it doesn't change the fact that the fat me is projecting. Jesus said it too when he said u see the speck in other's eyes yet you fail to notice there's a trunk in yours.
it doesn't change the fact that the fat me is projecting. Jesus said it too when he said u see the speck in other's eyes yet you fail to notice there's a trunk in yours.
you just need to be compressed between closing walls.Originally Posted by niffer
hehehe
your gigantic vagina
there's that Ne imagination.
Garbage compactor makes a pancake out of you.
"Kill4Me", more like Kegel4Me
K4, he made that Si/Fe post as sarcastic mockery. Did you not see the tone? It was the same one he used a while back in regards to how IEI ask SLE for more and more detail. Try and keep up. It was subtle humour and pleasant, albiet a slightly douchy, to see. Can't blame him, though. You are hyper focusing on the wrong part.
I love you both.
niffer will be flat enough to peel off the wall.
Err...flatter. hehehe
"Can you explain further in more detail so I can understand better the meaning of what you say?"
He will make a fine lawyer.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming
All I got from what he wrote was that he was BSing.
Whether it's called sarcastic mockery or something else, my sense was that what he said was off.
Still, though, sarcastic mockery can still have a source. A lot of the ILIs that posted here regularly used sarcastic mockery, but still, the general idea could be backed up with a source.
He doesn't have one which is why he danced around you afterwards.
He's good at avoidance.
you guys are flattering with how you read into it, but all I meant was Si/Fe are shadow functions according to a 4 function model for LII, which is what k4m typed me as. it was totally on the up and up, but the confusion probably arose from the assumption we were working from my understanding of a Jungian model
uh huh. you got caught and now you back track for the big reveal when you could have said it in the first place. Dancey Dance.
lol I can't tell whats real anymore
:[ wheres the drama
It was. End of story.
Anyone who tries to read motives into others without evidence just because they typed them X type in Socionics got disconnected from reality. Simple as that."Lol, so it's supposed to be defined more by your opinion?"
I never explained you as disconnected from reality because you disagreed with my opinion about your type. Reading comprehension 101. I said you were disconnected from reality because stuff you were saying didn't pertain to anything I posted.
It's your reading comprehension that needs fixed here, I was responding to how you thought "the reality of your type is not defined by the opinion you have of your type" and so I asked if it was more defined by your opinion lol... Rhetorical question ofc.
Nothing needs to be sinking in here lol.Let's review since it doesn't seem to be sinking in:
You definitely were failing to.-you imagined the possibility that I was failing to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead". -you imagined the possibility that I was trying to explain all "rational intentionality as Te."
I will say it for the last time that that was a joke LOL. Joke =! possibility, jesus.-you imagined the possibility that I was somehow implying you clicked constructive for admiration of me
You are... end of story. It's not a possibility, because you are. It's not "you could be", it's "you ARE".-you imagined the possibility that I was attempting to explain the motives behind your reasoning/posts
No... it sounded like you were retyping him. If you weren't, cool, and?-you imagined the possibility that I was retyping Peter.
Again, not a fucking possibility. You DO harbour the blind belief, it's not a COULD, it's a DO.-you imagine the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in Socionics.
It's not even ad hominem, even though yeah I know it sounds insulting.Ultimately, your air ad hominem explanation for my alleged disconnect from reality traces back to my opinion that you're ILE and that said opinion conflicts with your opinion that you're LSI. See here it is in your own words:
Maybe one day you will realize how bad Socionics works for you and how much it's misleading you. I wish you luck there to recognize it as soon as possible.
And it's not simply because of you typing me ILE, it's a lot more than that. Like all these assumptions of yours that I imagine possibilities and the ways you argue for this make you sound like a weird idiot. Yeah I know that's insulting and sounds like an ad hominem but it's more like a strong kick in the ass to wake you up from the bs beliefs.
No, it's not simply that you typed me ILE, but the assumptions you make following from that, see above."It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality."
"I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."
You are conflating the opinion you have of your type with reality.
I do not agree that Peterson is LSI. I agree that he's Ti lead (LII).This is one thing a Ti-dom would never, ever do. You didn't claim a disconnect from reality when I was making similar style points for Jordan Peterson being LSI on the Peterson thread. I note on that thread you agreed with my typing of Peterson, so that's probably why you didn't see it as a disconnect. Furthermore, the logic I employed was identical to the logic I applied to Peter's story. I was using Jung to define elements in both cases and applying it to a function in socionics.
No, your logic for Peter's story was not identical but lol if you don't want to see that, then you don't. I don't care if you are able to follow it or not.
You were using Jung to define elements and then you added *more* reasoning beyond that.
As for the part I bolded from your lines now - that's you reading motives into my stuff. Possibilities lol. You even use the word "probably". Very off, btw.
That wasn't my reasoning lol. My point is that if you had got it, you'd say more about it than just "formal explanation"..."See, you didn't get it if you just call it a "formal explanation"."
I merely called it a "formal explanation" to distinguish from your airy ad-hominem explanations. Because I chose the phrase "formal explanation" does not imply I didn't get it....you're really grasping for straws now.
Socionics does make you an idiot, I'm sure (well I hope) outside Socionics your brain functions fine. Not inside Socionics theory, though.In the end, you haven't explained much of anything. Your response to my points about you being ILE are mainly (1) condescending remarks that I am an idiot (2) repeated blanket-statement denials and (3) ad hominems where you weave together these crazy ideas about my motives, as follows:
Denials - no, you'd just like to believe they are denials.
Ad hominems. Sure I've used insulting language where you were saying too many crazy idiotic things.
My sentences had no complex Ne possibilities in them."That's pretty weak for "proof"..."
The burden of proof is on you as you are the one claiming knowledge that everybody does it. So far all you have provided is a blanket assertion that everybody does it.
Then will you stop imagining assumptions about me too? Or are you ILE?? : p"It would be great if this one wasn't based in reality because that would mean you will indeed stop and think about what I reasoned about."
It's impossible for you from behind your computer screen there and not living inside my head to know what I have stopped and thought about unless you are imagining possibilities. Hence, your assumptions aren't based in reality.
But yeah, if one day you are able to put it into your own words as to what my actual reasoning was, then I will believe you that you have stopped and thought about it...
You need to go back and reread it... I said "I was talking about the issues with MBTI's function model, not about the issues with Jung.""No, I never disagreed with the use of Jung to define elements. Incredible how much you missed my argument because it was not about criticizing Jung's definitions. At all."
I made a post defining Te with Jung and applied it to Peter. You followed up with a post construeing the use of Jung with MBTI logic. You called it "idiotic reading", claimed Jung wasn't God and said that only some of his stuff was...just...well...ok...but needed to be updated by stuff in psychology. So it would appear that you have or had some issue with using Jung to define elements. Perhaps you have flip-flopped again back to your position ten days ago when you constructed my post on the Peterson thread.
No flip-flopping at all.
Semantics. I'll leave you with your abundant imagination imagining that I was doing/thinking something different from what you describe about Ti doing correlating of systems here lol. I can't kick your brain back to reality at this point yet, Socionics addled it too much."Your view of what Ti does is very narrow. Ti leads do refine systems. Ti creative doesn't care about that as much, that's true."
Totally wrong. If there is a flaw in the system, Ti-doms won't refine it. They'll just simply point out that the system itself is broken and provide their arguments for that or look for stuff that they can still find value in.They won't sit around looking for advances in psychology to synthesize it with. They are correlators of systems, even systems they deem to be broken. The system doesn't have to be completely unflawed for the Ti-dom to find it mentally stimulating.
And btw yes Ti leads can try and fix the flaw in the system. You have a Ti creative bias here.
And you imagine more things about me here (sitting looking for advances to synthesize stuff with... nope I don't do it like that.)
"And you call me Ne base? lol seriously"
It's not unconnected. It was relevant to the discussion we were having. Particularly, you tried to construe the use of Jung to define elements with MBTI logic. Hotelambush interjected to notify you directly not to waste your energy on MBTI/Jung blockheads. And then after Squark called you out on your hypocrisy, you started to backpedal. Although it appears you have flip-flopped back to your position ten days ago on the Peterson thread (it's not easy keeping track of your flip-flops), I'll say it again. Jung is a primary source for both socionics and MBTI. It's not MBTI logic/Jung versus Socionics.
It is unconnected. If you don't read motives into my stuff then you will just have to believe me on this. The end.
Same for the bollocks about you imagining I backpedalled or flip-flopped on anything.
Feel free to believe bullshit to satisfy your wishful attitudes, it just doesn't match actual reality, unfortunately for you.
Ok. You're good at Socionics. Tell me about Se. Or link me to your thoughts elsewhere.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote