Overlooked mistypings

[force my hand]

The single fact that all of you who saw the issues accept his typing as long as he presents the personality of a totally different type demonstrates that almost anyone on this forum is not serious enough for this field and the value of this forum as a credible source approaches zero. It is understandable that not everyone can correctly type in all the cases, but not after questions have been risen for a long time. I'm sick of this ambiguity, it doesn't make any sense and it's impossible to have a goal here.

That ambiguity has been a constant as long as I've been a member of the forum. For your own consideration, I would rhetorically ask what you're looking in the forum (and Socionics at large) given that no effective standard exists.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Banana Pancakes]

Pinocchio, I've made it clear that I'm open to a discussion of my type in a dedicated thread, which you have yet to start.

I have yet to see any of this "evidence" you keep referencing as to my type not being ILE. Not once have I seen a clear explanation of your reasons for my being ESI or not ILE.

Edit: I read your referenced comment, which I didn't see yesterday because as mentioned earlier, you were on ignore. I'm completely willing to put everything aside and be friends, provided you don't reference my type in anything other than a dedicated thread. That means no more snide remarks in unrelated threads about how I'm not ILE. That's really the only thing that bothers me about your behavior. I don't like when you do target anyone's type in an unrelated thread, but I'll settle for you not commenting about me.

@Mods Since we're on the subject, how about we discuss the behavior of targeting people's types in the more lounge-like forums. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it irritating.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Banana Pancakes]

@Banana Pancakes: I've written against your type several times, but you deny it. And you use all the excuses you have at hand: not the thread, Alpha friends, acceptance, etc.

It would seem I've overlooked it then. Care to point me to the location of these comments? What I'm really looking for is a nice little summary (Ti) of your arguments...in a thread created for that purpose. The only arguments I ever seem to see from you are along the lines of:

"You deny the overwhelming evidence against you being ILE."

Again, I've yet to see said evidence.

Also, with other occasions (at least in the mn0good debates) I wrote that it is not possible to debate one's type just like that, open a thread. You have to interact in different threads, to get to have the image of that personality.

Why isn't it possible? It makes the most sense to me. Cluttering other threads is NOT Ti. I begin to think more and more that Ti is not in your ego, but I'm not here to debate your type.

I'd like to address the fact that you bring up mn0good as my identical quite a bit. While I feel a good bit of identical-ness here, she's not the only ILE I feel that way about. Steve and I both find each other highly similar, we respond the same way to things, have had similar paths in life, etc. What's your typing of Steve? I don't know some of the other ILEs well enough, but from what I've seen we are similar.

I definitely don't feel the same vibe with LIIs, although I still like them.

Above all, you rejected the possibility of being other than ILE with every occasion. I brought some arguments in time which you dismiss them as "not a clear explanation". Fine, I pretty much agree with you at this, but that's evidence, isn't it enough as long as you don't have a clear explanation or evidence yourself because why you are an ILE?

I'm absolutely not rejecting the possibility that I could not be ILE (arguably this is because I have Ne as my main function, but I digress). For my first couple years of Socionics I was EXTREMELY cautious about setting my ILE typing in stone. I've made a few threads about the possibility of my being another type, and everything always came back to ILE. How did I decide on ILE? I simply read EVERYTHING I could get my hands on, about all the types. I even labored through jungs monotonous initial description. Have you done this?

Lately I've actually been going back to thinking I could be Se valuing and if you had said you thought I was ILI I'd have given much more weight to your arguments. To say that I myself am Se ego is simply ludicrous to me, and second only to saying I'm Fi lead, a function which I'm abysmal at.

If I'll start the thread, what will happen? The same thing that happened before: I'll bring my evidence, you bring yours or just dismiss it. Important is not that we bring evidence, but who is right?. Again, for this reason I started this thread and depending on it I'll do that.

I'd discuss my type with you and others could comment on it. I have yet to see ANYONE agree with you that I am mistyped, but I would be willing to entertain a conversation with just one person as long as I didn't feel I was wrecking another thread. I welcome debate, and not because I'm convinced I know everything (which I don't think I can say for you).

This matter is important not only for this case, but in general. Accept the fact that any bored 14 y.o. kid can come here and start argue about everything and bullshit typing all-round. I find this unacceptable.

This is precisely the reason I don't appreciate your comments. I see no difference between your attitude and that of an immature 14 year old. My respect for you is very low when you jump in uninvited and start typing me, when you and I have rarely interacted. I've never even seen you on stickam and yet you think you understand me better than those I've from the forum who know me well, all because of things I put on a message board when I'm bored. The way I act on these forums is highly edited to start with, and it is precisely because of the attitudes of posters who arrogantly shit all over threads because they think they know everything about socionics.

[electric sheep]

You're cool BP. I vote ILE 6w7.

[Banana Pancakes]

You're cool BP. I vote ILE 6w7.

Careful, pinocchio will retype you now. By the time this is over, half of Alpha will be retyped as Fi quadra.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Banana Pancakes]

Edit: Responses deleted as Pinocchio has confirmed that it is an utter waste of my time to interact with him in the quote below.

In the opposite category I put (non-exclusively, again): ArchonAlarion, polikujm, Banana Pancakes, heath, FDG, implied, Parker, etc. With these people I debate only to defend the correctness.

You are in the same category with ifmd95, mn0good, strrrng, crazedrat: you debate and defend something which I can't even consider your POV, you fall in irrelevant misinterpreting the sentences, notions, defying logic and whatnot. I see no point in debating with you, especially about my type. You can discuss about this with others, anyway.

For the record: As you can see, I don't think intelligence and ignorance are type-related.

[Gilly]

This is an internet forum. There is no policy for interaction and sharing of opinions. I agree that this makes clarity difficult in typing people correctly by comparing to other members of a supposed type, but Socionics is flimsy enough that trying to impose any kind of rules regarding the standardization of the typing process is foolish.

[Slacker]

I'm desperately ill today, and I should never have gotten started on these threads. I just did because I was annoyed by the suggestion that Pinocchio is all knowing and the whole forum should be changed to fit how he wants it.

The biggest weakness in Socionics is that there is no way to know for sure what type anyone is. That goes for every single person, including me, and both people arguing their types. There is no way to change that. To try to "authenticate" people would cause some people to be unquestioningly called the right type, and some people to be unquestioningly called the wrong type, and would be no improvement upon how things are now. And is pointless as we'd all argue about each other's type regardless.

[electric sheep]

wow I just realized the connection between this thread and Pinocchio's avatar.

Are you taking it upon yourself to hunt down and "correct" all the mistyped people that are "hiding" on this forum, Pinocchio? Because I don't know any of them, I swear!

[Not A Communist Shill]

You have here the proposal and I'm interested in one thing: if such a radical policy will be applied.

Yes or no.

Someone may bring up an "insight" which they believe is valid for the type or fucntion being discussed, and others may choose to take into account what they believe that person's type to be - I think just so long as they are musings up for discussion, then there is no problem. But a thread should not become an all-out war about someone's type if it is not relevant to the thread...although sometimes it is not so easy to ensure that things stay on track, particularly if many side-topics are discussed or if the threadstarter is the one who primarily responsible for the derail!