Printable View
I haven't changed my mind. Your claim that INTps a) aren't really interested in anything specific and b) are the total opposites of AS in that respect is still ridiculous and false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
For example ...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
Aren't you supposed to be the expert? You figure it out :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
You still haven't answered the two questions I asked you.
that's beautifulQuote:
Originally Posted by BLauritson
I've noticed a few things from watching this thread in general:
- I think you guys discussed ILIs as children for maybe 3 posts haha
- To all you LII's: don't hate on my ILIs- I love to hate you, so please, the more hatred that you direct towards others makes me that much more hesitant to openly display my utter disgust and dislike for you. I think they're just jealous because unlike them, your NTs are directed in an effective and efficient way to the real world.
- Autism & ILI's? hmmm i don't know... im sure there are some correlations, which you could quite possibly attribute to most of the types if you wanted to. The thread will probably end up having no real conclusions on this matter anyway seeing as it seems a few ILIs have differing opinions and as we all know, us gammas can be stubborn as all hell. Unless you have proof that Autism & being ILI (or any type for that matter) is correlated in some way, probably not going to achieve anything.
There's plenty of proof. But for the moment I'm tired of trying to explain things any further. People refuse to listen to reason anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by liveandletlive
this may be true, but i guess a huge issue with autism's or any disorder's correlation with a certain type is why some people of that type remain without that particular disorder and some people of that type have that disorder while some people show symptoms or variations of the disorder but do not actually have a full-blown case.
You mean, machintruc? Because he is the only one, and most LII are reluctant to call him one. And for the rest of that bit, what on earth are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by liveandletlive
I have known ILI girls and ILI dudes. They are nearly impossible to socialise with, not because they don't like you, but because they hate people. ILI is the least sociable type of all the socion. And you SEE's still like them. I pretty much don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by liveandletlive
I love to hate SEE's too, because they like ILI's. It's evident that they have autistic behaviour. You should see that video on an ILI.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=644rZwdDvMo[/youtube]
As you see, he shows lots of autistic behaviour. If you wanted information of ILI as children...
Read more on AS. This describes ILI children with some accuracy. You :Se: types like accuracy, don't you ?
Describes LII children with better accuracy:Quote:
Originally Posted by machintruc
Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody and intonation, and motor clumsiness are typical of the condition, but are not required for diagnosis.
O RLY now? I am now convinced that no one knows what they are talking about in this thread. It just seems to be another case of passing the disease to the type that they do not understand.
I'm not passing disease. But since he started to compare, all those apply more to LII than ILI. I've said already AS is not type related, and it's pointless to try to compare it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
You agree with me that SEE's aren't any likely to have AS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
Every type of person is just as likely. What results, is a person who has wide ranging mental abnormalities. In socionics terms it attacks many of the functions. Affect on some functions is easier to see like :Se: and :Fe: , but at the same time those are just most visible symptoms, not the ones that are relevant in diagnosing the person, most importantly what is relevant is lack of :Ni: . But you can't see if person lacks :Ni: , you'll actually have to question him. Of course the people who do the diagnoses are unlikely to know socionics, and generally treat personality theories as non-scientific.Quote:
Originally Posted by machintruc
BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
Whoever is you favourite writer of type descriptions. Just go an compare things like amount of expressiveness, capability of reading expressions, motor skills you'll notice that LII's suck slightly more than ILI's. And ILI's do change their interests at faster pace than LII's. And ILI's are less enthustiastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
No really, where are you getting this BS?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
Ever heard of Model A?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
For example Filatova:
INTj:
Emotional expression is restrained, often based on the norms dictated by society. Tries not to interfere/get involved in conflicts. Avoids emotional situations.
INTp:
Tries not to act emotionally since he is not confident that he can always control his feelings. When he does lose control his behaviour towards others, and himself, is unpredictable. With close people prefers to associate at a close psychological distance, tries to be polite,
You do see the difference?
Yes, but you could read either of those descriptions into AS.
Nope, and I haven't said so. I think my point should be clear by now, that I don't tie any type to AS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
You're misinterpreting his statement. The point is that you simply cannot justify an argument either way that the symptoms of AS identify more with ILIs or LIIs- which is what you tried to do earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
And the statement that each type is just as likely to develop AS is false: it might be possible that mental disorders such as AS are more likely to cause certain personalities in persons. The most appropriate way to go about the issue of disease and type is to simply state that any type of correlation is unknown.
Everything is basically unknown, so it might be false, it might be correct. There might be flying pigs. But Occam's razor says pigs don't fly, and there's no reason to believe that correlation like that would exist, until there's proof that points otherwise. AS is a developemental error, and no type any is any more immune those than any other. What's unknown is that, do AS people have type of their own that's different from all healthy types, or is there just AS version of every type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirk Satellite Div.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazedrat
That is precisely a point that Phaedrus can't even begin to understand -- he hasn't got a clue as to how a Fi hidden agenda works, and why that would make the SEE (and not the SLE) the ILI's dual. He doesn't even understand why that observation makes that so obvious.
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salawa
Yes, that's exactly the big question I want to find the answer to.Quote:
Originally Posted by liveandletlive
Incorrect. AS is -- essentially -- to have a brain that is structured differently than a "normal" brain. The cause of this difference is genetical; it is almost never due to environmental factors. These genetical differences manifest themselves in a lot of ways. They can be observed early in the development of the child, and they effect the person's whole life, more or less under different life circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
And if AS should be defined as a lack of any socionic function, it is most of all a lack of :Fe: , not :Ni: .
Guess what, genes cause developemental errors. AS is categorized as a pervasive developmental disorder. And since you are so sure to write your trademark "incorrect" again. I suppose you also know wich gene(s) it is? You can't, because that hasn't been found. Genetic cause is only suspected, and probable, but there could be also other causes. You should consider that before writing something that absolutist and stupid, again without any concrete proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
As I said lack of :Fe: is just a visible symptom of the disorder, part of compound of different symptoms. But there's a common cause to all of them, and guess what that is again? Obviously that's something that you can never get. Neither what's different between alexithymia and INTp's :Fe: PoLR, and what's the difference between the cause of them. There's a world of difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
And btw. that hero of yours Gillberg, he was that guy who was accused of forging and making up his research material in Sweden. And when this case was taken to court, he's underlings actually destroyed the research materials to cover up. :shock: In the end Gillberg was fined with misuse of office. A very dubious character as I suspected, to say the least.
And you still haven't answered my questions :)
:Ni: = autistic
My point is that since autism is a genetical condition it is inevitable that some types are more "immune" to the "developmental error" that is the result of being born autistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
More research needs to be done, because we don't know for sure the exact effects of specific genes and their interactions. But several studies have so far found that those most likely involved are region 15q11-q13 of chromosome 15, a gene linked to band 17Q21 on chromosome 17, a possible gene on chromosome 13, linkages on chromosomes 2q, 7q, and 16p. Chromosome X is also involved, which could help to explain the predominance of boys with autism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
You have got that story slightly wrong, and it's more complicated than that. Let's not go too deeply into that mess. I will just say that the reason they destroyed the material was that they had promised the participants in the study that their identities were not going to be revealed. And the person who insisted on getting access to the material was an anti-biology female "scientist" that is more correctly described as a charlatan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
Let's focus on the more relevant issues first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
Not some types if you mean personality types, just some people. Lot of mental problems run in the families. Everything isn't connected to personality types, most things aren't, this is one of them. Just like down syndrome, MS, microcephalia, being tall, having red hair etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
That is the only relevant question here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Your opinions on the issue, and possibly how you see the world, and are you even able to tell the differences that are in question here, and are you able to make proper judgements and assessments on the issue, all depend on that question. Because what you say is in crash course against the real world reality, constantly. You have some of the trivia correct, but your understanding of the issue is close to zero.
And why find it necessary to desperately hang on to your view, when everything obviously points elsewhere. Do you really except that you point of view just suddenly turn into reality as long as you keep posting your dumbass posts. Can't you see that if you keep posting from that perspective, your posts will just get beaten down, endlessly. Have you no predictive capability? Can't you see the pattern?
It will also explain why you find it so necessary to post more of your pointless posts. This is boring and futile. You need a new hobby.
You forgot to finish your usual logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by machintruc
= unfriendly, hates people, unsociable = machintruc
Gooble gobble, gooble gobble, we accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us!
this is really hilarious, you guys trying to be little junior psychologists here..
BTW, what type is phaedrus? Wondering, because I'd like to re-write my mental program on his type and its possibilities for stupidity.
I would only go out on a limb- make a statement about ILI and autism, and stand by it, if I was in some kind of desperate socionics obsessed state of mind where I had to correlate every piece of psychologically relevent information I came into contact with with socionics theories in some way.
It is like picking a specific car, and then understanding other cars in only the ways their specific attributes stand relative to your car of choice. Like my cars an old piece of shit honda... we'll pretend a toyota land cruiser is two times faster then a honda.. it's more top heavy, the front looks different... etc. The word toyota land cruiser now means, to me, a modified version of old piece of shit honda; im understanding it in the sense of honda.
The stupidity of that is when I start saying the toyota land cruisers don't exist.. that everything is a honda in some sense of the word. It creates a bunch of word games and confusions where no one even knows what you're talking about...including you. you start having to say shit like "2xspeedtopheavyfrontmodifiedshoeshapedhonda" instead of just... Toyota land cruiser. Autistic. See? See how fucking stupid you are being? Really.
K. On top of all this, I still suspect machinwhateverhisnameis is being a dick on purpose just to rile us up, because he enjoys it. Phaedrus may be jumping on the band wagon, he may actually be stupid enough to believe what he is saying.. not sure about him. But mach.. yeah he's just an annoying LII, what's new? No way a LII wouldn't sense the logical inconsistencies of his statements. He seems to focus more on goading an emotional reaction out of people then making sense. Stop letting him set your mind in knots, you're making a fool of ILIs
Yes. Stupid or not, I believe that what I have said is true. I guess that you haven't checked the evidence to see whether it might be possible that I am actually right about the correlations between autism and the ILI type and/or some other things. It might be a good idea to do that, because I am not saying anything particularly controversial here. Almost everything I have said is common knowledge among those who have looked into these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazedrat
Yet you show more potential situations that can apply to the phenomena of type and AS. Yet you insist that your correlation is the true one. You are assuming that all these possible correlations are infalsifiable and undistinct from their phenomenal conclusions. More information can be gathered on this phenomena; Occam's razor isn't just about trying to be "simple". You are making up a correlation yourself, which is: % of each type with AS = % of human population with AS. It isn't an appropriate statement because it has clear implications that you haven't proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord
Then you have understood wrong. What I said to machintruc was just to mess around inside his :Ti: world. And can be taken only in that context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirk Satellite Div.
At the moment they are. We don't even know what really causes personality types, or at what age they develope and lock in (if ever). There's no record of any kind of connection between developemental errors and personality types. Most things aren't type related, and they can be easily proved not to be so. For example it just takes one red haired guy of all types, to prove that red hair doesn't depend on the persons type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirk Satellite Div.
I'm sure that the brains of all types have been scanned at some point. If not by socionist, then by MBTI-people. And I have never heard that some type is caused by developemental brain injury, so that all people who have type also have the injury. Don't you think if was so, we would have all already heard about it?
Even if the there was a correlation, we have no idea what the correlation could be.
That's because, that is the only scientific assumption one can make. Science has rules and standards to be followed. When there's absolutely no reason (after the matter has been throughly investigated) to belief any other way, and nothing points to anything else. There's no reason to believe otherwise, because there's nothing that would explain how it could be otherwise. Assuming that one of those otherwises is the correct one, when the otherwise could be just about anything, would be pointless when nothing points to it. Therefore the most correct assumption is the one that works without any extra assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirk Satellite Div.
It doesn't have to be proved, because it's correct by default. Things are to be assumed uncorrelated, until a correlation is seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirk Satellite Div.