DCNH rant, my own useful perspective

[Myst]

I think it has some value when you are moving towards social sciences. It is just funny that my first introduction to it was in pedagogical text. I think great part of it gets lost in most people if it is not applied real context but then there also has to be som background knowledge when people are evaluating information.

I don't care much about social sciences* tbh, I find the value of philosophy of science in some "harder" science really (in general and also in specific sciences, in biology for example). In terms of what way of thinking in science makes sense and why (e.g. how many sensible scientific methods exist) and specific issues in sciences (e.g. biology as I said, for its basic/important concepts etc). I agree with your last sentence with how there needs to be a background understanding that goes past the subject being discussed itself... like, not just "staying in the box" but be a bit "about the box" too, instead.

*: I only really care about the part of psychology that's not a social science, too - my approach is too different for that

[Soupman]

I don't know what this gobbledy**** is supposed to mean and I frankly don't care, but afaik Singu is Activity type to me (IEI-LSI).

I have him as my identical because his reasoning style is congruent with mine. I don't know how you miss his creative/demonstrative Te when he keeps "contradicting" himself via 3D Te by using disparate facts, in an attempt to affirm his core axiom he needs others to accept.

Usually, IEI ignore disparate adjacent facts (I've found ignore more appropriate than polr empirically) it is an odd blindspot, it doesn't mean they don't understand facts either but those are finer important details. Instead, they usually resort to giving an archived explanation for how they think things are which may frequently ignore disparent facts.

The guy's "Ti" is functioning in an unreliable state which is why he hasn't been quick to notice contradictions in his statements - you duly noted. I don't think he's a troll at all, I PM'd him for a couple of days to question my own inquiry about our kindred spirit - well he is a lot like me, except with a premise blindspot and selective use of facts to affirm his point, even when it's contradictory - 3D Te.

[niffer]

If you think it’s a Te being subordinated to Ti thing then it should be a feature of all introverts, or at least of both ILI and IEI in the same way which you have in question right now.

”A kindred spirit”. Maybe he’s just your kindred...

[Myst]

I have him as my identical because his reasoning style is congruent with mine. I don't know how you miss his creative/demonstrative Te when he keeps "contradicting" himself via 3D Te by using disparate facts, in an attempt to affirm his core axiom he needs others to accept.

Usually, IEI ignore disparate adjacent facts (I've found ignore more appropriate than polr empirically) it is an odd blindspot, it doesn't mean they don't understand facts either but those are finer important details. Instead, they usually resort to giving an archived explanation for how they think things are which may frequently ignore disparent facts.

The guy's "Ti" is functioning in an unreliable state which is why he hasn't been quick to notice contradictions in his statements - you duly noted. I don't think he's a troll at all, I PM'd him for a couple of days to question my own inquiry about our kindred spirit - well he is a lot like me, except with a premise blindspot and selective use of facts to affirm his point, even when it's contradictory - 3D Te.

I don't find you two similar in reasoning.

[Soupman]

I don't find you two similar in reasoning.

That's because I'm psychologically healthier than him, I'm less prone to using disparate facts in an adhoc manner. My "Ti" is reliable as the Socionics Scientific Research Institute would say.

[Myst]

That's because I'm psychologically healthier than him, I'm less prone to using disparate facts in an adhoc manner. My "Ti" is reliable as the Socionics Scientific Research Institute would say.

We just don't have the same analysis/reasoning here.

[domr]

I don't know what this gobbledy**** is supposed to mean and I frankly don't care, but afaik Singu is Activity type to me (IEI-LSI).

Singu is ILI. I don't know how you get IEI. He hasn't mentioned anything ethical once. All his posts have been about logical issues. He uses intuition to fill in the blanks in his knowledge. 100% standard IL.

IUsually, IEI ignore disparate adjacent facts (I've found ignore more appropriate than polr empirically)

1D functions are more like voids, people are unable to see them even if they want too. I would say ignorant is more correct than ignore.

[Myst]

Singu is ILI. I don't know how you get IEI. He hasn't mentioned anything ethical once. All his posts have been about logical issues. He uses intuition to fill in the blanks in his knowledge. 100% standard IL.

IEIs can get stuck on logical issues/topics. ILIs actually don't tend to get stuck like that. Overall he just seems to care about Ti a lot. The Intuition we both see yeah but IEI has that Intuition too. But I don't want to turn this thread into a type thread in addition to all the other off topic stuff... If you want to post about his type more, I recommend you start a separate thread

[Bertrand]

don't care about logic, has logic as HA. hm