And yet you provide no alternative of what kind of info VIing requires processed.
Also, your slippery slope ignores that every single type has at least the experience of every information element. (Aka 1D)
Maritsa started this thread to you by including her definition of Se polr
She claims that she CANNOT process that kind of data, and that she misses those types of details of people despite trying. Yet she regularly attempts to type people by looking AT their 'outward data' in great detail. And she puts great stock IN that method, as well as in her ABILITY to
accurately process that outward data.
This completely counters her first post to you, in this thread.
Now, whether it means her definition of Se is off, her defintion of Se polr is off, her own abilities to VI are off, or whatever...something(s) in her first post is off.
Now, I can understand if you would prefer this to be discussed in a different thread.
But it was brought up in response to her claim of having Se polr (and her attempt to support herself as being FiNe).
Logic, not logic types. Look up logical fallacies.
(And yes, I am aware that it I have a problem of expecting...almost a demand...for self-typed logical types to be ...logical. This probably falls under the equivocation fallacy, I'm not sure.
)