Faces of Consensus - INTj (Robespierre)

[Crispy]

While we're on the subject, I'm not entirely sure on his type, but Garibaldi was not devaluing -- let alone PoLR. I think he was some kind of Beta ST. Chekhov I'm not sure about either, but I'm getting a vague impression of IEI based on his marked focus on interpersonal dialogue and interaction in his plays. Thomas More as LII is ridiculous. There's no way an LII would be known as The Hanging Judge for executing so many people, and then go up in front of Henry VIII and go BAWWWW STOP KILLING CATHOLIIIIICS! The guy was ESI.

At this point you're obviously trolling. If not I feel sorry for you because your view of the theory is skewed and you insist to put poorly thought out opinions against years of study done by the core socionists of the East. These people actually know their own type and haven't changed it since they became sure long ago. I'll make it a policy of mine to refrain from correcting people who are deemed hopeless. Since anyone of any intelligence has seen enough of your reasoning to disregard your opinion, I see no reason to protect the rest from your ignorance. So go on and attempt to change the consensus to what you believe, but just know in the end that everyone of any credibility disagrees with most/all of your views.

[Aleksei]

At this point you're obviously trolling. If not I feel sorry for you because your view of the theory is skewed and you insist to put poorly thought out opinions against years of study done by the core socionists of the East. These people actually know their own type and haven't changed it since they became sure long ago. I'll make it a policy of mine to refrain from correcting people who are deemed hopeless. Since anyone of any intelligence has seen enough of your reasoning to disregard your opinion, I see no reason to protect the rest from your ignorance. So go on and attempt to change the consensus to what you believe, but just know in the end that everyone of any credibility disagrees with most/all of your views.

So many words for a simple appeal to authority fallacy...

[Enters Laughing]

At this point you're obviously trolling. If not I feel sorry for you because your view of the theory is skewed and you insist to put poorly thought out opinions against years of study done by the core socionists of the East. These people actually know their own type and haven't changed it since they became sure long ago. I'll make it a policy of mine to refrain from correcting people who are deemed hopeless. Since anyone of any intelligence has seen enough of your reasoning to disregard your opinion, I see no reason to protect the rest from your ignorance. So go on and attempt to change the consensus to what you believe, but just know in the end that everyone of any credibility disagrees with most/all of your views.

Desist from making the personal attacks (claiming that anyone of any intelligence need not be protected from his ignorance on account of them having even a low level of intelligence means that you are fairly clearly attacking aleksei's mental faculties).

[Crispy]

It's not a surprise that his mental faculties need Third-Party protection, but if you insist, I'll desist.

[Aiss]

This thread is worse than I thought from chatbox references.

Regardless of Jefferson's actual type or even the possibility of figuring it out based on probably biased historical accounts, it's as ridiculous to claim he was Logical for his intelligence or lack of charisma as it is to claim that an LII wouldn't easily execute people, take part in a revolution or be a hypocrite just because they're LII.

[Aleksei]

The point isn't that More was a hypocrite - he actually wasn't, really. Nor is the point that he executed people. The point is his harsh, Se-creative sort of legislating his moral framework and putting it immediately into action, combined with his Fi sensitivity to the feelings of others. Since he combined the two in a manner almost similar to, say, Richard Nixon, he was probably ESI.

[Crispy]

I didn't claim that automatically made him logical. I used the same "lol it's an indicator herp derp" tactic as Aleksei did. If he's not going to put the effort into making a real argument, why should I?

Romanticism indicates Feeling? Oh that's cool guess what Intelligence indicates Thinking. If both of these statements are fallacious, we're back at the beginning, where the consensus stands as the strongest evidence we have so far.

[Aiss]

You sure didn't, either of you. Except when it served you in this fight, that is.

If he's not going to put the effort into making a real argument, why should I?

...

[Aleksei]

Romanticism indicates Feeling? Oh that's cool guess what Intelligence indicates Thinking. If both of these statements are fallacious, we're back at the beginning, where the consensus stands as the strongest evidence we have so far.

Except I'm not arguing that romanticism indicates Feeling. I'm actually arguing that Jefferson's is a specific kind of romanticism, a nigh-obsessive romanticism, and specifically focused on the past -- which above all indicates . I could easily type him ILI instead, except he did show a lot of and was more emotionally expressive than an ILI would be (locking himself in his room those 3 weeks and the like).

Official consensus is indicative of nothing. Especially when it comes to sociological theories.

[Crispy]

I'm not saying eating beans indicates Rationality. I'm saying eating Green beans indicates Rationality.

Try harder.

Official consensus is indicative of nothing. Especially when it comes to sociological theories.

Wrong. Official consensus is not proof. But to say it's not evidence is to ignore evidence. I already know how good you are at that.