Here

Myst, do people dislike you this much in person too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

Can you provide examples where this is the case? Considering I have yet to see either of you demonstrate Ti, this is laughable.

---

Lol, speak for yourself. I'm framing this exchange here for posterity:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

You didn't refute it. You simply said it's not a strawman, that's not refuting it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

Yes it is. One of the definitions for refute is 'to deny the truth or accuracy of': https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Wow, okay, then I'll just deny the truth or accuracy of your claims about all my posts now and in future too. :)

We are done here. :)

---

No1 else noticed her brown-nosing immediately prior to this to garner support? No1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

No1 else noticed her brown-nosing immediately prior to this to garner support? No1?

---

You can speak for yourself too. Go flush yourself back down your toilet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

Myst, do people dislike you this much in person too?

---

Squark != people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

You can speak for yourself too. Go flush yourself back down your toilet.

---

I was referring to you. Prior to this conversation, she brown-nosed you. Then she entered this conversation. You sided in the conversation on the side of the person who just brown-nosed you. And again you do.

You're not cognizant of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Squark != people.

---

People in general dislike you on the forums. I am asking if people dislike you similarly in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

I was referring to you. Prior to this conversation, she brown-nosed you. Then she entered this conversation. You sided in the conversation on the side of the person who just brown-nosed you. And again you do.

You're not cognizant of this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

People in general dislike you on the forums. I am asking if people dislike you similarly in real life.

---

And I was referring to you too, genius. I've been friends with Myst for a long time. You're asking funny questions for someone who has been multi-forum banned and has made zero sane friends throughout his "legacy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

And I was referring to you too, genius. I've been friends with Myst for a long time. You're asking funny questions for someone who has been multi-forum banned and has made zero sane friends throughout his "legacy".

---

Not asking funny questions at all. Pointing out something obvious which you are not aware of. That's contact Fi-.

Well, glad I cleared that up lol.

Mirrors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

People in general dislike you on the forums. I am asking if people dislike you similarly in real life.

---

Nope, they don't dislike me in general either on the forum or IRL.

Notice how only two trolls, you and Slade have been supporting squark's shit stirring here.

But, I asked squark to stop, I'm asking you too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Nope, they don't dislike me in general either on the forum or IRL.

Notice how only two trolls, you and Slade have been supporting squark's shit stirring here.

---

Wait... You don't realize that people dislike you? That's so weird...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Actually, there are more complex ways of operationalizing the Socionics model than that but there are issues even then. I recently posted about this topic actually.

---

Even the idea of breaking something down in a detailed, categorical and operational manner is biased. The functions are always interpreted in an arbitrary, biased manner... you can never escape that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

Wait... You don't realize that people dislike you? That's so weird...

---

You and your trolly fantasies again that have nothing to do with reality. A couple people may dislike me like that's the case for any other people on here or anywhere else, but there is no such thing as "general dislike" explicitly going on like that, only in your imagination.

So. I don't care about your fantasizing, and this is my last word to you on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

Even the idea of breaking something down in a detailed, categorical and operational manner is biased. The functions are always interpreted in an arbitrary, biased manner... you can never escape that.

---

I'd love someone doing proper scientific research on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

You and your trolly fantasies again that have nothing to do with reality. A couple people may dislike me like that's the case for any other people on here or anywhere else, but there is no such thing as "general dislike" explicitly going on like that, only in your imagination.

So. I don't care about your fantasizing, and this is my last word to you on this.

---

That's your imagination stating otherwise lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

And exactly, they didn't have to be explained, which can be very well seen if you read on about the convo at the link I gave. Stop your bs.

---

You can stop calling the truth, with links and evidence that you provided bs at any time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

And equations, you misunderstood that too, I was talking about it in the sense DarkAngelFireWolf69 meant the dichotomies, and I reject his conclusions, or any ideas on drawing connections there, yes, and I have reasoning for it.

---

Really? Oh really. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

I absolutely don't agree with those equations on "Negative Dynamic = Process. Positive Static = Process. Positive Dynamic = Result". That to me is way too much Ne and logical jumps, so again it's completely without any tangible grounding and without any way to directly logically deduce those things.

---

If it was about DarkAngelFireWolf69, then you would have used his categories, these are just straight Reinin dichotomies. What the above means is that if someone is Negative as well as Dynamic, then they are also a process type. Negative, dynamic types are always process types. Positive, static types are also always process types. Positive Dynamic types are always result types. This is how Reinin dichotomies work. None of this has anything at all to do with DarkAngelFireWolf69 or his conclusions.

So Myst, tell me, who exactly is BSing? Because it's sure as hell not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

That's your imagination stating otherwise lol

---

*closes the toilet lid* Bye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

*closes the toilet lid* Bye

---

Too late. Deduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

What do you type her if anything?


Let me be clear, I said I'm seriously considering ESI for her (I did before too along with SLI), but I didn't exclude SLI. The Fi/Te valuing is clear, the dimensionality of Fi beyond how she does seem to find it important and rely on it a lot, that can be argued still, or her approach to goals, etc. I don't have any more time for a while for typing her (or most other people) tho', so I'll end my input here.


One last comment on that is that I agree with you on her not demonstrating Ti, for example here:

"You can categorize without judging. It's done all the time, when you sort bolts, or arrange your closet, go to the library, find a parking place. Things have categories, places in which they go."
(From here, I've just read it now and remembered this thread.)


As for the examples you asked for, here's one off the top of my head where she got frustrated and ended the discussion.

---

Yeah, I was talking about you and niffer. It should have followed from my previous statements, this is the kind of stuff I look at and wonder why you think you are good at Ti. I don't see a problem with LSI. As far as your examples go, ironically, thats the first example of Ti you have given me. Can you explain how it isn't? I'm also curious why you deflect conversational tangents so much. I did ask for examples of your Ti. I think you might think Ti is something other than what it is. I've never had to ask a supposed Ti ego to explain so much lol.

Alright, we got an SEE and an ESI. Shall we go for a trifecta?!

:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

Wait... You don't realize that people dislike you? That's so weird...

---

This is partially why this is so fascinating, she literally rejects anything that doesn't conform to her ideas of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

Too late. Deduced.

---

*de-deuced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

This is partially why this is so fascinating, she literally rejects anything that doesn't conform to her ideas of reality.

---

Lol, at this coming from an LII (you) and EII (Jeremy), two reality-free Se polrs. And two pieces of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

This is partially why this is so fascinating, she literally rejects anything that doesn't conform to her ideas of reality.

---

I literally did this same thing last night to someone else in a conversation in which she was involved in and even commented on these same exact methods...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

*de-deuced

---

That was a terrible pun. Especially if you meant "douche."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

That was a terrible pun. Especially if you meant "douche."

---

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=A%20DEUCE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

Lol, at this coming from an LII (you) and EII (Jeremy), two reality-free Se polrs. And two pieces of shit.

---

He doesn't have a type listed :thinking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=A%20DEUCE

---

Ah, okay. So it was just a bad pun then.

It's a link to a description of your personality type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

He doesn't have a type listed :thinking:

---

That's what she thinks my type is. She's wrong though, but it's funny seeing her think that :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

It's a link to a description of your personality type.

---

You sure like talking about poop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

That's what she thinks my type is. She's wrong though, but it's funny seeing her think that :biggrin:

---

Ne- somewhere. Constructivist. Declatim.

:thinking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy8419

You sure like talking about poop

---

She also poses like she has poop. Problems with toilet training from childhood ?
@niffer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

You can stop calling the truth, with links and evidence that you provided bs at any time.

---

The links and evidence show that I responded to that line of yours as "I don't see the need to point out basic theory here. See above."

Where the reference to "above" was the earlier part of that post of mine with me explaining what you guessed wrong about what I think or don't think.

Quote:

---

Really? Oh really. . .

---

Yep. If you don't follow why, feel free to ask but forgive me if right now I doubt you have genuine interest in trying to understand what I'm saying.

Quote:

---

If it was about DarkAngelFireWolf69, then you would have used his categories, these are just straight Reinin dichotomies. What the above means is that if someone is Negative as well as Dynamic, then they are also a process type. Negative, dynamic types are always process types. Positive, static types are also always process types. Positive Dynamic types are always result types. This is how Reinin dichotomies work. None of this has anything at all to do with DarkAngelFireWolf69 or his conclusions.

So Myst, tell me, who exactly is BSing? Because it's sure as hell not me.

---

You are getting stuck on small details here, specifically only on the Reinin dichotomies, which is okay, I don't mind (I can get stuck on details too myself even if in a bit different way), just don't try to claim that I don't understand anything because of that lol. I'll spell it out for you below as to what I meant, though.

The main topic was DarkAngelFireWolf69's cognitive styles for which these dichotomies are fundamental. I was referring to all the related "equations" from your post in the original thread that I quoted in my post there back then. So then what I meant by the wording of "in the sense DarkAngelFireWolf69 meant the dichotomies" was that I was talking about the dichotomies within the logical context of his theory and yes his conclusions (and mine) do depend on this. The dichotomies themselves are of course Reinin dichotomies, I didn't say they were not. I do reject those too, btw but I made that clear already. And yes, I reject them regardless of DarkAngelFireWolf69, too, but again, my main focus here was on DarkAngelFireWolf69's theory. Of course, I can explicitly point it out if it was not clear to you that I do fundamentally reject the other "equations" too that directly involve DarkAngelFireWolf69's categories, such as "Dynamic deductive = DA" etc. But that was the whole point of that post of mine in there. So your nitpicking here really missed the point, sorry.

So as for missing the point... In general either, I don't really see you as getting to any real point with reciting these fact bits of the theory about the dichotomies. You nitpick at irrelevant things from my reasoning. This is how I see it yup. (To add something positive, I do not mind your detail orientation itself, that's fine. I have it too but with a slightly different emphasis.)

No wonder we are often not on the same page. We see different things as relevant. You like your fact recitals while I'm focusing on formalizing the logical relations between parts of things and I firmly accept or reject things based on this. We think very differently, yes, that's not BS, the BS is that you think it's just me not getting you, sigh. I ask you to calm down a bit and consider that you don't entirely get where I'm coming from.

Which btw is fine by me, I just accept we don't see stuff the same way. I don't mind arguments either as long as it doesn't end up in you making remarks about me personally, that's just annoying and has no point, at best (if not done with malice) it's just you being unable to hold back from venting your emotional frustrations. This request is for the future in general: please find another way to get rid of that without doing this much shitting around in public on the forum. Feel free to vent to me in PM, you are welcome to do that there, but not on the forum, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr inappropriate

She also poses like she has poop.

---

All for you @Mr inappropriate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

That's what she thinks my type is. She's wrong though, but it's funny seeing her think that :biggrin:

---

You find the worst things funny and you are twisted. All you have done since joining this forum has been harassing random members. It must be some kind of twisted fetish that if you cannot get laid or hatefuck IRL all you do is hatepost at people, since it's usually at women. If you ask Jeremy nicely I'm sure he will toss your salad for you.

@Myst. you can stop trying to cover up. It doesn't matter what people think about your ability to understand things or lack thereof. Notice how instead of actually using logic, you just keep talking about how "logical" you are. This grates on me, but I was serious when I said I'd try to be more patient with you, and I will. And I can see that any question regarding your comprehension is a sore spot. So I'll leave it be.

Figured Niffer was a boy... Hmmm... Oh well...

Harassment is subjective. It either passes reasonable person standard or it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't.

You're really bad at insults, Niffer lol. Sound like Trump.

I wonder just how much this conversation needs to escalate to the point where mods will realize keeping crappy trolls on here creates a bad impression for outsiders reading publicly viewable threads and is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

All for you @Mr inappropriate

---

Not very good at flirting, it seems :frustrated: