Official VI Lucid Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

That was part of my point, yeah. Thanks for confirming. As you maybe observed and read in the descriptions, ILEs are likely the most curious and investigative type. I hope you agree that to be an ILE, being aware of Socionics and not being curious what your own type is, sounds rather inconceivable.

---

Predictable move.

I am curious but to be honest, I'm not convinced at all by your arguments. Secondarily I've known about Socionics for about 4-5 years... so its nothing really new to me. A lot of this is simply, "been there, done that". A paragraph by bolt isn't going to move a mound of evidence accumulated in my mind over the past 4-5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

LOL, an "ILE" challenged to state his opinion on a matter replying with "I don't need to tell you". :lol:

---

It was more the way you asked it lol... it was a loaded question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

Why not, am I bad, am I evil, is that hurtful, does it matter if it's hurtful, did I corner you, or what's the matter?

---

I don't know, lets hear your theories, it may be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

We can't even have a reasonable discussion without you mixing your feelings in and the point is that you appear to have Super-Ego Ti, feeling threatened when you're framed into stating your opinion clear-cut.

---

Well a lot of your points are all over the place and are pretty viscous, not that I'm insecure enough to really care about the viscousness (although its definitely not appreciated)... its just that I'm not persuaded by brute force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

Looking back, I can barely understand what your problem was and why you quarreled for. You apparently felt attacked when I began discussing your personality, like it was some sort of taboo, taking expressions literally out of context (eg "never drawing conclusions" not the way I meant it) and defending against these imaginary assaults.

---

Hmm I don't know, I took the whole... He's an inconclusive rambling fool with a voyueristic penchant that annoys me to be rather sloppy evidence of sociotype. I mean your typing based on your impression of my writing style, I think its a bad method to type based on whether or not you are annoyed by another's writing style. I don't think all ILEs have a similar writing style and all of them enjoy the writing style of their counterparts. I took that largely as a personal opinion outside the realm of socionics.

Plus the notion it's an indicator of non-Ti is laughable. Jung defines Ti as subjective logic, which is more internally focused systematic logic which requires making connections between logical properties and facts internally into a system.

I don't see how you can take this root principle and somehow sensibly weave that with "your writing style" annoys me into a successful argument.

I think you're projecting your own sense of identity onto me and expecting me to match you... which isn't going to happen, and I think that's a faulty understanding of type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

Apart from typing you as a Te valuer, I was talking about ILEs in general (Identity relationship type). What is your point?

---

My point is that my self typing is ILE

Quote:

---

I'm anxious to see your pictures

---

Would you like to know what I am wearing now?

Quote:

---

, you previously said different stories, that your friends compare you to Feynman for example, now you look like HLD

---

Some relatives and I claim I look like Feynman when both of us were in our early 20s.

I was browsing the forum and my cousin said I really look like HLD.

Is it so hard for you to accept as "real"?

Quote:

---

, I'm very curious in how you look.

---

Why me and not Subterranean, Labcoat or anyone else?

BTW, I look like a sun toasted northern European.

Quote:

---

For the record, HLD doesn't remind me of Feynman at all.

---

I never said so. Perhaps transitive relation does not work at all when it comes to comparing pics of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation



Bolt, I wonder if we are conflictors.

you VI as delta ST to me (the good kind ;D )

Dolt, please die.

I think havelucid is LII-Ne.

For what it's worth, I don't despise HLD unlike what Bolt says, but I have disagreed with certain things he's said that have been unthoughtful.

I think as far as getting to conclusions; ILE's aren't the best type to do that, but there is something that ILE's are good at like all Ti types are good at and that is getting to the point and I think HLD isn't good at that vs other Ti types I've seen.

I will note a few things about his verbalization that points to ethical vs logical.

Within this thread, I note usage of the word projection and his usage of the word authenticity.

His usage of projection is a evaluation of a emotional state within Bolt and his motivations to produce his response. What he's not commenting on is the chain of logic and deduction that Bolt uses and the assumptions that Bolt is using which might be incorrect. In this sense I don't think HLD is making a logical evaluation or argument when responding to Bolt.

This is one reason why I have a hard time buying HLD as logical. His argument style is often ethical in nature, and deals with evaluation of a ethical nature rather then deduction, identifying incorrect assumptions and miscalculations in deductions and point those out.

Authenticity is something else I have a hard time picturing a ILE as upholding. Authenticity is a form of sincerity and I have to say that more then once, a ILE will be insincere. This is a type that is capable of making a argument for the sake of a argument, in order to investigate a possibility. Such a position requires no belief, it doesn't have to be a lie, it must simply be a presentable logical argument. It is simply unnecessary for authenticity to exist in a ILE's argument, because this is a ethical sentiment about a argument, rather then a act of logical deduction or explanation. This is not to say that a ILE can't be authentic in their arguments, only it's not something that's necessary for a argument to be made or argued. Having authenticity as a goal in life is something that I think is more ethical in nature, I certainly don't believe ILE hold it as a goal in life. ILE can be honest about many things, the universe, science, logic, etc, but ultimately sincerity in many ways is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by House M.D

It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what.

---

These are just a few reasons in this thread about why I'm skeptical of his ILE-ness. Oh yea, he looks kinda of like Rick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

For what it's worth, I don't despise HLD unlike what Bolt says, but I have disagreed with certain things he's said that have been unthoughtful.

---

My mistake, then. I recall situations where I was answering him, even if he was provocative and absurd, while you were refusing do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I think as far as getting to conclusions; ILE's aren't the best type to do that, but there is something that ILE's are good at like all Ti types are good at and that is getting to the point and I think HLD isn't good at that vs other Ti types I've seen.

---

Maybe you misunderstood the nature of the conclusions I was talking about. I explained them to Marie, who was also using this connotative meaning, something like "final conclusions" or "implementable conclusions" which I never claimed. No other term I could figure out is better to more precisely point that out - "ideas", "explanations", "discoveries", "revealings" - for different reasons which you may figure out.
In fact you do such thing I described in this very post, I'd like to hear a better term for this trait - pointing out what's the most logically probable or technically correct based on the available information.

i agree with IEE.

Your argument intrigues, hkkmr. :thumbsup:

I'm chomping at the bit to post up some of my academic writing.

The only reason I'm not so decisive and so forth with psychology, is that, psychology isn't based on the same axioms as something like physics, mathematics, or engineering.

Psychology involves an analysis of the self based on axioms which relate to interpersonal and intrapersonal observations which are irreducible down to easily quantifiable components.

Physics, Mathematics, and Engineering are relatively easy to break down to into easily quantifiable components.

I can go into a laboratory and measure out 51 grams of Sodium Nitrate... I can't go into a laboratory and measure out 51 units of Extroverted Intuition. In many ways the basic axioms of Socionics revert back to Freud and Jung who both extensively refer to many concepts such as "Authenticity" and "Psychological Projection", without an understanding of such concepts at a root directly observable level, its relatively hard to arrive at any reliable analysis. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Doesn't matter how extensive the machinery is between input and output, the best analysis is still garbage without good input data.

Down with the real numbers! Finite groups are the future of science!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

I'm chomping at the bit to post up some of my academic writing.

The only reason I'm not so decisive and so forth with psychology, is that, psychology isn't based on the same axioms as something like physics, mathematics, or engineering.

Psychology involves an analysis of the self based on axioms which relate to interpersonal and intrapersonal observations which are irreducible down to easily quantifiable components.

---

My analysis of your socionic type has nothing to do with your decisiveness over psychology. It has to do with what your verbalization tells me about your thought processes. Ultimately it comes down to me doing some reverse engineering and speculating about how you came to verbalize what you verbalized and meant what you meant and voicing a hypothesis about what information preferences you're displaying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

I can go into a laboratory and measure out 51 grams of Sodium Nitrate... I can't go into a laboratory and measure out 51 units of Extroverted Intuition. In many ways the basic axioms of Socionics revert back to Freud and Jung who both extensively refer to many concepts such as "Authenticity" and "Psychological Projection", without an understanding of such concepts at a root directly observable level, its relatively hard to arrive at any reliable analysis. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Doesn't matter how extensive the machinery is between input and output, the best analysis is still garbage without good input data.

---

I don't know how your use of the words psychological projection and authenticity in order to respond to Bolt has to do with quantifiable nature of science or the not so quantifiable nature of socionics. These were terms you chose to use in order to respond to his analysis of your type instead of other terms. If that's not a display of information preference, I don't know what is.

You can say that these were exceptional situations where you used these terms due to circumstance, but given your past history, verbalization and displays of information preference, it has lead to some skepticism for a number of people.

Earlier you said your goal in life is to be authentic. Is your goal in life just mere circumstance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkster

I agree that he's one of the coolest dudes around...

---

Me too, fwiw.

Yeah, I quite like him. But I kind of avoid contact to prevent conflict.

Body-energy-wise and in a few picturs, I am reminded of myself. Also Stephen Fry, who is Fe dominant, probably EIE (long-time best friends with Hugh Laurie, LSI extrodinaire), comes to mind, especially the eyes:

http://images.wikia.com/harrypotter/...phenfry300.jpg

http://www.superiorpics.com/wenn_alb...001_061606.jpg

http://www.comcomedy.com/blog/wp-con...ry-Twitter.jpg

You also have a similar look eye-wise to my girlfriend, another EIE, in these pictures. Maybe you are another really weird EIE who kind of secretly wishes he was an ILE, like me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkster

Yeah, I quite like him. But I kind of avoid contact to prevent conflict.

---

I feel the same about you, fwiw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

My analysis of your socionic type has nothing to do with your decisiveness over psychology. It has to do with what your verbalization tells me about your thought processes. Ultimately it comes down to me doing some reverse engineering and speculating about how you came to verbalize what you verbalized and meant what you meant and voicing a hypothesis about what information preferences you're displaying.

---

That seems like a sensible method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I don't know how your use of the words psychological projection and authenticity in order to respond to Bolt has to do with quantifiable nature of science or the not so quantifiable nature of socionics.

---

I'm saying I don't think merely using the word "psychological projection" is valid criteria for not being a thinker. I think its possible to build an analysis or argument around a claim that someone is "projecting" and utilize Ti or Te. I don't think merely making such a claim means someone is using an ethical function.

While many psychological and moral "thought" comes from ethical types, its possible thinking types, extrapolate these, due to them being sought after (DS/HA) and then perform analysis on them, which in turn serves the interest of ethical types with their DS/HA functions.

This is how I'd personally characterize my thought process and writing in psychology. I don't base my conclusions about things that are moral or psychological on my feelings, but rather on my thoughts derived from basic axioms which may pertain to subjects which traditionally appeal to ethical types; i.e. morality and psychology.

Ideally I would like to break down my views on morality and psychology into infalliable directly observable logical axioms, but I've noticed that this approach is ridiculously tedious and time consuming, so instead I accept certain things as "assumed" axioms in order to arrive at conclusive results, which may be overthrown if the basic axioms are held in contest by contrary evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

These were terms you chose to use in order to respond to his analysis of your type instead of other terms. If that's not a display of information preference, I don't know what is.

---

Yea but I don't feel like I would have personally invented the concepts of projection or authenticity, if they hadn't been things I had read about from other sources. While I did chose to use those terms, I didn't invent them as concepts, I merely borrowed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

You can say that these were exceptional situations where you used these terms due to circumstance, but given your past history, verbalization and displays of information preference, it has lead to some skepticism for a number of people.

---

Alright, that's fair and I can see how it would lead to skepticism, but I'm not convinced by the skeptics, that doesn't mean they are wrong... just that they haven't communicated their thoughts in such a manner to influence me to a differing opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Earlier you said your goal in life is to be authentic. Is your goal in life just mere circumstance?

---

I didn't mean it was my absolute goal in life... I meant it in context... like instead of attempting to be "good" or "bad"... instead I was content with just being "me".

I wouldn't like the idea of defining an absolute purpose to my existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

I'm saying I don't think merely using the word "psychological projection" is valid criteria for not being a thinker. I think its possible to build an analysis or argument around a claim that someone is "projecting" and utilize Ti or Te. I don't think merely making such a claim means someone is using an ethical function.

---

I think the verbalization has to be viewed in context. If reading from a text book and used the word psychological projection then it might be something that is not meaningful. However, you used it as a evaluation of Bolt's motivations and also a criticism of his reasoning. You used this evaluation of sentiment/feeling as criticism vs a criticism of his reasoning or factual means of criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

This is how I'd personally characterize my thought process and writing in psychology. I don't base my conclusions about things that are moral or psychological on my feelings, but rather on my thoughts derived from basic axioms which may pertain to subjects which traditionally appeal to ethical types; i.e. morality and psychology.

Ideally I would like to break down my views on morality and psychology into infalliable directly observable logical axioms, but I've noticed that this approach is ridiculously tedious and time consuming, so instead I accept certain things as "assumed" axioms in order to arrive at conclusive results, which may be overthrown if the basic axioms are held in contest by contrary evidence.

---

This is quite an alien thought process to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Yea but I don't feel like I would have personally invented the concepts of projection or authenticity, if they hadn't been things I had read about from other sources. While I did chose to use those terms, I didn't invent them as concepts, I merely borrowed them.

---

So you verbalize only what you've been taught? How many original concepts do people come up with anyways? I have a suspicion that almost every single concept most people will very give voice to is borrowed. Information preference has a way of picking and choosing the ones we have a affinity to.

You have that nerdy hyperindependent male thing going on, you remind me kinda of that one Southpark dude in your face, and your personality... it's sorta that big heartedness mixed with assholeness, and also your sensitivity mixed with you being 'intense' about how you portray that to others, and all in all you just seem like a loner that doesn't know how to connect to people well. And of course I have a lot of the same 'issues', so that's why our Like Vibrations have attracted us on this forum.

You remind me of myself in ways, I think we would get along a lot in real life but if you would try to get close to me in real life social situations I would be very wary and push you away and think like 'omg he's a male that means he either wants to anally rape me, or sociopathically and sadistically torture me in his basement and put me in a well. Probably both.' You're probably a nice guy, but it's better to be safe than sorry. All men have beast in them and they just wanna throat fuck everything. I mean sure they might feel guilty about it afterwards, but my poor throat is still sore from being fucked! Being guilty doesn't mean shit, you FUCKED MY THROAT STUPID MALE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

You used this evaluation of sentiment/feeling as criticism vs a criticism of his reasoning or factual means of criticism.

---

Sure, I guess if that's your representation of thinkers versus feelers, then maybe your argument holds weight.

But to me because the evaluation was intuitive/logical in its process rather than its subject or results, I saw it as an NT process. I didn't simply feel like bolt was projecting, that was more of a conclusion I determined through analyzing his post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Information preference has a way of picking and choosing the ones we have a affinity to.

---

I would think the information a person picks and chooses are the valued functions -- I always thought the strong functions would be the area that people invent, create, and exert their will in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

You have that nerdy hyperindependent male thing going on, you remind me kinda of that one Southpark dude in your face, and your personality... it's sorta that big heartedness mixed with assholeness, and also your sensitivity mixed with you being 'intense' about how you portray that to others, and all in all you just seem like a loner that doesn't know how to connect to people well. And of course I have a lot of the same 'issues', so that's why our Like Vibrations have attracted us on this forum.

---

Yea that's sadly pretty accurate... except the loner part isn't really absolute, I do have friends and such and people I connect with easily in real life. But I'm probably more of a loner than I am a "member of the crowd/scene", and I like to be left alone by certain people in public. In high school for example, to 80% of the population I was just some dude walking around like a loner, but to 20% of people that I knew... I was more friendly and open. Contrast this with the type of people who have reputations which expand throughout the entire school. So in that sense I am a loner, but I'm not too insecure about this sort of thing, because to me its a matter of being part of X crowd or Y crowd. If I don't relate to Y crowd and I do to X crowd, then it's nothing to feel bad about... in fact most of the popular high school types want to expand their reputation which depends on reinforcing this absurd notion that you want to part of their crowd but they continuously reject you, agreeing to feel bad about this rejection feeds power to them... being an individual though threatens this, so its absolutely critical that people portray individuals as "loners" and cast a negative light on it to cement their dominance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

I would be very wary and push you away and think like 'omg he's a male that means he either wants to anally rape me, or sociopathically and sadistically torture me in his basement and put me in a well. Probably both.' You're probably a nice guy, but it's better to be safe than sorry. All men have beast in them and they just wanna throat fuck everything. I mean sure they might feel guilty about it afterwards, but my poor throat is still sore from being fucked! Being guilty doesn't mean shit, you FUCKED MY THROAT STUPID MALE!

---

Lol realistically, I would probably do neither... I haven't anally raped or sociopathically sadistically tortured anyone. But I understand why you'd probably be wary or whatever -- because you fear the straightman-ness in people or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

But to me because the evaluation was intuitive/logical in its process rather than its subject or results, I saw it as an NT process. I didn't simply feel like bolt was projecting, that was more of a conclusion I determined through analyzing his post.

---

It's not just about the evaluation, it's also about why you used that evaluation as a criticism.
It's not like the evaluation invalidates any argument he makes about some tendencies you have. It's not like it's a rule that project makes a assessment invalid, not that one could even prove that Bolt is projecting.

Also why was this evaluation a NT process? I can see it as a intuitive process, but why is it a logical one? What sort of reasoning did you step thru to achieve this conclusion? Also ethical functions can also form these sort of conclusion, especially concerning the motivations and sympathies of people.

So you're making the assertion that your evaluation of Bolt's emotional state and use of that evaluation to criticize Bolt was a intuitive and logical response. Despite your assertion, the possibility exists for it to be a intuitive and ethical response. It is also imo more probable due to the nature of the evaluation and the means of criticism. i.e. That some emotional issue in Bolt causes his argument to be invalid. It doesn't make sense for this evaluation and methods of criticism to be logical.

Also, I should note that this is not the only time nor do I predict will it be the last time you make your arguments in this fashion. You seem to be more confident having your discussions this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

It's not just about the evaluation, it's also about why you used that evaluation as a criticism.
It's not like the evaluation invalidates any argument he makes about some tendencies you have. It's not like it's a rule that project makes a assessment invalid, not that one could even prove that Bolt is projecting.

Also why was this evaluation a NT process? I can see it as a intuitive process, but why is it a logical one? What sort of reasoning did you step thru to achieve this conclusion? Also ethical functions can also form these sort of conclusion, especially concerning the motivations and sympathies of people.

So you're making the assertion that your evaluation of Bolt's emotional state and use of that evaluation to criticize Bolt was a intuitive and logical response. Despite your assertion, the possibility exists for it to be a intuitive and ethical response. It is also imo more probable due to the nature of the evaluation and the means of criticism. i.e. That some emotional issue in Bolt causes his argument to be invalid. It doesn't make sense for this evaluation and methods of criticism to be logical.

Also, I should note that this is not the only time nor do I predict will it be the last time you make your arguments in this fashion. You seem to be more confident having your discussions this way.

---

So if a movie critic dislikes a movie for an emotional/ethical reason and writes a well thought out critical argument explaining his thoughts -- that makes the critic a feeling type?

Also I'm not revealing my thought process that led to my conclusion that Bolt was projecting, because the longer one's argument the more you give the opposition the ability to pick apart every little detail, so I keep some of my thoughts internal if I see a potential flame war errupting over something, then strategically introduce certain thoughts into the discussion I've had on the backburner at times I feel would benefit the discussion. I don't think it would really benefit going that deep, I'm interested mainly in what I said in the first sentence, I'm not beyond considering the possibility I'm an ethical type, but I'm far from being convinced of it.

Hmm. I think you have a strong moral ethic or something, lucid. You seem to have a lot of values and what you think is right/wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

Hmm. I think you have a strong moral ethic or something, lucid. You seem to have a lot of values and what you think is right/wrong.

---

Yeah, I've been noticing that too. Perhaps IEE is more likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

So if a movie critic dislikes a movie for an emotional/ethical reason and writes a well thought out critical argument explaining his thoughts -- that makes the critic a feeling type?

---

I don't see why this matters. It's not like a ethical type can't write out a well thought out critical argument, especially based on ethical rationalizations. For example, someone like Roger Ebert who I believe is a ethical type usually writes good and well thought commentary about movies, usually from a ethical perspective. It's not like it's wrong to be ethical or anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Also I'm not revealing my thought process that led to my conclusion that Bolt was projecting, because the longer one's argument the more you give the opposition the ability to pick apart every little detail, so I keep some of my thoughts internal if I see a potential flame war errupting over something, then strategically introduce certain thoughts into the discussion I've had on the backburner at times I feel would benefit the discussion. I don't think it would really benefit going that deep, I'm interested mainly in what I said in the first sentence, I'm not beyond considering the possibility I'm an ethical type, but I'm far from being convinced of it.

---

I might not need to scrutinize why you thought Bolt was projecting, especially when you start displaying your vulnerabilities and preferences right out in the open like this.

A. I don't want my thought processed to be picked at. *meanie*
B. I keep my thoughts to myself to avoid a flame war. *let's be friendly*
C. I introduce my thoughts only to benefit the discussion. *let's have a nice discussion*

It's alright, it's not like you can help it, you're only displaying your information preferences.

Hmm well, I'm still not convinced, but its worth the thought... I do have opinions on what's right and wrong but I've never taken that too be indications of ethical type. Tcaud frequently posts his opinions on politics and is polemic about them, and self-types as an LII?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki ILE description, Fe-HA

Enjoy lively, animated and fun interaction with people, but tend to be unemotional when left on their own. However, he is not inclined to create this atmosphere himself but can create situations where there is a good chance that others will take the emotional initiative and create a fun and emotionally stimulating atmosphere. Failure at such attempts are met with dismay, which the individual either hides or reacts to with frustration and annoyance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

A. I don't want my thought processed to be picked at. *meanie*

---

Enjoy lively, animated and fun interaction with people

also "meanie" is a rather poor characterization, Its more like I didn't make this thread to be scrutinized lol... I made it to get VI'd and so that people could see what I look like in RL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

B. I keep my thoughts to myself to avoid a flame war. *let's be friendly*

---

Enjoy lively, animated and fun interaction with people

Also it's not "let's be friendly"... it's more like, I don't want to dedicate my resources and energy on this front. I can be a prime asshole if I wanted to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

C. I introduce my thoughts only to benefit the discussion. *let's have a nice discussion*

---

Failure at such attempts are met with dismay, which the individual either hides or reacts to with frustration and annoyance.

Once again to benefit the discussion doesn't mean "let's have a nice discussion"... it means strategically communicating.

In a battle you don't display your entire army to the enemy, you send in enough force to do the job, while keeping the rest in reserve. I'm only communicating small pieces of thought to communicate my point, then keeping the rest of my lengthy thoughts in reserve to be summoned when they are most appropriate to drive my argument forward. I only have soo much energy, I can't afford to waste it all arguing with you and bolt.

Conclusion: I think you are describing Fe-DS

Source: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...gical_Extratim

long term normally people have known me to get pissed off... right now I'm choosing the first of the two options, I have no problems displaying my dominant functions more outwardly in an atmosphere that is generally more ambiable and warm to their reception. Bolt ignited the topic with very pointed criticisms, almost personal, that had me thinking "here we go again". In fact this topic has been making me hyper-analyze myself (with Ti) everywhere I go in real life, when I need to be focused on work in real life -- so I'd argue I am approaching it from a thinking standpoint.

HaveLucidDreamz, your interpretations in the descriptions and/or his quotes have 36000000000 degrees of freedom. On short there's no logical implication between them.
When you take something like that out the context of the description, you make the mistake of forgetting that your interpretation may - in your case it grossly does - violate other statements of the same description. From the same one:

Quote:

---

The ILE is not afraid of discussing and arguing his views, and may appear to take them more seriously than he actually does. The ILE only makes use of structural frameworks if he can see some kind of intuitive relevance in them, e.g. to make sense of and solve a problem he is interested in. Thus his thoughts may often appear unstructured. Especially if his actions affect others, the ILE will make sure that they are logically consistent and fair.

---

Enjoying fun does not equal fearing confrontation, you make a logical fallacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

Enjoying fun does not equal fearing confrontation, you make a logical fallacy.

---

Lol I don't fear confrontation, I just wish you'd put down your opinion and leave the the topic. It really seems like you've gone a step further, and you're really trying to advocate or push a certain view and almost seemingly influence other people to it for some strange motive... why is it even important to you what type I am??? I mean honestly, why do you care?

Plus are we not arguing now? If you really think about it, and have I not argued in the past with people... when you really think about it.

You need to just go get your jollies off elsewhere, I'm not interested in your opinion anymore.

Here is a post in which I use Ne along with Ti, to take the a logically consistent system (DCNH) using Ti and apply to an argument. I think I used Ne by seeing a relatively new manner in which DCNH can be applied, utilizing an existing logical system.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...6&postcount=28

Also notice, I did it without confrontation, like you seem to think is necessary for a person to be ILE, they need to sodomize people with their opinions.

here is another post

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...3&postcount=44

I use Ne and Ti, to tie in the logical systems of physics/mathematics to the logical systems of DCNH/socionics, utilizing Ne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

why is it even important to you what type I am??? I mean honestly, why do you care?

---

I see no relevance in these questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Plus are we not arguing now? If you really think about it, and have I not argued in the past with people... when you really think about it.

---

That was not the point, "arguing". The idea is that you're not arguing so that we can find out what's correct or not - that need for "logical consistency" which you neglect in the descriptions of ILEs and taking it from me as some sort of "forcefulness", imposition or self-righteousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

You need to just go get your jollies off elsewhere, I'm not interested in your opinion anymore.

---

I don't want to bother you, but I remind you of two things:
1. I did not started this debate with you, in fact I was talking to someone else without even imagining that you will take my neutral statements as criticism. Like I said, it is apparent that all your problem was that someone was so bold to describe you, as it was some sort of forbidden area that no one ca discuss without your permission. It's not, you're just a subject for dissection like any other to me.
2. I was only discussing your type, counteracting some claims that you could be ILE. I'm not interested in your private life or aptitudes, but in what concerns your typing. Therefore, this is a user typing thread like any other, the only inappropriate thing was probably discussing your type beyond VI, a discussion in which you participated, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

also "meanie" is a rather poor characterization, Its more like I didn't make this thread to be scrutinized lol... I made it to get VI'd and so that people could see what I look like in RL.

---

Sorry, if I don't do what I'm supposed to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Enjoy lively, animated and fun interaction with people

Also it's not "let's be friendly"... it's more like, I don't want to dedicate my resources and energy on this front. I can be a prime asshole if I wanted to.

---

A flame war might be viewed as lively, animated and fun.
Anyways, I don't think I've flamed you or tried to attack you personally, only pointed out a few of my observations. I hope you're not afraid of the scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Once again to benefit the discussion doesn't mean "let's have a nice discussion"... it means strategically communicating.

---

Three cheers for strategic communication boys and girls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

long term normally people have known me to get pissed off... right now I'm choosing the first of the two options, I have no problems displaying my dominant functions more outwardly in an atmosphere that is generally more ambiable and warm to their reception.

---

People don't just use their ego functions during specific times, they use it all the time. These functions are constantly engaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Bolt ignited the topic with very pointed criticisms, almost personal, that had me thinking "here we go again". In fact this topic has been making me hyper-analyze myself (with Ti) everywhere I go in real life, when I need to be focused on work in real life -- so I'd argue I am approaching it from a thinking standpoint.

---

Yea, I hyper-analyze [missing word]with[/missing word] my vulnerable function(usually getting nowhere) too but I don't really talk about it, except in private with trusted people and usually to seek their advice or comfort. Your ego functions is what you are confident in talking about with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It's how you deal with impersonal society and the people that populate it.

I'm sorry that this discussion has taken away from your productivity and I don't think it is necessary to convince you. But I think there is a lot others can learn from my scrutiny of how you present your information beyond this discussion or any rhetorical persuasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Here is a post in which I use Ne along with Ti, to take the a logically consistent system (DCNH) using Ti and apply to an argument. I think I used Ne by seeing a relatively new manner in which DCNH can be applied, utilizing an existing logical system.

---

Why did you connect a subtype theory to quadra behavior? Luckily this particular subtype theory is based in temperament so the analogies apply from temperament, but you can't make a direct connection between DCNH and Quadra values.

DCNH is actually entirely outside the scope of your conclusions and analysis. Only the terminology is loosely similar to the description of the functions in question and the DCNH subtypes match up with temperaments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

I see no relevance in these questions.

---

I thought Ti-types liked to argue!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

The idea is that you're not arguing so that we can find out what's correct or not

---

Because I don't have time to explain it to someone who I think isn't receptive to more than a single minded viewpoint. I don't enjoy the process of attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole... your head being the round hole, and my arguments being the square peg. I've been there and done that 1000 times on this forum, I've witnessed arguments on type go on for several years. I'm not wasting my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

need for "logical consistency" which you neglect in the descriptions of ILEs and taking it from me as some sort of "forcefulness"

---

Of course there is a need for logical consistency, but I don't see how its efficient to focus your efforts on meager me on an internet forum. If you pay attention to reality, all over the world logical inconsistency is abundant in the forms of contrasting ideology. I don't understand why its efficient to put so much effort into me, when there are far more pressing uses of your time if "logical consistency" is your goal.

Take something such as american politics. The platforms of republicans and democrats couldn't hardly be more divided and mutually exclusive. They are designed that way as a necessity of bi-partisanship. This generates a populus which is logically inconsistent over their agenda. Why don't you tackle that problem, attempting to make all those people consistent with each other to the "truth", rather than waste your time with little old me in corner of some obscure internet forum.

I will say, in terms of inconsistency in my behavior and the ILE description, that their is no inconsistency, as the descriptions says the ILE is not afraid to argue or discuss his views.

It doesn't say the ILE always argues or discusses his views when the opportunity arrises.

For two reasons (why do I fucking have to waste my time explaining this out...)

1) Not being afraid to do something, doesn't mean you are immediately going to do it? Are you too afraid to leave this topic? I'm guessing you'd answer no... but that doesn't mean you are going to leave this topic (which I wish you would)... because being afraid/unafraid does not have a direct correlation to action/inaction.

2) You've forgotten to account for "his" views, this implies a particular ownership. It's not a simple topic that is introduced to the ILE. There is a difference between discussing something that originates from own will and belongs to them and discussing something which is being coerced or asked of them out of the will of another person.

You are an ILE, let's imagine a thought experiment, if I paid a man $400,000 dollars to find where you lived, follow you around and ask you questions, specifically questions which I had selected that were annoying to you. Everywhere you went in public this man would follow you and ask you questions, he would revise his strategy often in the best way, solely to annoy you. An example of a question would be asking a man who recently divorced his wife because she cheated on him "Why did your wife cheat on you?". Questions like this.

Now... would it be suffice to say that after a given amount of time you would choose willfully to ignore this person, ask them to leave, attempt to pay them off, retreat from them, request a restraining order, or simply brutally kill them for peace of mind?

I find it hard to believe that somehow, one must answer every inquiry that comes there way with enthusiasm and gusto for them to be ILE, and any attempt to sidestep such inquiries is infalliable proof that they are not ILE.

I think if you honestly consider such a thought experiment, the "question" man and the ILE... that you could plainly see, that this is a poor and sloppy characterization of the ILE thought process.

It is much different when the ILE feels a sense of ownership to a particular new idea or prospect, that they strongly advocate. This is derived from the base function Ne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

I don't want to bother you, but I remind you of two things:
1. I did not started this debate with you, in fact I was talking to someone else without even imagining that you will take my neutral statements as criticism. Like I said, it is apparent that all your problem was that someone was so bold to describe you, as it was some sort of forbidden area that no one ca discuss without your permission. It's not, you're just a subject for dissection like any other to me.

---

That's reasonable, but the way I read most of it was "your writing style sucks, you argue shitty, and you talk too much about moral shit".

I don't really have a problem investigating this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

2. I was only discussing your type, counteracting some claims that you could be ILE. I'm not interested in your private life or aptitudes, but in what concerns your typing. Therefore, this is a user typing thread like any other, the only inappropriate thing was probably discussing your type beyond VI, a discussion in which you participated, though.

---

Yea, I don't have a problem discussing it further.

I guess its more the pressure you apply when going about a re-typing, you've heard of false confession, if enough shear will power and determination is applied to a person when undergoing interrogation, its possible to break them and make them believe they committed a crime they did not. Much of the time I feel you have a sort of obstinate method for getting your point across, I don't feel particularly convinced by its elegance and validity, but rather experience it in terms of the sheer force of your confidence in your opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Sorry, if I don't do what I'm supposed to do.

---

Lol I wasn't attempting to program you or anything, I was just explain my motivation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

A flame war might be viewed as lively, animated and fun.
Anyways, I don't think I've flamed you or tried to attack you personally, only pointed out a few of my observations. I hope you're not afraid of the scrutiny.

---

I'm not but while flame wars can be lively, animated, and fun... I'm personally not in the mood for one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Three cheers for strategic communication boys and girls.

---

Lol apparently mocking me is a good example of Ti and Ne in action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

People don't just use their ego functions during specific times, they use it all the time. These functions are constantly engaged.

---

Reference please, before we continue discussing this point, please reference your claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Yea, I hyper-analyze my vulnerable function(usually getting nowhere) too but I don't really talk about it, except in private with trusted people and usually to seek their advice or comfort. Your ego functions is what you are confident in talking about with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It's how you deal with impersonal society and the people that populate it.

---

Lol wait a second, I said due to this topic I was hyper-analyzing myself... I didn't say I was hyper-analyzing my Ti or anything, see as far as you know you don't know what the nature of these hyper-analytics are, although you've quickly jumped to a conclusion about them, which to me shows your approaching my type with an agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I'm sorry that this discussion has taken away from your productivity and I don't think it is necessary to convince you. But I think there is a lot others can learn from my scrutiny of how you present your information beyond this discussion or any rhetorical persuasion.

---

Well I'd actually disagree. I think your analysis is tainted with personal bias, but I'm not going to go into depth because its a waste of time.

Also let me say, I didn't invalidate Bolt's analysis based on him projecting, I decided it wasn't worth the effort because he was projecting, I quickly took his points though, looked at them from my point of view, and determined them to be false, then went on with my life, as it wasn't worth the effort debating a person who is projecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt

I see no relevance in these questions.

That was not the point, "arguing". The idea is that you're not arguing so that we can find out what's correct or not - that need for "logical consistency" which you neglect in the descriptions of ILEs and taking it from me as some sort of "forcefulness", imposition or self-righteousness.

---

Phaedrus 2.0

or should I say,

Phaedrus 2: Electric Boogaloo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Apparently mocking me is a good example of Ti and Ne in action.

---

You certainly lack a sense of fun communication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Reference please, before we continue discussing this point, please reference your claim.

---

Supposedly you're a researcher, do your research. Oh well I supposed you need a bibliography and a manual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz

Lol wait a second, I said due to this topic I was hyper-analyzing myself... I didn't say I was hyper-analyzing my Ti or anything, see as far as you know you don't know what the nature of these hyper-analytics are, although you've quickly jumped to a conclusion about them, which to me shows your approaching my type with an agenda.

---

Sorry for the confusion. I missed a word. I meant hyper-analyzing myself with my vulnerable function.

What's my agenda? Am I out to get you? Are you paranoid? My only agenda is I don't think you're ILE and maybe not logical.

Wait, maybe I do have a hidden agenda. There is a audience. I guess it's not so hidden anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

You certainly lack a sense of fun communication.

---

Fe-PoLR!????? Let's retype.....!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Supposedly you're a researcher, do your research. Oh well I supposed you need a bibliography and a manual.

---

Pfftt. lame argument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

Sorry for the confusion. I missed a word. I meant hyper-analyzing myself with my vulnerable function.

---

Lol ok the insertion of that word completely changed my mind!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

What's my agenda? Am I out to get you? Are you paranoid? My only agenda is I don't think you're ILE and maybe not logical.

---

You may be, you may not be, I really don't know you, your word means very little... but there is no reason to assume maliciousness at this point.

@ hkkmr and bolt


CAN WE AGREE TO DISAGREE, FINALLY??? I'll accept the fact you think I'm ____ Type, and You accept the fact I think I'm ILE, you can even think I'm wrong, it won't bother me at all or if you desire I can pretend to be bother by it.... and then we can both get on with life? Just tell yourself, I am unable to be convinced by your arguments because of that Ti-PoLR :wink: -- also I don't care if you continue discussing your arguments for my retype, but could you at least do it in a different thread?

I'll let you all have the last word... and then please, could you go to another thread if you wish to continue the conservation?