Quote:
Originally Posted by
ephemeros
This would be debatable, but in any case not the opposite as you say. I ask you: does it matter what the Russians think? What were you discussing, Eastwood's type or something else? You showed your interest there.
It does not so much matter what the Russian Socionists think, but the accuracy of the original poster's (hitta's) assertion that their thoughts matched his own. I do not believe that Clint Eastwood is an LII, but rather, he is an LSI. But that is not what interested me, because I had already formed my opinion of his type prior to the thread. What interested me was hitta's inability to support what he said or to back up his claims.
Quote:
Wtf are you talking about? Compared to you, I don't give a shit about everything is bold! Nothing, I think for myself.
I'm glad that you think for yourself. Do you want a gold star? But it is not enough that you are capable of thinking for yourself, but you must be able to think well and correctly.
I don't know. What the fuck is that post? You tell me. That is a separate thread that I have not read before. Believe it or not, I do not spend my time stalking your posts. I did not doubt that you did not have your reasons in one thread, but I strongly suspected that they were questionable since the conclusion you reached did not match mine, and so I disregarded yours like any good LII should do.
Quote:
Ok, maybe you missed it, as long as the argue with me was in other thread, so you have an excuse. If you have something to add about it just tell me. I'm curious what will prevail in your opinion, the established type given by the "opinion leaders" or my arguments which don't match that typing. I'm extremely curious, because I'm almost sure about what type of answer you'll forward.
Ephemeros, I majored in political science (with my primary interest being public opinion and quantitative analysis) and public relations. The idea of "opinions leaders" does not come from my sense of authority, but from being repeatedly exposed to this facet of communications theory. So my own language games and vocabulary was formed by that. I say that, because you keep quoting "opinion leaders" as if this is some indication that I am incapable of thinking for myself. I tend to analyze forum dynamics in this manner, because that :Se: tends to stick out like a sore thumb and it has proved an impediment in forum relations that I have had to overcome.
But since you seem to think that my response to investigate elsewhere and check with other socionicists was somehow atypical of LII's let's look at the Einstein - ILE? thread. I am sure that this will satisfy your confirmation bias regarding my expected response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thehotelambush
idk, it's pretty scant evidence. There are plenty of other reasons
why Einstein is ILE (see socionics.us + a billion past threads).
I may post later when I have more time to gather the facts for my assertion of Einstein's ILE type.
Quote:
That's in your point only, your LSI point of view!
If my type was determined by your ability to enlarge HTML, then I would certainly be an LSI.
Quote:
Every LII would discard such information if it doesn't make sense, do you want me to read you the descriptions to fall asleep? And if the LIIs don't understand the issue they don't get involved usually. But you, definitely a Se type, you quickly grasp the power balance and get involved with only the assurance of the establishment. Establishment means most of what you've written: leaders, prevail, academic, consensus, etc.
You are unfairly misreading my actions and intentions. :?
You're not exactly using rainbows and sunshine yourself when talking about me or my type. You being registered since May 2007 does not exactly mean that you made your presence widely known; it just means that you primarily lurked until recently. I'm sorry if I did not notice you. But I can assure you that derision is not exclusive to Se-egos alone.
Quote:
Not only that, but I proved myself understanding, at least partially, the inner of Socionics, by numerous discussions about functions (Ti vs Te, etc) and other things. But yeah, as you did not deal with me, you could think that, it was impossible for you to conceive that a "newbie" is able to challenge an established typing. Actually I did not take note of you before that, which made me the impression that you are some kind of a forum police.
That is debatable. It was not just that you were a noob, but more importantly, you had a conclusion and faulty reasoning, and an interpretation of Socionics that I personally disagreed with.
Quote:
You call this argument: "that's not Si but Se". Period. Is that one?
Quote:
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
Ni.
Quote:
Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
Alpha NT > Gamma NT.
Pot and kettle.
Quote:
What's my guilt because you did not answer the arguments? In the table example, remember that I change my opinion 2 times. But you vanished. [the above quote goes here]That's nothing, your worshiped "leaders" did not type the "rough table", what should I do, to wait for the Russians to come and have their say? That sentence was Si and come and argue about it if you can, all the sciences and academies and communities have built the opinions on simple discussions like that. But you were absent!
You are becoming irrational now. I have no worshiped leaders nor am I waiting for the Russians to type the statement. Why was I absent? Because glam answered your question and having me post a similar statement would be redundant. Why post when someone else has basically said what you wanted to say? Seems like quite the LII thing to do. Reduce the amount of work that you actually have to do.
But here would have been another more appropriate way to distinguish between Se, Si, and tables.
Se: "the table has a rough texture." - Here rough is a physical property of the table, either by the contours or material used in making it.
Si: "the table feels rough." - Here rough is defined as a dynamic sensory response to (presumably) the person's skin.
Quote:
Why are you an LII? Because you want to? No. You should prove it, without any appeal to others' opinion, except they are justified (BY REASON!). Only then I'll speak to you again.
I have proven myself as an LII ad nauseum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hkkmr
I think Logos is probably LII, althrough his Ne yard is a bit empty. Intellectual authority is more :Te: (Objective qualifications) rather then :Se: (Political gamesmanship).
Higher education tends to have a mind-numbing effect on people too, it provides a certainty of skills and qualifications that sometimes hinders intuitive comprehension.
It's no surprise that many ILE, Dyson, Spinoza, Marx, Einstein wholeheartedly reject academics until academics could no longer reject them.
I feel that this is largely an unfair criticism of me and my Ne, just because it does not meet your Ne-leading expectations. I do think that Spinoza is LII > ILE, but that is for another time.