Is this a good example of LII-INTj justice?

[The Exception]

The following is a rant I made on another forum regarding health care in America. Initially, I thought my view on this issue was rather un-LII like but someone thought it was perfectly consistent with LII's sense of justice. What do you think? Is my POV typical of LII's? Some other type? Or is it just bleeding heart liberalism?


At the risk of sounding all F'y and un-LII like, I'll state my views anyway. I'm strongly opposed to having people pay for healthcare. I think it should be free for all. And yes, I'm willing to pay more in taxes to make this a reality. A couple of reasons for this. First, with our current system, the rich are able to afford better health care, and as a consequence are more likely to have a better quality or life or even live longer. That in my mind, strips away of human diginity. Just because you happen to have less money, shouldn't have to make your quality of life (or in some cases your lifespan) any less. Yet, that's what America's health care system seems to be doing.

Second, isn't it bad enough to be physically unhealthy? Especially if you have some more serious ailment like cancer. Isn't it bad enough to go through all of the physical and emotional stress that comes with the illness? And now, because you have a physical ailment, lets add to your stress even more by charging you thousands of dollars for your condition. So now, you've got a new problem, your physical ailment plus financial stress. It shouldn't have to be this way.

[xerx]

Issues of LII-ness aside,

The Conservative Nanny State

This economist argues that the American health care system would be out competed by a public system (if they ran side by side) in terms of overall cost, administrative efficiency and quality.

[ArchonAlarion]

If healthcare should be state-administrated, then food production and distribution should be administered the same. If you disagree, please tell me why.

(Welcome to the SoVieT uNiON)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

I disagree. I find it naive to only consider this issue from the perspective of those receiving health care.

An ideal world consists of everyone getting everything they want. We do not live in such a world. Rather, we live in varying degrees of scarcity. To exist, people exchange what they have for something they would desire more. When something is more desired and less available, (that is, health care) those possessing it (doctors) are able to exchange it for more than a less desired and more available good. (say, novelty bobble heads) However, I don't believe I need to explain the Law of Demand and the rest of Econ 101. While it would be nice to eliminate scarcity, it isn't possible through means of redistribution of supply; only an increase. And naturally, Law of Supply dictates this increase because of the increase in the demand and subsequent profitability of the good.

"Free" (and I do like to keep the "no free lunches" principle in mind) health care creates a system where the Law of Supply does not function to increase the supply of a good, thus creating shortages. (as the most popular modern example of this, see the Soviet Union) Such a system does not improve standards of health care.

While I agree that, all other factors aside, everyone having high-quality health care is preferable to not having such, my knowledge of economics compels me to see that a command economy on health care would fail to accomplish this goal and I consequently cannot support it. No one disagrees that health care is desirable. Artificially raising the standard of it, however, is not possible. A right to human dignity does not compel man to attempt to force onto others what he knows is impossible.

Reality is a given. "Should" does not get such an absolute status.

[Crispy]

My view is similar to that of MatthewZ. Health care should be a top priority on a personal level (if you value your health) but not everyone's a doctor. If a child is born into shit conditions and can't afford health care, it is the fault of the parents, who knowingly had a child they should have waited for. Free healthcare would give people less incentive to not have kids, as they know the state will ensure their offspring's survival. That means everyone is paying for everyone to have more kids.

Cancer happens. Horrible physical ailments happen. Free healthcare can only prolong lives of pain at the expense of the livelihoods of others.

[xerx]

I don't see the problem with supplying health care. As I see it, it is a necessary measure to ensure the health and vitality of the populace. The citizenry, especially the young, are the primary breeding stock for future soldiers and administrators.

In return, the common person should expect to pledge his life to defend his country and its values, to expand its borders if necessary and to follow the will of the government unquestioningly. Obedience must be cultivated as national virtue.

Hierarchical subordination to a cadre of technocrats should be absolute, as the state is the highest and most articulate expression of human achievement and should only be governed by an experienced and capable elite.

[Aiss]

About half the US people (more or less varying by research) want a public healthcare.

Very few people from the countries with single-payer system want a completely state-independent, pay for yourself, one - even though there are constant complaints about the system (because of imperfections), most people would go out the street to protest if someone tried to destroy it.

This suggests the difference isn't type related at all.


No, seriously, in my opinion views on such matters are more often a result of personal experience and maturity than anything else. I mean, there might be a type-related tendency, but it's more about how you think that what you think, or why you think that.

[squark]

Lol. I always think you're being facetious when you say things like this and amusing yourself by fishing for reactions.

He's got to be! Nobody could say those things in seriousness.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[squark]

The following is a rant I made on another forum regarding health care in America. Initially, I thought my view on this issue was rather un-LII like but someone thought it was perfectly consistent with LII's sense of justice. What do you think? Is my POV typical of LII's? Some other type? Or is it just bleeding heart liberalism?

My opinion: not enough Ti, and heavy on the Si/Ne. In English words: you're looking at healthcare from the perspective of feel-good immediate concerns, and subjective humanitarian interpretation (which does not mean humane, btw.) This is a particular handicap of Ne without Ti. Ne perspective means a person takes a broad, encompassing view, but short-sighted, like a wide-angle lens. This approach is particularly well-adapted to some concerns and problems, and absolutely necessary for others, but does not apply well to long-reaching, multiple impact situations, particularly those that affect other people.

It is a typical viewpoint of some LIIs, namely those who haven't developed much of a Ti base. This could be through lack of experience or knowledge on the subject, or through undeveloped Ti in general. I've noticed that people have different levels of balance, and environment has quite an effect on how people develop their thoughts through their particular functional perspective. Politically and ideologically, very different types can hold the same views, and the same types very different views, so that's not what I'm getting at. It's how you reason your views that matter. All types are capable of reason, but it has to be developed. And your reasoning needs to be able to reflect an understanding of how your own mind works; where your blind spots are, and how the way you process information can limit you. At the same time you have to learn to heavily pull on your strengths. I don't care what anyone says, we're not all equally well suited to various tasks or modes of thinking.

If you're TiNe, then your Ti is going nearly unused, you're not drawing on it at all to develop your views. This is either because you're not Ti-leading, or because you're neglecting it for Ne.

[Aiss]

To add to what squark said, from Psychological Types:

For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

In context of model A it looks a bit different, of course, but more or less the idea is the same - equally developed internal/external functions of the same rationality suggest both are underdeveloped. This is not intended to offend you or suggest, as Jung put it, "primitive mentality", but since you seem to focus on thinking - self-typing as a logical type for a while - and still are there wondering, perhaps you're in fact an ethical type, whose dominant feeling function is hindered by the focus on its opposite. That would, hypothetically, make a person feel quite uncomfortable, if it involved forcing themselves into unnatural state of mind. Just a thought.

[DividedsGhost]

Meh, I think you guys are taking this too out of context, or I don't understand Ti leading very well. None of these answers are wrong. Whether they work in practice depends only on how the states of the minds effected by it, perceive it and intercept it.

Ti and Fi can seemingly cross-over at times in my mind. So it's important to distinguish between something that someone truly believes in and holds as a virtue and something that is based on a conclusion built from certain logical principles and reasoning. I see no reason to think the OP's stance is not indicative of Ti. The reasoning is there. So it would depend on whether or not after hearing the arguments of others if the OP feels their argument is a virtue and disregards the reasoning of others based on that seemingly indication or attempts to consider and reason out a further conclusion.

So is this a good example of LII justice? Depends on how you look at it, but it can be used as an example of LII justice.

[The Exception]

My view is similar to that of MatthewZ. Health care should be a top priority on a personal level (if you value your health) but not everyone's a doctor. If a child is born into shit conditions and can't afford health care, it is the fault of the parents, who knowingly had a child they should have waited for. Free healthcare would give people less incentive to not have kids, as they know the state will ensure their offspring's survival. That means everyone is paying for everyone to have more kids.

Cancer happens. Horrible physical ailments happen. Free healthcare can only prolong lives of pain at the expense of the livelihoods of others.

You make some good points here. Still, is it fair for the child to suffer just because of somebody else's stupidity? The child did not choose their parents.

[The Exception]

My opinion: not enough Ti, and heavy on the Si/Ne. In English words: you're looking at healthcare from the perspective of feel-good immediate concerns, and subjective humanitarian interpretation (which does not mean humane, btw.) This is a particular handicap of Ne without Ti. Ne perspective means a person takes a broad, encompassing view, but short-sighted, like a wide-angle lens. This approach is particularly well-adapted to some concerns and problems, and absolutely necessary for others, but does not apply well to long-reaching, multiple impact situations, particularly those that affect other people.

It is a typical viewpoint of some LIIs, namely those who haven't developed much of a Ti base. This could be through lack of experience or knowledge on the subject, or through undeveloped Ti in general. I've noticed that people have different levels of balance, and environment has quite an effect on how people develop their thoughts through their particular functional perspective. Politically and ideologically, very different types can hold the same views, and the same types very different views, so that's not what I'm getting at. It's how you reason your views that matter. All types are capable of reason, but it has to be developed. And your reasoning needs to be able to reflect an understanding of how your own mind works; where your blind spots are, and how the way you process information can limit you. At the same time you have to learn to heavily pull on your strengths. I don't care what anyone says, we're not all equally well suited to various tasks or modes of thinking.

If you're TiNe, then your Ti is going nearly unused, you're not drawing on it at all to develop your views. This is either because you're not Ti-leading, or because you're neglecting it for Ne.

I have wavered between LII and EII lately for my own self-typing. Recently I posted a thread Back to the Drawing Board where I outlined my self-typing issues. The majority thought I was LII even though some of my behaviors may very well be atypical for that type. So I went to feeling quite sure about being LII and putting it in my sig and all that but I've always had the possibility of EII in the back of my mind.

Neglecting Ti for Ne is certainly possible for me at least from a subtype standpoint. If I'm an LII, I'm a strong intuitive subtype. Even though I value Ti alot, I have wondered if my Ti is really that strong, compared to the other LIIs on there. I PM'ed on of the members who's quite experienced with socionics he thought, my self assessment issues may stem from not having a good Ti role model when growing up. My family members include an ESE mother, an SLI father, and an EII sister. My father has strong Ti but doesn't value it. He tends to reject Ti in favor of Te. My sister has weak and unvalued Ti. My mother values Ti but its very weak.

I've mentioned before about how I've felt different from some of the LIIs on this forum. The other LIIs seem far more interested in hair splitting and arguing and defending their views than I am. I don't enter forum debates much because I never feel like I can adequately defend my views and I don't think I have quite the logical precision that some of the others have. Some of the discussions, frankly give me a headache, due to what I perceive as overly nitpicky and hairsplitting. It could be a subtype thing, preferring to discuss possibilities and larger big picture issues. Then again, I may very well not be base, which I can accept.

Then why do I resonate so much with Wikisocion's description below?

Introverted logic () is an introverted, rational, and staticinformation element. It is also called Ti, L, structural logic, or white logic.
is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty. It is like common sense, in that it builds on one's expectations of reality, through a somewhat personal, though explicable, understanding of general truths and how they are manifested.

I have always liked classification systems and finding logical connections and correlations between things since I was very young. I also find great beauty in symmetry. Especially when theories have a certain symmetry, when I definitely find in socionics. I think all this is largely why I'm so interested in socionics and other personality typologies. My EII sister is also interested in psychology and personality but I doubt she'd join a forum like this one. She would rather spend her time using this information to help people better themselves. That appeals to me too but not as much as much as the ish stuff.


Types that value naturally question the consistency of beliefs that are taken for granted in everyday life. They strongly prefer to make decisions based on their own experience and judgement, as opposed to relying on external authorities for knowledge, which they use only as a last resort. They also have respect for people with clearly defined and internally consistent opinions, believing that a sense of internal certainty is necessary for orienting oneself in life. To these types, one's personal standards of truth are more reliable than public consensus.
They see overly pragmatic views as shallow, and try to limit public discussion of mundane practical matters. They are especially sensitive to redundant information.

Consistency is very important and I'm largely driven to resolve inconsistencies. The part about making decisions is certainly true of me, I prefer to use my own judgement rather than someone else's most of the time. I am highly sensitive to redundancy and try to eliminate it when I can. I remember posting a thread about people who incessently repeat themselves and how that bothered me. I think a large part of why it bugs me is because their conversations are so redundant.

The part that doesn't resonate with me as much is respecting people with clearly defined and internally consistent opinions. I do like some degree of consistency. I don't like it when people constantly waver. On the other hand, when people seem so sure of themselves and have to have everything perfectly consistent all the time, that comes off as overly rigid to me, and that turns me off. For myself, I feel like I waver too much, and would love to have more internal consistency. But not to the point of rigidity.

Overall, the description from Wikisocion fits really well. However, I find myself identifying more with the role description than the base one from that site:

as a base (1st) function (LII and LSI)

The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior. He freely makes logical assertions, often exaggerated, about new information and experience. He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement.
Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards.

Hmmm. I do evaluate the logical correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality but I'm not sure so this is so immediate. It's more after I've put some thought into it. I don't think I'm inclined to making exaggerated logical assertions but I could be wrong. I do respect most the rules where exceptions don't exist. I can be a critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules but I don't think I necessarily do this on a habitual basis. The second to last statment is definitely true. As far as being demanding, it really depends on the situation. I do have very high standards about many things.

as a role (3rd) function (ESI and EII)

The individual is able to talk about things from a dispassionate academic or theoretical point of view for brief periods of time, but seems overly bookish when doing so and tends to grows tense. When feeling obliged to justify logically a personal decision taken for reasons determined by , the individual attempts to do so but grows quickly annoyed especially if the inconsistency in the logical argument is pointed out. He then either explains the ethical motivation or avoids the issue altogether.

I relate to all of this description.


So, yes I'm reluctantly starting another type warrior-librarian thread. Also, what about the possibility of ILE? Previously I had also considered that type but then rejecting it. For one thing, I am so damn introverted and not very EP like. But I do have strong and I feel like its stronger than my .

I'm being to feel like Polikujm now, cycling through different types. I'm sorry I made fun of him for changing his type so often.

[squark]

It could be that you're just very strongly Ne subtype, and that overshadows either Ti or Fi. And, as you explained your environment growing up may have influenced that quite a bit. Everyone in your immediate family appreciates and welcomes Ne (and it's cohort, Si) but not Ti.

There's always more to a type than a single function. Ne subtype, Si hidden-agenda, Fe dual-seeking: each of these play out in varying ways amongst people as well. What a person feels most comfortable focusing on also makes a difference. The anal-retentive hair-splitters developed that aspect over others because they found benefit from it in some way, a "reward" causing greater development of that kind of precision over the other uses and aspects they could have applied themselves to. Probably in a similar way to how you found "rewards" for using Ne.

When you come down to it, socionics is not about what you think, but how you think. What dynamicism said is true, "In short, there are people of all types to be found on every side of any issue," which I also already said. Why you're on the side that you are however, based on what you've said, has everything in my opinion to do with Ne/Si, and Ti doesn't really have anything to do with it. In other words, your reasoning appears not based from Ti or Fi, but from a Ne/Si perspective.

Wikisocion is an okay resource, but it doesn't always explain things well. That you identify wholly with Ti leading and also Ti role is an example of that. I'm not sure what the Ti role section is trying to say. To me it sounds like, "People with Ti role pretend to have consistency, but they're faking and get annoyed if you notice. They also suck at talking theory, and when they try, they speak tensely and tersely, heavily relying on books." That just doesn't jive at all with what was said about Ti-leading. Does it sound different than that to you?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

I don't see the problem with supplying health care. As I see it, it is a necessary measure to ensure the health and vitality of the populace. The citizenry, especially the young, are the primary breeding stock for future soldiers and administrators.

In return, the common person should expect to pledge his life to defend his country and its values, to expand its borders if necessary and to follow the will of the government unquestioningly. Obedience must be cultivated as national virtue.

Hierarchical subordination to a cadre of technocrats should be absolute, as the state is the highest and most articulate expression of human achievement and should only be governed by an experienced and capable elite.

Lol. I always think you're being facetious when you say things like this and amusing yourself by fishing for reactions.

Lol.

[MatthewZ]

Not to be sexist, but I don't think comparing warrior-librarian to all of the male LIIs is the best comparison available. While one could delve into the slightly different neurochemistry of the two sexes, I think the most important thing to keep in mind with gender is that gender roles condition a person as they mature. A firm "logical" exploration and understanding of issues is not as rewarded in females as it usually is in males.

I'd prefer to see a demonstration of behavior that is clearly not LII behavior before suggesting LII isn't warrior-librarian's type. As of yet, most everything we've seen is conceivably within the range of intratype variance.

[The Exception]

Not to be sexist, but I don't think comparing warrior-librarian to all of the male LIIs is the best comparison available. While one could delve into the slightly different neurochemistry of the two sexes, I think the most important thing to keep in mind with gender is that gender roles condition a person as they mature. A firm "logical" exploration and understanding of issues is not as rewarded in females as it usually is in males.

I'd prefer to see a demonstration of behavior that is clearly not LII behavior before suggesting LII isn't warrior-librarian's type. As of yet, most everything we've seen is conceivably within the range of intratype variance.

Am I the only female LII currently active here? I know Carla and Ms. Kensington used to post here but not anymore. Any female LII lurkers out there?

[The Exception]

Yeah, good point. I've found myself tending to think that males and females of the same type come off pretty different from each other as a rule, often to an extent which makes it difficult to see the type likeness between them.

Oh and FWIW, I think warrior-lib is INTj. I don't remember any explicit reasons for why I thought this, just the lingering general impression.

Category:Male and female type descriptions - Wikisocion

Here's the LII male and female descriptions:

LII male and female - Wikisocion

Do you think males and females really warrant a different type description? Discuss.

[xerx]

Am I the only female LII currently active here? I know Carla and Ms. Kensington used to post here but not anymore. Any female LII lurkers out there?

I used to be a woman, but not for the past two years. I'm ILE.
SubT considers himself partly female, although I may have only dreamed that.

[The Exception]

I used to be a woman, but not for the past two years. I'm ILE.
SubT considers himself partly female, although I may have only dreamed that.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

You make some good points here. Still, is it fair for the child to suffer just because of somebody else's stupidity? The child did not choose their parents.

It's not fair. Someone has been wronged. The question is, who should be blamed and who should fix it? In my opinion, since the parents are blameworthy, they should sacrifice their enjoyment in life, in an attempt to provide at least a decent life for their own child. There are plenty of things someone could do detriment to their happiness to make another happy. If the parents wish not to do this, they are sacrificing the livelihoods of their flesh and blood, and the child lies forfeit regardless of what we try to do to save it.

[ArchonAlarion]

Dynamicism is nothing like Somavision, lol.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

Nothing? It looks pretty tame to me. If you don't want to keep bantering, then don't.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It's not really related to socionics type. You just have a caring heart. You're motivated by truly doing the right thing, not by money or power.

[implied]

It's not really related to socionics type. You just have a caring heart. You're motivated by truly doing the right thing, not by money or power.

i agree with this. i don't think the example cited is necessarily indicative of , at least not how it was described. however, i do agree w/ those who think warrior-librarian is LII.

[JohnDo]

Initially, I thought my view on this issue was rather un-LII like but someone thought it was perfectly consistent with LII's sense of justice. What do you think? Is my POV typical of LII's?

Of course it is. Don't forget that LII's nickname is Robespierre! A lot of radical leftists are LII.

If healthcare should be state-administrated, then food production and distribution should be administered the same. If you disagree, please tell me why.

I agree completely. Do you know how many millions of people don't even have enough to eat in those fuckin United States of America? Is it because the United States is unable to produce enough food for its whole population?

Probably an LII would agree to this, but not with that "should", and I think LII reasons would not include subjective things like someone's distress.

Ridiculous. "LII"="Robespierre", you know?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[The Exception]

"LII"="Robespierre", you know?

Yes, what about Robespierre?

Robespierre = LII Circular reasoning.


I'm wishing I never posted this thread.

[xerx]

Lol. I always think you're being facetious when you say things like this and amusing yourself by fishing for reactions.

uhm, no. You'll be the first to feel the wrath of the New Order.

[MatthewZ]

Of course it is. Don't forget that LII's nickname is Robespierre! A lot of radical leftists are LII.

And what evidence for this is there other than the fact the early Socionics writers happened to choose a radical as the LII archetype?

[xerx]

If healthcare should be state-administrated, then food production and distribution should be administered the same. If you disagree, please tell me why.

(Welcome to the SoVieT uNiON)

I think having a healthcare program administered by the government would make the market freer. As long as it's voluntary admission and private options still exist so that they're in direct competition.

Every single Westernized country that has a public healthcare system pays much less than the United States for it. Much less. So the evidence seems to suggest that a centralized distribution scheme is more efficient.

[JohnDo]

And what evidence for this is there other than the fact the early Socionics writers happened to choose a radical as the LII archetype?

There is no evidence in socionics at all. You can just try to type people and compare your typings to those of other socionists. But I don't like typing celebrities. I just know many LIIs in person who are rather left...