Accurate Typing

[Computer Loser]

Here's a quote from an ISTJ typologist on typology experts:

"In the early 1980s, I attended an International Biennial Conference of the Association for Psychological Type. There I heard from the most eminent, erudite typology spokespersons, adorned with their post-graduate psychology degrees. Their presentations were polished as well as occasionally pedantic. I was impressed; these folk knew their subject. (Virtually every speaker was an iNtuitive)

I was also struck by their ostensible inability to perceive the Types of well-known people of whom they spoke. It didn't make sense to me; how could these punditic "psychoanalyzers" be so ineffectual in typing others? But who was I to question their relevations? After all, I was a layman and had been a student of Type for less than five years. A panel of experts said that Adolf ****** was an ENFJ (his values ran amok), John Kennedy an ESTP (a deep-down party-er), and Abraham Lincoln, an ISFJ ('ol honest Abe). Other notables and notorious were typed in this interesting forum; some I knew were incorrect while for others I didn't have a clue. "Oh well," I thought. "Leave that stuff to the experts. I had better learn to drive before I learn to take the engine apart." And so I did. (I later discovered ****** was not an ENFJ, and Lincoln, clearly an INTJ.)

In 1984, I published my first book, on typology's relationship to salespersons. By this time, I had begun to feel comfortable in typing others. It seemed that there was something about my Type that had a gift for this. Therefore, I included some well-known persons as illustrations in my book. As I highlighted the temperaments, I even mentioned as an anecdote that Adolf ****** was a maladjusted NF. I had never come to this conclusion myself; my reliance was upon those I thought knew more. It was only after a few times of trying to explain to those who asked why I thought ****** was an NF that I opted to research him for myself, and changed my opinion. He was a definite Thinking type who had gone severely awry.

This instance taught me to be extremely careful in typing others. I must rely upon my own research as well as that of others. I have come to realize Type "experts" are often wrong with their appraisals of others, especially when they do not use a type indicator (such as MBTI), such as in the speculations of John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. I say this not to demean typological experts, but to point out their greatest service lies in understanding and articulating the dynamics of typology. Here they are unparalleled. (Some typologists do not attempt to evaluate anyone to whom they cannot administer a questionnaire.)

Unfortunately, when typing others, these mostly iNtuitive experts see too many possibilities and not enough Sensing idiosyncrasies and nuances. We must remember, our brains excel in only one Perceiving function and one Judging function each. Thus, no type can master both Sensing and iNtuition, or Thinking and Feeling. I have even come to realize that some of the most well known, highly educative leaders in typology circles have typed themselves incorrectly. For whatever reasons, this exists and in the long-run will be unproductive for promoting the accuracy of typology."


In summary:

-Experts aren't always right because most of them are Intuitives. Intuitives seem to be superior in understanding and articulating typology, but fail to see Sensing idiosyncracies and nuances to type correctly.

So just because somebody sounds smart doesn't mean they're always right...


----

There are a lot of shitty typings in this forum. For example, I was accused of being ESFJ. And to make it more frustrating to me, they say it so confidently that they seem like they know what they are talking about. I'm thinking, what the hell is wrong with some of these people.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

Do you trust experts 100%, or is there some truth to this quote?

[Creepy-Snaps]

In summary:

-Experts aren't always right because most of them are Intuitives. Intuitives seem to be superior in understanding and articulating typology, but fail to see Sensing idiosyncracies and nuances to type correctly.

I think this is a dangerous line of thinking, in assuming certain types are better at 'typing' others. People are always going to be biased towards themselves. So far, no patterns have emerged for which type is better than another.

Do you trust experts 100%

Of course not 100%. Generally, I trust experts a bit more than people first learning socionics, but considering the abstract nature of socionics, I trust the "experts" much less than experts in other sciences.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

Generally, typings of famous people always have multiple typings, or explanations. There's just so much information about their lives, their life choices, etc., that legitmate arguments can be made for multiple types. For a lot of these people, like Lincoln, we will sadly never know their true type. Unless we can re-observe how they directly interacted with other people.

So, I wouldn't say all experts are wrong, given they incorrectly typed some famous people. I wouldn't develop an anti-expert bias based off of that, which seems to be your focus in this thread. I'd be more interested in seeing the correlation between your personal typings of common people versus their typings of the same people, if somehow you could sit side-by-side the experts and observe in a non-biased way. Somehow watch people without their knowing, then type them accordingly. Socionics-stalking haha.

[Jarno]

Adolf ****** IS AN ENFJ!

[marooned]

I think in the end one must rely upon their own opinions, impressions, experiences etc. It's not like testing for substances in your blood. It can never be confirmed (at least not in this world) and it changes your mind. It can be a useful tool or a mental disease, and I think it's easy enough to con oneself.

[Krig the Viking]

There are two main factors involved in diagnosing type:

1) An accurate understanding of socionics theory,
2) An accurate understanding of the personality of the person you're trying to type.

I think the second point is why so many socionists can agree on theory, and yet wind up disagreeing on specific people's types. I may have an accurate understanding of what an "EII" is like, but if I have a mistaken mental picture of what a certain subject is like, personality-wise, I may wind up diagnosing him as something else.

I find I'm much better at typing people when I'm working in conjunction with an ESE, my dual. The ESE picks up on subtle facets and hints pertaining to the subject's personality that I would have missed, and I tend to be more familiar with socionics theory than ESEs, so together we are able to reason our way to good, solid typings, because we have both main factors involved in diagnosis covered. This has been the case both with Yellow82, and an ESE I know in person. Duality is great.

[Computer Loser]

I think this is a dangerous line of thinking, in assuming certain types are better at 'typing' others. People are always going to be biased towards themselves. So far, no patterns have emerged for which type is better than another.

Okay. Here are some examples of types accelerating in certain areas:

ENFJs will be better at entertaining a group of people than INTPs ever will. If you don't agree with that statement then don't read any further. ENFJs are superior at using fluent language to communicate their visions and move the emotions of people. They love the spot light; this is why you'll frequently see them excel as ministers, politicians, and (favorite) teachers.

INTPs are socially slower, but they are original thinkers! They enjoy logical reasoning for its own sake. They can be counted on as premier problem-solvers, as they make excellent programmers, scientists, etc., Because of this cerebal ability, you often see them attracted to academic pursuits.

ISTJs have great administration skills and would excel in jobs that ask for consistently performing their duties. And what happens when you give an ESFP an administrative position? Things will probably fall apart because its not in the ESFPs nature. I speak from first hand experience.

Etc., etc....I can do this for all types but I'll stop there.

As you can see, certain types excel in certain areas. I think people become severely depressed when they are forced to be in jobs that don't suit their talents.

So why not typing? What makes typing an exception to the rule?

Adolf ****** IS AN ENFJ!

So what's your own opinion on why he is so?

Well, I of course agree that ability shouldn't be gauged by how confidently someone speaks/writes. I also agree that there are a lot of silly typings committed here born from lack of critical thinking skills and inattention to appropriate evidence. But I don't think either of these traits are type-related.

What about attention to detail. Is that type-related? Are the details important in typing?

I think in the end one must rely upon their own opinions, impressions, experiences etc. It's not like testing for substances in your blood. It can never be confirmed (at least not in this world) and it changes your mind. It can be a useful tool or a mental disease, and I think it's easy enough to con oneself.

Yeah, its easy to con oneself - that's why its crucial to understand and consider everything and piece things together into a cohesive whole- as Krig pointed out. But I truly think certain types can't naturally do this well- add the lack of understanding with looking at a still frame VI picture (with no systematic procedure) or taking online quotes out of context, and you're bound for failure.

There are two main factors involved in diagnosing type:

1) An accurate understanding of socionics theory,
2) An accurate understanding of the personality of the person you're trying to type.

I think the second point is why so many socionists can agree on theory, and yet wind up disagreeing on specific people's types. I may have an accurate understanding of what an "EII" is like, but if I have a mistaken mental picture of what a certain subject is like, personality-wise, I may wind up diagnosing him as something else.

I find I'm much better at typing people when I'm working in conjunction with an ESE, my dual. The ESE picks up on subtle facets and hints pertaining to the subject's personality that I would have missed, and I tend to be more familiar with socionics theory than ESEs, so together we are able to reason our way to good, solid typings, because we have both main factors involved in diagnosis covered. This has been the case both with Yellow82, and an ESE I know in person. Duality is great.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with what you said.

And yes, duality is awesome. The feeling is just too nice. ENFjs are so easy to type for me just through interacting with them.

---

Thank you for the responses

[Jarno]

So what's your own opinion on why he is so?

it has been debated so many times and i think 95% of the people agree he's enfj.

the other 5% consists out of people who think F means very nice/good ethics. While it simply means focussed on ethics/people/emotions. Most F people can be very mean if there is a need for that.

****** was emotional, and used emotion to get a complete country to follow him. Typically cult leader behaviour. typical ENFJ. I wonder what this guy thinks that ****** is. ****** is so stereotypical though extreme version of ENFj.

[Computer Loser]

it has been debated so many times and i think 95% of the people agree he's enfj.

the other 5% consists out of people who think F means very nice/good ethics. While it simply means focussed on ethics/people/emotions. Most F people can be very mean if there is a need for that.

****** was emotional, and used emotion to get a complete country to follow him. Typically cult leader behaviour. typical ENFJ. I wonder what this guy thinks that ****** is. ****** is so stereotypical though extreme version of ENFj.

I'm gonna email the guy and see what his reasoning was...Hopefully being ISTJ, he responds timely lol.

And I don't think people going to typology seminars would think F= Nice/good ethics. Maybe though.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Okay. Here are some examples of types accelerating in certain areas:



So why not typing? What makes typing an exception to the rule?

Because unlike the examples you gave, such as entertaining a group of people, solving problems, being an effective scientist or administrator, where you can judge results based upon laughter, or efficiency, or effectiveness, etc., typing is subjective. There's no way to 'measure' somebody's type. Therefore, there's no way to measure how accurate or consistent someone is at getting other people's types right.

So I guess theoretically there might be, you're right, but there's no proof. And so it's dangerous to assume. One could argue it one way or the other, much like how I explained people can always argue the types of famous people one way or the other, since there is so much subjective evidence. People will be biased.

Which leads to my 3rd point. Assuming one type is better than another at typing is ethically dangerous. People would all want to be that type, mistype themselves as such, to say they're 'better' or 'more understanding' than others, and use that to put other people down.

Krig put it perfectly here:

There are two main factors involved in diagnosing type:

1) An accurate understanding of socionics theory,
2) An accurate understanding of the personality of the person you're trying to type.

Do you have to be a certain personality type for those 2 things? No.

Look at the debate for 'Is Chess related to type?' The top Grandmasters come in all types, SFs, NTs, NFs, STs... masters in a particular art can come from all personality backgrounds, braintypes, personality types, etc.

Socionics is no different.

[Computer Loser]

Because unlike the examples you gave, such as entertaining a group of people, solving problems, being an effective scientist or administrator, where you can judge results based upon laughter, or efficiency, or effectiveness, etc., typing is subjective. There's no way to 'measure' somebody's type. Therefore, there's no way to measure how accurate or consistent someone is at getting other people's types right.

But there is a way. People just make it subjective and complicate things. We don't need freakin' clinical rat studies, injecting them with testosterone and cutting them open and shit while spending billions of dollars. But people keep insisting on "its not true cuz its not in da studiez! lolz!"

Which leads to my 3rd point. Assuming one type is better than another at typing is ethically dangerous. People would all want to be that type, mistype themselves as such, to say they're 'better' or 'more understanding' than others, and use that to put other people down.

I'm not exactly saying one type is better than another type. I'm saying one is more likely to have a better chance at succeeding than another at certain tasks. Kind of like if all factors in a relationship was equal, duality would trump conflicting. In duality partners share tasks naturally between each other, why? Because they intuitively know the other can better do the job. They alluded to this in "zones of responsibility" here:

http://www.socionics.us/practice/duality.shtml

Why do ENFjs need ISTjs? Because ISTjs organize them and calm them down. And ISTjs need ENFjs to get them inspired, and moving emotionally. Let's change up the types: If an INTp was forced to provide an ISTj with Fe, it will be hard. Is it possible? Yes. But it'll be difficult. Again, an example of one type doing a better job than another type.

And Ethically dangerous? lol. I don't want to be any other type. Yeah my type can be pretty boring, but that doesn't make me want to change types.

Do you have to be a certain personality type for those 2 things? No.

Look at the debate for 'Is Chess related to type?' The top Grandmasters come in all types, SFs, NTs, NFs, STs... masters in a particular art can come from all personality backgrounds, braintypes, personality types, etc.

Socionics is no different.

I'm not saying that certain types can't excel in certain areas. But I'm saying the tendency is different.

For example, You can find all types in the NBA, but they're predominantly SPs and you'll find little NT types (MBTI). Is this a coincidence? You won't see cerebral nerds doing killer instinct things on the court. I mention especially the NBA, because at the top level only certain types will make it because it requires the absolute optimal types. On the other hand, you won't see those same athletes excelling naturally in areas such as academics.

Looking at those chess grandmasters (assuming they're even typed correctly), I'm pretty sure the proportions will not be proportionally equal throughout all types, especially at the top level.

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule...Don't get me wrong. But I think certain types have to try harder than others if that were the case.

[Computer Loser]

I regard typology as a trainable skill much like anything else. I find that the best typologists have a strong background in non-Socionics related people-watching and general human observation drawn from real life experience. While the worst typologists are those who concentrate on abstracted theoretical understanding sans practical exposure—invariably this leads to a mutilated understanding of others and hence poor typing ability.

Yes I agree with your observation! And all I'm saying is that certain types will be naturally better at watching people from real life experience or having a tendency to be abstract and theoretical.

In terms of training to get better at typing, sure, I think its possible. But let me tell you, I don't think I could ever grasp the kick-ass theoretical aspects of socionics the INTJ naturally pulls off. I only care to know just enough to get by, forcing it upon me will be hard lol.

[krieger]

explain to me what better claim to accuracy this guy has than any other typer. as far as i'm aware he's just another stock apologist for his own limited perspective on these issues. also, is this guy an MBTI'er? guffaw.

i don't trust anyone to be able to type accuracy these days. people systematically overestimate their own abilities in this regard. there is an acute need for a mechanism by which the typing process can be related to the prediction of measurable factors such that the accuracy of a typer can be demonstrated rather than apologetically asserted. SHOW me that you can technically do something right, predict -ANYTHING- accurately, with your typing abilities and i'll trust that there is something to them. right now, there is nothing to discipline people so that they own up to their mistakes, the result being that mistakes get repeated in perpetuity.

I regard typology as a trainable skill much like anything else. I find that the best typologists have a strong background in non-Socionics related people-watching and general human observation drawn from real life experience. While the worst typologists are those who concentrate on abstracted theoretical understanding sans practical exposure—invariably this leads to a mutilated understanding of others and hence poor typing ability.

as long as you don't get the idea that you're exempt from your own criticism here. your meanderings on cognitive styles tend to take you pretty far down the rabbit hole.

There are a lot of shitty typings in this forum. For example, I was accused of being ESFJ. And to make it more frustrating to me, they say it so confidently that they seem like they know what they are talking about. I'm thinking, what the hell is wrong with some of these people.

what's wrong with them is that they are named Bolt.

ps. i encourage challenging the notion that ****** is an ENFj. this is one of those typings that is asserted with way more confidence and certitude than any historical analysis can provide. all typings that are singularly locked down across a community are suspect by default.

[Computer Loser]

Yeah, I'll try to challenge it once I can gather sufficient info. Still waiting on his answer.

Is it also a possibility that since ****** was a politician, he had to act in that role? (Aka type masking). Just because some people are portrayed in a certain way in public doesn't mean that's who they are. Politicians putting up a facade to get what they want isn't uncommon, and to type based on these public images will be misleading. (And not to mention his serious mental issues)

[Krig the Viking]

I'm still open to the possibility that ****** was INFp, acting the role of ENFj. I've studied him in a fair amount of detail, though, and I have difficulty seeing him as anything other than Beta NF.

[Crispy]

O snap, someone mentioned the idea of ****** as not ENFj, here's Moshenkov's chance...:
INTp - The Pragmatist
Celebrity: Adolf ******
Facial Features: INTp's are usually pale with upward sloping eyebrows, upward sloping eyes, and thin lips. Anatoly Wasserman and Anatoly Kot are two more examples of INTp celebrities. They rarely frown and their face is very inexpressive. I usually note an evil look on INTps - likely a symptom of the extraverted sensing function. Their facial features are usually decentralized, the body - thin, their glare oscillating between dreamy and detail focused.

[consentingadult]

...Virtually every speaker was an iNtuitive...

Well known problem with MBTI: intelligence (IQ) correlates with intuition, so with MBTI, you will find way more intuitives amongst people with higher education. Which is total bullshit, of course, and it is indicative of flaws in the MBTI instruments, which makes a lot of sensors come out intuitive in MBTI.

[consentingadult]

Socionics isn't much better in that regard. Look at the questions in their vaunted multi-factor test discussed here (scroll down a little past ½ way); they're virtually identical to standard MBTI S vs. N stereotypes:

Intuition: positive answers

53. When I lack facts, I often and successfully use my imagination.
85. Often, without any specific goal, just for fun, my imagination travels through time and space.
96. I can work without a warranty of a good pay if I feel enthusiastic about a new business.
109. Chasing new possibilities and discoveries, I am willing to live for a while without a comfort.
111. My treasures are my "inner look", fantasy, imagination, which lead me into fictitious worlds, not limited by any temporal or spatial borders.
213. Daydreamers are close and understandable to me.

Sensation: positive answers

40. The main drive in my life is maximizing comfort and pleasures and avoiding discomforts.
86. The most important thing for me is a feeling of the current moment, in other words, making myself feel good here and now, instead of some day later elsewhere.
112. I am a person liking pleasures and simple worldly joys, they are important to me.
164. My new acquaintance's appearance means very much for me – it tells a lot about qualities of this person.
165. The person's potential and capabilities do not mean much to me – I judge people by results they already can demonstrate.
184. I like to eat slowly and enjoying the taste of the food in the process and really hate when somebody hurries me up or spoils my pleasure by his champ.

All of these are ridiculous.

I fully agree, which is why I don't rely on tests. Where did you find this one? Is it Lytov's MF test?

[consentingadult]

Yeah, I linked it here (scroll a little past ½ way down).

I just looked it up, I still have the full set of questions. Lytov claimed the test was validated, but never gave out any information on how it worked, so as far as I'm concerned, this test has no validity at all.

[Slacker]

I love the argument in the OP. Don't trust those people's typings - you can't trust what people claim types to be. BUT here are MY typings for these people and they are the RIGHT typings. Why should I trust his typings any more than the ones he complains are wrong? Maybe he's wrong. I hate it when anyone claims to be infallible, and the person quoted in the OP complains about it ANDS does it. Annoying.

[Computer Loser]

Hi everyone, I just got this email regarding ******'s proclaimed ENFJ type, so I'm sure I'll have a response soon

"Hello,

I will have this passed on to Mr. Niednagel. Indeed, a sensitive subject!
I know he always wants to be careful when publicly announcing the
Types of particular "tyrants," as some people can take it the wrong way, but
your note will indeed be passed on.

Take care,

Jordan (WM)"

I love the argument in the OP. Don't trust those people's typings - you can't trust what people claim types to be. BUT here are MY typings for these people and they are the RIGHT typings. Why should I trust his typings any more than the ones he complains are wrong? Maybe he's wrong. I hate it when anyone claims to be infallible, and the person quoted in the OP complains about it ANDS does it. Annoying.

Those stupid ISTJs...Always think they are right

[Slacker]

It has nothing to do with him being LSI. I get annoyed by anyone of any type assuming they have some special ability and type correctly all the time while everyone else types incorrectly, and everyone should bow to them and their typings. Not just him and not just LSIs.

[stanprollyright]

"Accurate" typing doesn't exist. The only objectivity we as socionists can achieve is the objectivity of subjective consensus. The divisions between types are entirely arbitrary and different for everyone. It's like the social construct of race. There are some people who obviously and intuitively belong to a certain race but a lot of people who don't fit that well, and since there are a bunch of subjective criteria like geographic location, skin color, lineage, cultural practices, etc.

There isn't really a way to confirm or deny a typing if it is founded in a reasonable understanding of the theory and the person.

[Computer Loser]

It's like the social construct of race. There are some people who obviously and intuitively belong to a certain race but a lot of people who don't fit that well,

What are you talking about here? Mixed races? If a person's mom was race A and dad was race B, couldn't you just classify race as 50% race A, 50% race B?

and since there are a bunch of subjective criteria like geographic location, skin color, lineage, cultural practices, etc.

Okay. So I'm a 2nd generation Korean. Born in Michigan, yellow skin (lol), practicing American culture. Are these subjective?

There isn't really a way to confirm or deny a typing if it is founded in a reasonable understanding of the theory and the person.

"Accurate" typing doesn't exist. The only objectivity we as socionists can achieve is the objectivity of subjective consensus. The divisions between types are entirely arbitrary and different for everyone.

I think it's possible to make it objective as possible, more accurately pointing towards a particular type. Maybe not 100% certainty, but a high probability.

[Slacker]

not all opinions are equal but for him to say "i'm right and all these so-called experts are wrong" is just as wrong as the experts to assume they're 100% right. THere is a right answer somewhere, but the person quoted in the OP should be open to the idea that he isn't any more perfect than everyone else.

[Slacker]

Oh, well I do think there's a correct typing for every person. It's just an issue of finding it. And people can disagree and it can be hard to know for sure who is right. I see it as something to keep reading up on and keep considering when people disagree, but this guy just dismisses everyone who doesn't see what he sees. I mean, maybe they're wrong, but maybe he's wrong. I think people should always be open to the possibility that they could be wrong.

[stanprollyright]

Facts and evidence don't just speak for themselves. Reason still has to intervene somewhere in the process to distinguish the sensible from the senseless, to justify the validity of given evidence as proof of whatever claims, to establish why some hypotheses are better than others in light of present understanding, etc., etc.

Various heuristics, scientific principles, and related knowledge exists that can help narrow down what's reasonable. Even in absence of so-called hard objective evidence, critical thinking nevertheless applies—to throw your hands up and proclaim it can only be an arbitrary crapshoot of one person's subjective whims against another, is wrong. Not all opinions are realistically equal, and some assumptions will be better than others.

I agree, but arguing over the internet about someone's type that you've never met is fucking stupid. Maybe your hunches and instincts are good, but that's all they are.

People are bigger, deeper, and more complex than types. Socionics is just recognizing a few patterns in behavior and thought.

[DividedsGhost]

I'm still open to the possibility that ****** was INFp, acting the role of ENFj. I've studied him in a fair amount of detail, though, and I have difficulty seeing him as anything other than Beta NF.

Quoted because these are my exact sentiments and I think that should matter. So I will make it matter more by quoting it. Yay

[stanprollyright]

You are always going off of an incomplete picture. And then arguing about it with other people who have a different but just as incomplete part of the picture is pointless because YOU NEVER HAVE TO INTERACT WITH THOSE PEOPLE. Their type doesn't matter.

[stanprollyright]

Hence why I said "always." The difference between online interaction and personal interaction is that online is 100% voluntary. Knowing or not knowing an online person's type will not affect you.

[anndelise]

I'm one of those people who believe that unless you've taken time to interact and/or talk with a person about non-socionics related things, and gotten to know them well enough that you can describe something in such a way that they say "yes yes yes, finally someone understands what i'm saying", then any typings you do of them are at strong risk of being inaccurate.

Yes, we work on incomplete pictures of people.
In personality typing forums, what I tend to see are people who have an "intuitive understanding" of their target person, ask a bunch of questions that are designed to support that "intuitive understanding", and ignore the other stuff about the person as being "noise".

Then the typer gives a typing of the person, believing that they have typed the actual person...rather than really having typed their own personal perception of the person.

For example, if you constantly ask a person questions about their relationships with other people, getting them to give details about their relationship with those people in their lives, and then type them as Fi BECAUSE they constantly talking with you about their relationships with the people in their lives (as in..they answered your questions)...then...uh...wtf did you expect??

Add in all the varying interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of socionics materials...

Basically, most of what's being typed is our perception of {a small part of our perceptions of {what we consider relevant about {a small part of what a person has revealed of themselves}}} combined with {our personal interpretations of {a small part of socionics materials which we've read}}.


And no, I'm not claiming to be infallible of this error.

[The Ineffable]

So just because somebody sounds smart doesn't mean they're always right...

That sounds smart, yeah.

Hi everyone, I just got this email regarding ******'s proclaimed ENFJ type, so I'm sure I'll have a response soon

So are you gonna put that publicly?...

Btw, you sound ILE to me, what is so LSI about you? "I'm sure I'll have a response soon", no shit, how are you so "sure" about that as a Ne-PoLR? I'm as "sure" as you that he told you politely that it won't happen - if that is a so sensitive problem about tyrants in general, imagine that about ******, "*the* tyrant" .

[The Ineffable]

Btw, you sound ILE to me, what is so LSI about you? "I'm sure I'll have a response soon", no shit, how are you so "sure" about that as a Ne-PoLR? I'm as "sure" as you that he told you politely that it won't happen - if that is a so sensitive problem about tyrants in general, imagine that about ******, "*the* tyrant" .

I hope I was not pushy (it was the irony of your reasoning in respect of your self-typing), I'm looking forward to talk to you cause I click with your approach, guy123.