuming you meant "Gamma Introverts to be as confrontational as Gamma Extroverts" I don't think of either as being any more or less confrontational than the other per se. Granted, mature wisened adults generally know how to pick their battles well (comes with the territory of getting one's share of hard knocks in life), but I don't have the impression of ILIs as being conflict avoidant people. AFAIK, they don't seem to have any hesitation about fighting when need be.

Yes, that's what I meant.

"Fighting when need be" - that's what I was getting at about real conflict and not petty squabbles. For what it's worth, I'm confident in my physical abilities to knock someone out, though I choose not to escalate unnecessary conflicts. But I do not ignore general conflict(I'm too aware to ignore it, I'm not the compliant/submissive type), yet I squash physical conflict.

You feel oppressed? That strikes me as an odd reaction, and again suggestive of PoLR/devaluing. Personally, I would expect an ILI to be energized by any challenge to defend their views.

Ultimately if you turn out to be wrong… well, so what? There's no shame in that. Just honorably own up to admitting the error, shake hands, and be grateful for the opportunity that someone helped pushed a little bit of wrongness out of your brain.

Not that kind of oppressed. I'm not afraid of conflict like I said, but again, from my POV, I've been biting back with a suppressed function, which I see as . At this moment I feel no pressure at all, I'm not trying to defend my understanding. Rather I'm trading perspectives.

It's not that though, I have nothing against anyone here who has opposed my type(yes, even you k0rps3y). That's not the problem. The problem is that I have developed my understanding to the point where ILI has become a conservative belief. There are vast implications that go along with the invalidation of ILI, and I just cannot see how my understanding could possibly be that misconstrued. I've spent over several months studying, energizing(type relations), comparing, experiencing and what not and the whole time only two types: ILI and LII, have been truly considered. I understand people make mistakes, but I didn't become actually certain until months, not days or weeks. It's close to or it is a year now that I have been studying Socionics and I didn't "know" ILI until last Oct/Nov.

The first 3 are only possible via fringe theories IMO, so LII would be most plausible.

Understood.

What is a Rational attitude and Irrational attitude?

I will quote Jung, as this is what I was referring to:

0. Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types
I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental.

5. Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types
I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment.

.....

Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment.
~~~~~~~

I see where I've tried to organize my observations(e.g. Fighting Styles), but my life is not characterized by this, in fact, if it weren't for my heavy reflections on observations I wouldn't have realized some of the inductions I've made.

You come across more readily as IJ to me, because your primary orientation seems to be rallied around defending a Ji construal/conceptual structure, i.e. you said felt a "need to argue back against attempts to destructure my worldview."

IJ vs IP. Do you realize the implications? It's more than being quasi-identical, or showing more than normal, one implies a different approach to life.

IP: nothing has changed so far, but it will, and that's fine. The world/self is seen as changing. Since things outside the self change, the IP adapts, changing themselves.

EP: nothing has changed so far, and that bothers me, I need to change things. The world is seen as mutable, but things haven't changed, so the EP changes them.

IJ: nothing has changed so far, and that's fine, I don't want them to change. The world/self is seen as static, with potential for change; deviations are seen as blips on the radar and things will go back to how they always have been. The IJ rides out the storms and continues as they always have been.

EJ: things are changing, and it's for the worst, so I need to bring things back on track. The world is seen as changing, usually not for the better, so the EJ exerts their Base function to change things to what they're meant to be.

I am not the rigid, tradition following IJ. I have no set of rules with which to live by I just live and reflect day by day. I don't see a future for myself or even care to make one, I see it all happening inevitably and I take it as it comes. Subjective, I know, but I if there's one thing I'm certain about when it comes to typology, it's that I am IP. I don't have the will to motivate myself to do anything, even while being in a neutral position in life.

You should know that this is what sources and empirical observations are for. You should be able to refer to forms of objectifiable evidence that minimize reliance on subjective interpretation in order for the inferred conclusions to be esteemed as valid. That you primarily don't do this to a great extent as far as I can see, is suggestive of > .

How can I refer to "objectifiable evidence" when it is my understanding of my type versus the way I have presented myself so far? I am arguing from the subject, I cannot separate myself from the equation; this would be different if I was, for example, arguing the validity of Socionics versus MBTI. In that example, I stand before objects, rather than being in the midst of the subject.

In a Jungian nutshell, when we're talking about and —or any other IE for that matter—these aren't really about specific behaviors, nor even particular cognitive operations that humans engage in. Every normal human being without functional brain damage can do logic, use imagination, exercise foresight, be curious, construct theoretical hypotheses, account factual evidence, evaluate moral implications, empathize with others, etc. You have to be missing hunks of your frontal lobes in order to be rendered incapable of performing such things. So I think its important to not get hung up on typing by details like these. They're typologically benign, so to speak.

Rather, what we're really talking about re: vs. , is a distinction in the attitudinal orientation of one's thought process itself. That is, if you were to diagram their respective chains of reasoning, they'd go something like:

: objective evidence → [subjective inference → objective evidence → subjective inference → subjective inference…] → conclusion.
: subjective inference → [objective evidence → objective evidence → subjective inference → objective evidence…] → conclusion.

Wherein you can see that the intermediate links are arbitrary; both orientations can be equally 'factual' or 'theoretical' in the contents of their output, both will incorporate evidence as well as generate inferences. What matters here in separating the two, is the root foundation that one's reasoning tends to derive itself from.

For you—by your own stated admission—that foundation is apparently one more aligned with a nature.

I have no disagreements, this is still part of the main discrepancy, which I still give towards accentuation.

: objective evidence → [subjective inference → objective evidence → subjective inference → subjective inference…] → conclusion.
: subjective inference → [objective evidence → objective evidence → subjective inference → objective evidence…] → conclusion.


Can you add to the model with ? I think that would help this case.

It's something I try to avoid because it invariably unleashes a pandora's box of hypothetical suppositions that people have a habit of conveniently requisitioning in order to salvage any justification they want to believe is true.

Alright then.

k0rpsey's argument approach doesn't seem at all similar to Trevor's IMO. Nor have I seen LIIs debate by exposing a litany of their opponent's fallacies. Whereas I have seen CPig do it, and I know I myself have done it multiple times, and even went as far as to make this list before.

k0rps3y is more restrained than DT, and even other perceived INTPs/INTps/ILI, I truly have no idea of his type.

You don't have to be trained in it. I won't speak for k0rpsey cuz he can do that himself, but I can tell you the reason I point out these kinds of malreasoning in arguments, is because its often a matter of expediency. When I see multiple renditions of the same kinds of illogic committed over and over, I can't help that the characteristic patterns of them begin to perceptibly emerge into something acutely identifiable in my mind, which then gets distilled into reference as something like an objectified process when I encounter later instances of a same or similar case.

So I tend to know a lot about fallacies and variations of malreasoning, because they're useful heuristics for rapidly cutting to the essence of why someone or something is wrong—that's what makes them expedient. Though it's also a matter of relevance too, in that it's difficult for me to dither around weighing the content of every abstract construct or theoretical assertion for merit at face value in and of itself for its own sake. Rather, my brain naturally emphasizes immediate attention towards the implicit context evoked by a given idea, with respect to whether that idea possesses consilience in the greater breadth of overall reality—especially with regards to generative operating principles for how reality tends to work. Which is why I would see exposing logical fallacies and methodological errors as something vitally conducive towards attaining genuine understanding about the universe, the phenomena within it, what's bullshit and what's not, etc.

Alright, but I have also yet to see a perceived INTP/INTp/ILI pull off a k0rps3y. Yes I've seen logical critiquing, I do it myself, but it was as if he was reading a "List of Fallacies" book as he made those replies. I haven't seen it elsewhere here and I haven't seen it at the INTPforum. I cannot see beyond valuing or at least him being well versed in fallacies.

Though I acknowledge conscious identification of fallacies to cut through clear misconceptions, I just don't see that as the auxiliary purpose in his replies, but rather the primary. But I'm not too sure of the significance of that information.

We haven't engaged much in argument yet, so I suppose we'll see if that holds true.

I thought his points seemed pretty relevant (for reasons I explained just above).

Well, maybe so, not relevant to my goals at least though. Not to say they weren't constructive.

Yes, I poke it with a stick to check whether it is dead or alive, then I poke it once more to make sure it's not faking.

Wise decision, though I wonder what happens when you encounter a very determined ILI.

Well, you're not alone but who or what is this quality ?

Quality of judgment versus quantity. The latter does no help at all(an overstatement?); it doesn't matter how many people agree on a type. The former, exemplified by a willingness to explain, I see as quality. I suppose I've wronged k0rps3y in dismissing his quality judgment.

He speaks some weird language I can't decipher. So far only folk on here that I know are reading him, are self-typed LIIs like labcoat and Director Trevor.

I just read the descriptions he provides. I don't understand his model either.

===============

Okay, even though I think I'm certainly ILI, I have enough information to see that I come off as LII. Being that I don't agree that I am lacking a Gamma NT ego, I won't concede to LII, but I'll let my presence here develop and see what happens.

[Absurd]

Wise decision, though I wonder what happens when you encounter a very determined ILI.

I check his wallet, let him walk, then proceed with my plans.

Quality of judgment versus quantity. The latter does no help at all(an overstatement?); it doesn't matter how many people agree on a type. The former, exemplified by a willingness to explain, I see as quality.

Okay, you explained to me I am LSE, a quality judgment. Thanks, I appreciate it.

I just read the descriptions he provides. I don't understand his model either.

Didn't know there is a model, must be some pretty abstract guy.

Okay, even though I think I'm certainly ILI, I have enough information to see that I come off as LII. Being that I don't agree that I am lacking a Gamma NT ego, I won't concede to LII, but I'll let my presence here develop and see what happens.

That's a good idea. Good luck.

[Creepy-]

Why did you quote Jung using both extroverted types, even though both of the types in question are introverted types?

[EyeSeeCold]

Why did you quote Jung using both extroverted types, even though both of the types in question are introverted types?

The descriptions refer to the general Rational / Irrational attitudes. Basically xxxj vs xxxp.

[EyeSeeCold]

No. It just looks like two people quibbling over a pointless logical syllogism.

I don't think it was that insignificant, the exercise was actually a demonstration of approach not an argument.

You just have to read it intelligently like any other piece of written material. Recognize what's primary vs. secondary information, be able to separate main points from ancillary details, don't read into figurative language too literally, etc. You know, the basic skills of being a discerning reader.

Right.

I don't even know what this accentuation notion is. If you have a link explaining more, I'll certainly look it over. But if it's what I'm guessing it is—some hypothesis about how a person emphasizes a particular IE in addition to and regardless of whatever their base sociotype is—then I'm probably going to call bullshit and say it sounds like a lazy excuse for people not being able to type critically enough.

Yes, that accentuation, specifically from the perspective of this article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=33271

It's beginning to sound to me like you're dancing a jig here and re-qualifying what you 'really meant' after the fact, and trying to spin counterfactual evidence into confirmation of you being ILI, which is exactly what I had a hunch you'd attempt to do.

Or I didn't explain myself well?

And why do you care so much about merely trading perspectives? Sounds more like valuing.

The definition of a perspective is a view that is unique to a person, in other words, it is a subjective frame of reference. is not subjective to the extent that is. It seems more likely the case that a person of dominant would question people of their worldview to assimilate those views into one large worldview that encompasses all others, one that captures the constant trends of worldviews to represent them in the form of one archetype.

I care so much because I previously could not understand how anyone could come to the conclusion of LII(as I have said, I'm self-absorbed), by taking in other perspectives I can follow the conclusions of other people and understand where they are coming from.

Only about a year? Shit dude, you haven't been invested that long. If you had to re-type yourself after coming to this conclusion ~6 months ago, I'd say you're doing pretty well. Unfortunately, given the absence of organized learning material and reliable instruction, on average it takes a person at least a few years to gain a solid footing in this stuff. Expect that you're going to make serious mistakes early on. It's just par for the course.

I've already taken that into consideration, but I'm pretty sure of my abilities. I recognize the subjectivity and therefore ambiguity of it all.

I'm quite baffled by is that you can sit there and declare yourself an irrational type considering self-reported statements like this:

"The problem is that I have developed my understanding to the point where ILI has become a conservative belief. There are vast implications that go along with the invalidation of ILI, and I just cannot see how my understanding could possibly be that misconstrued."

You very obviously have immense attachment to the cumulated products of your reasoning judgment. IJ makes good sense for you IMO—which BTW doesn't make a person 'traditional-minded' or anything like that; that's an NTR trait usually related to a person's upbringing.

This I do not see as a contradiction. You are assuming I am this way for everything in my life.

Reconsider what I said: "The problem is that I have developed my understanding to the point where ILI has become a conservative belief." This aspect of my life - being an ILI, has already been justified and accounted for, and therefore become solidified. I've seen no use to contest it(until this point).

For the aspects of my life that are , they've been solidified and I'll defend them because they are vital. For any aspect of me that is not vital or for a topic that has nothing to do with me, I can and will easily shift perspective if need be.

Wow. You're flailing hella orientation here.

Yes, but did you notice the rest? I said it would be different if the subject of the discussion was not me.

However I have provided test results in this thread, which I think are more objective than my rants. I'll retrieve them if they're of any use.

And if accentuation is bunk, then what do you fall back on?

We will see if I am indeed LII.

I'm not sure how to fit it into this, though you're free to try and devise a solution to that. I was just using this to illustrate the root contrast differentiating from .

I'll see, if I'm still interested to do so.

It appears to me that he's prying open objective flaws in your subjective reasoning process, and you seem to be miffed that he's not playing along and swapping perspectival interpretations with you. That is, what you are wanting is /, not /.

Logic is more representative of though is it not?

I really don't understand what you mean about objective flaws, that doesn't really pertain to an objective function/element, as is subjectively objective itself.

[EyeSeeCold]

As far as I could tell you both sounded about the same; coincidentally, you're both α-NTs. Except the other is apparently better at logic than you.

And you don't find this suspicious at all?

… a wad of wholly unsubstantiated conjecture about a supposed 8-subtype model. Is that honestly the best you can do? Surely you have at least something more credible you can use in your defense.

I recognize it's unreliability however many members here some to have applied it, and it still exists in the Socionics community, so you being against it as an dubious addition does not make it any less coherent.

Great, so you profess to having a morbid attachment to the idea of yourself being ILI, to the point that its overrun any ability on your part to objectively reason about it. Are you really that fucking pathetic and disgusting?

It's just like any other aspect of me, how is ILI different from any other belief I have?

I don't trust test results you could've easily manipulated to support your biases.

Your self-reports in this thread are more than enough to give you away as being LII.

These are before the community was aware of my non ILI-ness:

I got ILI-0 for what it's worth. With LIE as the next best choice.

There needs to be a test that focuses on Model A dispositions, I think that would be less subjective and easier for a person to identify in himself.

I took it again, because I overlooked the percentages.

ILI-0 changed to ILI-1Te
LIE is still the second type

My ideal dual would be ESFp-Fi or ISFj-Se

Quadra Distribution:

Delta: 29%
Gamma: 28%
Alpha: 24%
Beta: 19%

Top 4 Types:

SLE
ILE
LSE
SEE

http://www.sociotype.com/tests/index.php?est_id=710

Now you're being childish, so don't bother.

Childish? Though I don't wish to further this, keep it focused on the topic.

No. Logic is a skill set, not an IE-aptitude. Competency in the subject predominantly arises from training and innate intelligence.

Yes, but you cannot dismiss the tendency of certain types to be more skilled in a certain area than others due to a certain cognition configuration.