seriously.
seriously.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
gaylord
Sweedish Meatball
Ivory Bearded Lady
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
Verdana.
Britney Spears's guest appearance on 'How I Met Your Mother'.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
INTp
Some Te ego type.
He seems to have bad arguing and maybe reasoning skills but a hell of a lot of confidence in his ability to argue and reason. That and the frequency and confidence he seems to fling his reasoning around makes me think some Te ego type.
IME IRL when you shout out facts and evidence with a lot of conviction and belief that they are true people will think twice about questioning you. This may fool the person shouting the angry facts that they are right, but really what they are is just shouting facts and freaking people out, not necessarily being right. I think Phaddy maybe suffering from this, I've seen this happen with me and another SLI.
Although besides from the obvious circular reasoning (which almost everyone falls into) he does this weird thing of neglecting using credible facts or evidence for forming arguments, sometimes calling evidence based on sketchy foundations 'objective' and expects you to believe him. This is what seems a bit odd to me; you'd think a Te ego type would know what they're doing in this area.
ἀταραξία
How do you know that I don't? How can you -- seen from your perspective -- tell for sure whether I actually know whether my arguments are based on a solid, objective foundation, or whether they are not? Have you really thought about that problem in depth, or are you just guessing?
You appear to call evidence that is obviously subjective, emotionally infected and sketchy (your impressions of some persons type for example) and act as if it is objective. The vast majority of socionics arguements are based on this kind of information (how someone makes you feel, your attitude, your impression of someones attitude).
ἀταραξία
So what? Human beings are emotional. Most people remember how other people made them feel (or attempted to make them feel) and little else.
Emotionally infected? LOL So are you!!!
I don't. You are a liar. The information I call "objective" is the information you can find in the commonly available Socionics material, which you and others don't bother to read and understand correctly. I describe the types as they are, because I have an objectively correct understanding of the types. And you can see for yourself that my statement here is true, if you would just bother to compare my statements with what you can find in the information material (which you in that case MUST read).
They happen to be universal truths, or at least commonly accepted beliefs, which according to our current understanding seem to be objectively true. And I have to call things for what they are. I would lie if I didn't call them objectively true.Originally Posted by electric
You would be lying if you did call them objectively true. Commonly accepted beliefs are not objective or universally true, just commonly believed. To say commonly accepted beliefs = truth would be incorrect.They happen to be universal truths, or at least commonly accepted beliefs, which according to our current understanding seem to be objectively true. And I have to call things for what they are. I would lie if I didn't call them objectively true.
People don't understand everything in the same way, specially with socionics as the understanding of the concepts and ideas are largely based on your personal experiences with them. You can't read a type description 'objectively' your subjective feelings based on experience are going to creep in no matter what. The goal is to be more objective like, but the truth is no properly functioning human being is ever going to get there.The information I call "objective" is the information you can find in the commonly available Socionics material, which you and others don't bother to read and understand correctly. I describe the types as they are, because I have an objectively correct understanding of the types. And you can see for yourself that my statement here is true, if you would just bother to compare my statements with what you can find in the information material (which you in that case MUST read).
ἀταραξία
You don't understand these concepts correctly. If a commonly accepted belief is objectively justified (we often don't know whether our justifications really are objectively good ones or not, but they can be), and if the same commonly accepted belief also happens to be true, then the belief is objectively (= universally) true. That's the meaning of these concepts, and you can learn more about it if you read some philosophical semantics.
That is of course totally irrelevant. You need to understand Socionics and its concepts correctly. If you don't, you need to study more. There is only one correct way of understanding it.Originally Posted by electric
Totally irrelevant again. There is only one correct interpretation of a type description. We can debate which one it really is, but if we disagree we can't both be right.Originally Posted by electric
You don't know that no human being will ever get there, because in order to know that you will have to wait until the end of time and see everyone fail along the way.Originally Posted by electric
Anyhow, this discussion is getting off the point. I'd be looking for a pathetic hidden agenda. Taking Expat's words at face value, he's Fe creative. Specifically, I'd go for ISFp, because of the ISTj-like behavior. (INFp would not be so stubborn)
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
That is of course totally irrelevant. You need to understand Socionics and its concepts correctly. If you don't, you need to study more. There is only one correct way of understanding it.This is of course totally irrelevent and your going off point. The objective one way of understanding socionics is the goal. But since you are human you are still going to interpret socionics subjectively and emotionally with your bias.Totally irrelevant again. There is only one correct interpretation of a type description. We can debate which one it really is, but if we disagree we can't both be right.
But I'm repeating myself so I'm going to end this.
ἀταραξία
I'm seeing a similarity to tcaudilllg.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
I did think you two might be. Yes, I was basing it on a broad, general impression. I was also sleep-deprived and already irritated at you, so I took what would constitute a potshot for me (saying something I felt was accurate without worrying about sensitivity). However, I hold that you two are similar in that respect. If I am incorrect in my assumption of your type, fine. I wasn't attempting to mislead anybody, which your post seems to imply.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
But why do you even think for a minute that it is possible that tcaudilllg and I are the same type, when both of us strongly believe that we are not the same type, and when both of us have told you and others right from the start which types we are and why we know that we are LII and ILI respectively? The only reasonable explanation is that you believe that we both are idiots, and if you think that you are entitled to your own opinion here you are wrong. That you have the nerve to even suggest that as a serious possibility is insulting. Your attitude deserves zero respect, and I think you will realize that if you think about it.
That would imply I was around to see it, or that it made enough of an impression that it stuck. I did not intend to strike such a nerve, nor did I expect to. I am sorry that this is such a sensitive issue with you.
Heh. If I believe you two are idiots, chances are it is not for the reason you think. Or maybe it is. Oh, I am quite entitled to my own opinion. It is laughable that you would suggest otherwise; I don't need your permission or your approval to hold a view. I can't even come up with a reply to the rest; I'm too amused. Really, are you serious?
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
It wasn't completely serious - I just followed a line of reasoning to see where I would end up, and didn't bother about whether it made sense.
The similarity between Phaedrus and tcaudilllg is good evidence for them being quasi-identities, actually. They seem to be exactly the same until you pay attention.
Taking him as ILI, then, Phaedrus wants a fight, and the fights he's getting just aren't satisfying.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
I didn't realize before that Sergei Ganin was so completely right about the level of understanding on this forum. It probably can't sink any lower than it is right now. How do we get rid of these typings based on imagined presence of functions that are so unbelievably wrong over and over again? People don't know what is, they can't separate it from , they think that every sign of aggressiveness is a proof of in the ego block, they have got this increadibly stupid idea that INFps behave like I do and could have the same kind of attitudes that I have. This is now worse than a lunatic asylum. The Cucko's Nest looks like a university in comparison.
That might be true of most people, but it's not true of me. And besides, your degree of rudeness is irrelevant to the truth of what you say.
That is not correct but not too far from the truth either. Ramsay (yes, the fifth letter in his last name is an "a") was just an example of a person who comes across as very rude, direct, and aggressive to many people, and yet he is right most of the time.