A new subtype system

[Bertrand]

edit: original now deleted quote was something to the effect of "Te doesn't perceive, it judges"--humorously the edited post by petter is precisely the kind of shift that maybe in a thousand years of bouncing off me might produce something useful, but instead of just acknowledging my point he's content to do a cat and mouse ad infintum. hey. retard. you wouldn't have to resort to such methods if you had anything to actually say. with your edit you've now resorted to asking me questions without being able to actually ask a question like a normal human being. go ahead and take the last word if thats what you want, I think I made my point enough to withstand whatever pedantry you ultimately come back with

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/view

bruh this is exactly what I pointed out earlier about ILIs manufacturing "errors" to try and elevate themselves when the entire thing was their own fault. its like you're trying to spin your own obtuseness into a higher understanding I should be in awe of. the idea that this method is somehow going to translate into a useful system is funny. its like maybe if you critique my word choice enough a useful typological system will fall out... fully formed, of course, since you can't actually positively create anything

I do think my turds probably have more merit to them than this subtype system so maybe its not that terrible an approach

[Petter]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/view

bruh this is exactly what I pointed out earlier about ILIs manufacturing "errors" to try and elevate themselves when the entire thing was their own fault. its like you're trying to spin your own obtuseness into a higher understanding I should be in awe of. the idea that this method is somehow going to translate into a useful system is funny. its like maybe if you critique my word choice enough a useful typological system will fall out... fully formed, of course, since you can't actually positively create anything

I do think my turds probably have more merit to them than this subtype system so maybe its not that terrible an approach

See my updated comment ... I was a bit petty-minded :-(

[Petter]

edit: original now deleted quote was something to the effect of "Te doesn't perceive, it judges"--humorously the edited post by petter is precisely the kind of shift that maybe in a thousand years of bouncing off me might produce something useful, but instead of just acknowledging my point he's content to do a cat and mouse ad infintum. hey. retard. you wouldn't have to resort to such methods if you had anything to actually say. with your edit you've now resorted to asking me questions without being able to actually ask a question like a normal human being. go ahead and take the last word if thats what you want, I think I made my point enough to withstand whatever pedantry you ultimately come back with

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/view

bruh this is exactly what I pointed out earlier about ILIs manufacturing "errors" to try and elevate themselves when the entire thing was their own fault. its like you're trying to spin your own obtuseness into a higher understanding I should be in awe of. the idea that this method is somehow going to translate into a useful system is funny. its like maybe if you critique my word choice enough a useful typological system will fall out... fully formed, of course, since you can't actually positively create anything

I do think my turds probably have more merit to them than this subtype system so maybe its not that terrible an approach

lol... I didn't know you had posted... I was 5 minutes late... of course I wouldn't have updated my post if I knew. I am not interested in a cat-and-mouse game.

"Te doesn't perceive, it judges" is still true. Te doesn't work in isolation, it needs Si or Ni. That's my point.

[Petter]

so you're an idiot, okay

good luck with the system

"the system of preserving bill gates as an introvert as its foundation"

how does bill gates even know what intro/extroversion is, except as a social phenomenon

intro/extroversion in common parlance is precisely that, a layperson's understanding. socionics lept lightyears ahead when it severed social introversion from cognitive introversion and now you want to go back and flatten out the distinction as if it doesn't exist.

Can you define "cognitive introversion"?

LIE doesn't do "whatever the environment says". That's LSE and other Sensing types.

[Petter]

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06...roversion.html

Social: Social introversion is the closest to the commonly held understanding of introversion, in that it's a preference for socializing with small groups instead of large ones. Or sometimes, it's a preference for no group at all — solitude is often preferable for those who score high in social introversion. "They prefer to stay home with a book or a computer, or to stick to small gatherings with close friends, as opposed to attending large parties with many strangers," Cheek said. But it's different from shyness, in that there's no anxiety driving the preference for solitude or small groups.

Thinking; Thinking introversion is a newer concept. People with high levels of thinking introversion don't share the aversion to social events people usually associate with introversion. Instead, they're introspective, thoughtful, and self-reflective. "You're capable of getting lost in an internal fantasy world," Cheek said. "But it's not in a neurotic way, it's in an imaginative and creative way." Think the dreamily imaginative Luna Lovegood, not the socially awkward Neville Longbottom, Cheek said, putting it into Harry Potter terms I, for one, am deeply familiar with.

This is way too black and white. 99% of all people (including extroverts and introverts) like some kind of social events. Thinking introverts and social introverts refer to the same group of people, i.e. xxI.