Originally Posted by Ashton
farts
farts
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Point A - Then ask for the information you need.
Point B - Then relax when I provide you additional information in response.
Type me threads are intended to convince the incumbent regarding their actual type. Do so.
Then ask. See above.
I do find your farting offensive.
And yet you still do not provide reasons why, evidence showing this or the links to relevant theory.You sound like EyeSeeCold, another LII faux-ILI.
When I was invited onto this forum by Hemoglobin and Cat King I asked Cat why he thought another Ti run circle-jerk would be of any real interest to me. I can see why he did not respond.
Haha! Gamma drama.
Ye Ashton, do theory unto him, he begs for it. Realism and epistomosomething theories.
No worries, Cat Fungus Cole is busy figuring out his socionics type and E-type, he will be back soon. Now, who are you calling Ti ?When I was invited onto this forum by Hemoglobin and Cat King I asked Cat why he thought another Ti run circle-jerk would be of any real interest to me. I can see why he did not respond.
Last edited by Absurd; 08-01-2011 at 03:58 PM.
A man who both claims he doesn't follow any model of socionics and who is also unwilling to specify the model he is using is not worthy as a typology commentator because he is not willing to open himself up to peer review and to reach common conclusions and methods.Fuck off. I'm not going to copy-pasta shit just so you can parrot it after the fact and concoct an ad hoc explanation about how such and such evidence resembles you. You already played your hand well enough for my purposes.
If you want sources I use, they're at the bottom of this post.
Therefore, I recommend you avoid 'Type Me' threads. You're only going to get offended as you have done here when no-one accepts your answers because you aren't willing to show your working.
But please, continue rambling, next you'll be typing me as 'The Eagle Jx-Pi!' and 'The Wily Fox! Pe-Ji'. All totally acceptable definitions when you state you are off doing your own thing in your own system and ignoring working together to increase net knowledge.
The sad thing: You seem to believe this is a good idea.
Good Luck, I'll be watching!
Hey, what's your name ? Oh ye Invisible Jim, you met any terrorists in Scotland ?
Did you know that Invisible Jim rhymes with Tiny Tim ?
I have done and as I said, it's underwhelming and I can't take it seriously.
My issues with your typing methodology:
- Doesn't allocate Weighting to respective factors in a fixed way.
- Uses multiple definitions for cognitive functions/information elements, this allows cherry picking.
- Doesn't reference a cognitive style model as definitive, once again allows justify cherry picking.
- References 'visual/sensatory cues' as the first identified important aspect of cognition which is non-quantifiable and prone to perception bias.
- It is reliant upon benchmarks by bouncing the individuals type off 'known benchmarks' when the benchmarks can be in error. This causes compounding errors over time on the slightest mistake instead of all typings being done from a neutral 'clean' perspective.
- Is openly admited by yourself to be dependant on whether you like the individual or not; therefore you are unable to chose a system which removes your own bias and requires 'lip service' from the other party for you to agree with them.
Therefore in summary, your method is entirely the result of a fallacious argument to moderation. You are unwilling to define clear method or definitions because it would remove the above flaws and therefore choose a 'middle ground' which makes you feel most comfortable regardless of the facts.
This is actually *drum rolls* an Fe-Ti complex with one in the Ego block and another in the Super-Id.
'extroverted hunches - here's how it should be... no logic why other than I feel its right'
'introverted logic - it's my logic, mine and I'm not sharing the steps with anyone because everyone has their own critical analysis!'
But please, continue. You seem to insist upon doing so!
No and yes, although I have never thought about this poetry before.
Ohoho, someone got drafted.
I'm terrible at poetry but thanks. There's this guy called Timmy, Tiny Tim, etc., that's why I asked.
Well, surely a nice entrance, InvisibleJim. Perhaps only The Ineffable has managed to be so...peculiar before reaching the 50 posts mark.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Get him FDG, he's wounded.
It comes with having 'Legendary' Status.
Ashton is definitely onto something when he brings up LII.
"LIIs are adept at organizing their understanding into structured thought. They may organize their cogitations into categories, diagrams, formulaic descriptions, or complex step by step explanations. LIIs may have an uncanny knack for understanding, constructing, and deconstructing the abstract and delicate internal workings of abstract systems like computers, natural phenomena, gadgets, abstract concepts, mathematical equations, and anything that captures their interest. They may be extremely precise in their understanding and can tend strive for highly detailed realizations. They can be skilled at synthesizing new information and incorporating into their established categories. They are often attracted to fields like mathematics, physics, chemistry, or other areas of study that deal with highly structured information systems.
LIIs are often highly attuned to the premises of logical consistency and adherence to predefined principles. They may use such unifying principles as a basis off of which to make normative or philosophical judgments and often seek to communicate these ideas to others. LIIs can be difficult for others to understand because they tend to avoid explaining the intermediate steps in their reasoning, seeing only the conclusion as important.
LIIs are, in the colloquial sense, highly rational creatures and may pride themselves on so being. They may live highly structured or regimented lifestyles and can be quite proactive."
Yup, fits you to the bone.
This stands out the most:
"LIIs are usually lacking in outward emotional energy. LIIs may typically seem stiff, cold, rational, unresponsive to emotional concerns, and overly formal in social settings. LIIs may feel uneasy and insecure about their adaptability to social situations. They appreciate the interactive efforts of others to make them feel comfortable, at ease, and a part of the group. They tend to liven up in situations of amusement and conviviality. In situations where they feel comfortable and unconditionally accepted, they may drop their tendency towards aloofness and engage in uncharacteristic silliness.
LIIs may be highly sensitive to the signs of emotional approval that they receive from others. They may be highly appreciative of displays of emotional warmth and friendliness. They may find normative emotional expectations placed on them to be stifling, and tend to prefer nonjudgmental environments without character scrutiny. Additionally, for fear of emotional reprisal, LIIs often tend to be rather noncritical of others' actions.
LIIs may be quite susceptible to acting in accordance to the mood of others, and may undervalue the importance of avoiding argumentation on their mental well-being."
Source:
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/LII-INTj/
Oh come along now, are you really trying to reference my discussion on an entirely different topic as a claim that it disagrees with the current one? Did you actually read the conversation?Why on Earth would I do when there's no way to reasonably quantify such scales…?
It isn't hard to recognize the similarities between these perspectives. If you don't believe that, then you might wish to eat your words http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=796354#post796354
?
lol u r wrong.
Uh, where does it say that?
That's weighted in intertype relations.
Then by all means, define a better method. I'm not going to play a silly game postulating the kind of pseudo-objective tripe you're prescribing above. I recognize the subjective limitations of this pseudoscience (as much as I'd like it to be otherwise), and leave it there.
It shouldn't take much 'analysis' to figure out IMO. Whereas you seem to be wanting some static theoretical structure, with arguments backed by 'logical' proof. And you don't recognize the inherent limitations of typology/socionics, that this is an unreasonable expectation.This is actually *drum rolls* an Fe-Ti complex.
'extroverted hunches - here's how it should be... no logic why other than I feel its right'
'introverted logic - it's my logic, mine and I'm not sharing the steps with anyone because everyone has their own critical analysis!'
At best, all one can do is make generalizations and follow some loose heuristics in doing so. Any extensions beyond that are a pipe dream—until there's some real science to start backing these things. Since that isn't happening, this is what we're stuck with in the mean time.
Okay, you are clearly losing exact definition regarding your own narrative, therefore I'll let you off the hook. Consider it a freebie.
Good luck with the star maths...
However, yes, what I am stating is exactly:
Pick a cognitive style model. Pick definitions for attitude/function. Be open and honest regarding those.
This is the scientific principle of theory/hypothesis and yes, it's all for fun, however that doesn't excuse lacklustre logical deduction.
No, I just don't buy 'Visual' Typing. Because, yes, perception bias. The natural statistical way to reduce perception bias is to take a very large sample set of results and take the p50; however that is reliant upon grading items on a fixed two-axis paradigm and also having a competent estimation ground, which does not exist for typology.
It'll take a lot more than a conversation to convince me on the scientific principles of 'visual' typing.
Yes, this stands out the most, for it's irrelevancy.This stands out the most:
"LIIs are usually lacking in outward emotional energy. LIIs may typically seem stiff, cold, rational, unresponsive to emotional concerns, and overly formal in social settings. LIIs may feel uneasy and insecure about their adaptability to social situations. They appreciate the interactive efforts of others to make them feel comfortable, at ease, and a part of the group. They tend to liven up in situations of amusement and conviviality. In situations where they feel comfortable and unconditionally accepted, they may drop their tendency towards aloofness and engage in uncharacteristic silliness.
LIIs may be highly sensitive to the signs of emotional approval that they receive from others. They may be highly appreciative of displays of emotional warmth and friendliness. They may find normative emotional expectations placed on them to be stifling, and tend to prefer nonjudgmental environments without character scrutiny. Additionally, for fear of emotional reprisal, LIIs often tend to be rather noncritical of others' actions.
LIIs may be quite susceptible to acting in accordance to the mood of others, and may undervalue the importance of avoiding argumentation on their mental well-being."
As you are well aware the one person who is usually the most opposed to such apartik is myself and I am positively confrontational about it. You can check this with Hemoglobin since you know very little of me - although to be fair her understanding of me although significantly improved is not especially notable.
You will find a Fi super-ego is substantially more relevant when observing my behaviour.
The danger when typing the Ego is that people are often adept in tapping the Id, it's natural for one who regularly uses the function to flip attitude as required although they are dismissive and non-preferred to the other. As I say, the reactive PoLR/super-Id position is the most reliable method for typing people.
Have you deduced your type sufficiently yet that you are still not hoping around with it?
Hey InvisibleJim, don't mind the trolls. Ashton is just the forum ****** (no disrespect to B&D: the forum's official real gay man) who antagonizes everyone for his own amusement. They're just trying to scare you away because you're new here.So don't play into the game.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Someand role lovin too. (
) I
too...
!!!!!!
And to think LSIs and LIIs mistype themselves ILI. Priceless.
******s don't concern me too much, especially when they are prone to such failings without being open and honest regarding them.Hey InvisibleJim, don't mind the trolls. Ashton is just the forum ****** who antagonizes everyone for his own amusement. They're just trying to scare you away because you're new here.Your thoughts MisterNi?
Someone who should've been banned a long time ago but SubT is too weak to follow through on it.******s don't concern me too much.Hey InvisibleJim, don't mind the trolls. Ashton is just the forum ****** who antagonizes everyone for his own amusement. They're just trying to scare you away because you're new here.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
Well, I wouldn't say that. It's important to remember that some people were born to be an example to others, therefore they limited residual value. In this case regarding that, yes, everyone is allowed their own perspective, however it is foolish to have neither convinced yourself regarding that perspective and also to ensure that you have buy in from the other party otherwise, the perspective is worth nowt. I would like to make him soup though for trying. Perhaps with some crusty bread.Someone who should've been banned a long time ago but SubT is too weak to follow through on it.
******s don't concern me too much.
I was of course, referring to my type.
How is this convo between you two, indicative of Ashton being Fe/Ti quadra ?
Well then you're too kind. My philosophy is to decapitate the infection at the source. You're assuming that people even realize that him being allowed to stay is to serve as an example of what not to do. Most people are too clueless to even realize that.Well, I wouldn't say that. It's important to remember that some people were born to be an example to others, therefore they limited residual value. I would like to make him soup though.
Oh! Well, I rather like you from past experience so I'd be inclined to say LII, but you do seem rather LSI since theI was of course, referring to my type.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
Faulty Induction + Begging the Question + Hasty Generalization
You sound like EyeSeeCold, another LII faux-ILI.
I don't really need to ask you anything; prodding you a bit and reading your reactions is enough. It's evident you fail at being
Yes, more than a handful have proposed LII but considering only few opinions have been substantiated and that it still hasn't been confirmed, you have no justification for including me as a benchmark sample, noting the subdued ad hominem on my person.
Continue with your fallacious reasoning; you are already argumentatively deceptive and preemptively offensive in my eyes. Your typings, let alone conclusions, are moot. Have fun.
:
Oh! Well, I rather like you from past experience so I'd be inclined to say LII, but you do seem rather LSI since the
and the axcop av is probably a factor too.
Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 08-01-2011 at 05:42 PM.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
A more interesting synopsis because it has some lovely concise reasoning. I'll think about it and I may have some additional queries for you later. My question for now would be: what have you seen that makes you think Se doesn't intimidate me?Oh! Well, I rather like you from past experience so I'd be inclined to say LII, but you do seem rather LSI since the
I've learned to take it as a compliment when people tell me I'm Ti, because that must mean they are offended I demand external logic that is re-viewable and defined by a quantifiable process rather than people holding their own cards and refusing to share, which by definition proves I have wads of Te. This means they are offended you aren't accepting their argument.
But we won't talk about that right now shall we.
Someone who should've been banned a long time ago but SubT is too weak to follow through on it.
******s don't concern me too much.
...and here comes theWell, I wouldn't say that. It's important to remember that some people were born to be an example to others, therefore they limited residual value. In this case regarding that, yes, everyone is allowed their own perspective, however it is foolish to have neither convinced yourself regarding that perspective and also to ensure that you have buy in from the other party otherwise, the perspective is worth nowt. I would like to make him soup though for trying. Perhaps with some crusty bread.
I was of course, referring to my type./
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
Just FTR, if you're interested in an axiomatization of socionics, the only western attempt I'm aware of has been posted here:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ght=mechanical
Quite successfully IMHO, since Smilingeyes' system is what I use myself. It's essentially based on Reinin dicthotomes, though, so you need to accept them as extant, otherwise the derivation becomes invalid.
Oh and Jim I didn't propose ISTj as typing because I thought you were "Ti", but rather because of what I perceive as a similarity between you and user discojoe.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I have always wanted to tell discojoe to keep his hair on.
Oh god, oh god, oh god. Why?
It's cute, but these Ti super-ego characters need to vent and its good that other people can support them on these ventures. Personally I just want to massage their shoulders when they get like that.
Oh god, oh god, oh god. Why?
Are you a Tory by any chance Invisible Jim ?
Why, why, why, why. Hehe.
Not really, I practice/approve of some very right wing economics policy, but I tend to vote and pay lip service to the merits of the SNP and other decentralist parties. They tend to get my vote although in the past I have voted lib-dems (I won't vote for them again though). At the recent election the Tories would have been my second choice after the SNP.Are you a Tory by any chance Invisible Jim ?
Why, why, why, why. Hehe.
Let me guess - Rothbard.
Alright, that tells me a lot about you. Anyhow, post a photo of yourself.At the recent election the Tories would have been my second choice after the SNP.
Oh almost forgot. What's the feud between Glasgow and Edinburgh ?
It displays much of your character very well and also shows reasoning of your remarks toward Ashton and FDG. "Checking with Hemoglobin" would only conclude a bias argument.
My type has no matter in this thread. It's about your typing. Stay on topic and don't attempt to transpose the discussion. Changing the topic of the discussion hardly counts as an argument against my point. That is red herring.
The better approach would to see more information from you about yourself.
How do you see yourself in relation to Fe polr (ILI) vs. Se polr (LII)? What similarities and differences do you see in yourself through both profiles?
You're the lady who talked about spaceships and UFOs, correct bionic ? How's the Milky Way ? Don't know whether or not to put on a coat in case it gets cold.
EDIT: Come on Jim ? Jimmy ? Mate ? Don't do this to me.
EDIT#2: Earth calling bionic, Earth calling bionic. Houston, we've got a problem. Haha!
Last edited by Absurd; 08-01-2011 at 08:21 PM.
Rothbard would be close enough, although I'm not so extreme, I merely want the government to prove the optimum level of spending before they commit.Let me guess - Rothbard.
Alright, that tells me a lot about you. Anyhow, post a photo of yourself.At the recent election the Tories would have been my second choice after the SNP.
Oh almost forgot. What's the feud between Glasgow and Edinburgh ?
Umm, no photos yet. There are some about if you want to find them.
It's to do with having two dominant large cities in a small country.
Additional information should not bias your own thought processes unless your ability to type is flawed and based upon the perception of said individual. Regardless it is important to check that you have 'got past' making hasty typing otherwise I would be forced to view your deductions with extreme caution, this doesn't mean you are right or wrong, but it does provide evidence of past failure.
Anyway, regarding the PoLRs, the likely factors that I can be seen to be both are numerous excepting that for Se PoLR I would be conflict avoidant, I'm certainly not. I've gained a terrible reputation for not being so, this includes in the real world and online. You are aware of this.
Last edited by InvisibleJim; 08-01-2011 at 08:43 PM.
Well then, you sure do have something in common with discojoe, FDG, and Ashton to name a few but that doesn't mean a thing, does it ?
No, this is not how it's going to be. I'll wait.Umm, no photos yet. There are some about if you want to find them.
Correct, you won a trip to Milky Way in one of bionic's UFOs.It's to do with having two dominant large cities in a small country.
Wait, I'm more on the Geolibertiarian side, I think Rothbard is a crazy whacko - a smart one indeed, but still kinda crazy.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Oh I'm really sorry, then. Nice label though.
Keep hitting that bottle bro, it looks good all split over you. Not.
Well, it does hurt, you get stiches, not like in the pictures so I better stop for now and I'm not your bro cracker.
No hard feelings, once again
Suggesting 'evidence' of my 'past failures' in this present discussion is a poor point. It's not relevant to this discussion. My 'past failures' were reliant on MBTI. Not Socionics. My self-typing has always been consistent. Again, more red herrings and straw mans from your position.
How could I possibly be aware of your character if you've already stated this:
This position is inconsistent and fallible.As you are well aware the one person who is usually the most opposed to such apartik is myself and I am positively confrontational about it. You can check this with Hemoglobin since you know very little of me - although to be fair her understanding of me although significantly improved is not especially notable.
Last edited by bionic; 08-02-2011 at 12:15 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
