Offensive descriptions of types

[machintruc]

Only personality type with some remote similarities is LII:

As Dmitri Lytov has pointed out, the ILI is also described as slightly autistic, and if you read ILI type descriptions you will find many of the typical Asperger traits.

Sure there are some, but there are lot in Asperger's that contradict with ILI's description. The similarities might just as well be coincidental. The more autistic someone is, the less they resemble ILI's.

Which of the Asperger traits contradict most clearly with ILI's description, in your opinion?

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

People with Asperger's demand rutine. They'll have a fit if their rutine is broken somehow.

Asperger's have very few interests, and with those they have an obsession. While ILI's have wide range of interests, usually the interests dwell in areas that aren't mundane.

Asperger's are very honest. ILI's actually are very deceptive, especially if they have to talk about themselves.

Asperger's sometimes have no sense of humor.

Line 1 : supposes that Asperger = Sensing (xSxx)
Line 2 : supposes that Asperger = Rationality (xxxJ)
Line 3 : supposes that Asperger = Introtimness (Ixxx)
Line 4 : supposes that Asperger = Ethics (xxFx)

Therefore : Asperger = ESI

An ESI may be diagnosed Asperger (I know ESI pretty well because my father is himself ESI), but they are mainly ILI.

Let's do a table for AS diagnosis (1 = rare (but cases exist) ; 2 = moderate ; 3 = frequent)

ESE : 1 - SEI : 2 - ILE : 2 - LII : 3
EIE : 1 - IEI : 2 - SLE : 1 - LSI : 2
SEE : 1 - ESI : 2 - LIE : 2 - ILI : 3
IEE : 1 - EII : 2 - LSE : 1 - SLI : 2

1 for EF and EST
2 for IF, IST and ENT
3 for INT

total points for preferences :

E 10 I 18
S 12 N 16
T 16 F 12
democracy 16 aristocracy 12 (Aspies are mainly Alpha and Gamma)
compliance 16 obstinacy 12 (but IT has 10 points)

all other preferences 14.

Although I think stereotypical Asperger is ILI. If introtimness would have a stereotype, it would be ILI.

In classical psychology tests (FFM-like), ILI score the least in the "Extroversion" factor.

[FDG]

Machintruch you should check your logic...

[BLauritson]

ILI's actually are very deceptive, especially if they have to talk about themselves.

Not necessarily. The potential is there, definitely, but that doesn't make it a matter of course.

[Phaedrus]

Which of the Asperger traits contradict most clearly with ILI's description, in your opinion?

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Two famous people that clearly had Asperger: Albert Einstein and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Do you mean that they were below average in imagination and were unintuitive? What to you mean by "imagination" then?

People with Asperger's demand rutine. They'll have a fit if their rutine is broken somehow.

INTps fear rules and adore them, because what's clear – they fear, unclear – they dear! Nevertheless, they stick to the rules and they demand the same from others. The rules that can be interpreted in many ways guarantee freedom. Ironically, INTps learn about their environment through studying of the limitations. If the rule states you can't say "knee" and INTp decides to respect and obey it they could get extremely annoyed with someone who decides to ignore it.

The rules for INTps often transform into rituals and they have no problems with rituals. Because of this INTps could get comfortable with routine, often mistyping themselves into J types, resulting in many of them thinking of themselves as INTjs . However the most common way is for INTps to type themselves into INTxs, with undecided preference for J or P.

Both at work and at home The Critic likes peace and harmony. He values comfort, cleanness and order. However, due to his inertia he does not always achieve what he wants.

He himself repeatedly, and scrupulously, checks on everything before beginning to act.

The work is strictly on technology, slowly and clearly, looking into all the details. It can be rigorous and scrupulous to pedantry.

Asperger's have very few interests, and with those they have an obsession. While ILI's have wide range of interests, usually the interests dwell in areas that aren't mundane.

People with Asperger can be obsessed with many things at different times. At one time they can dive deeply into one subject, at other times into another. During a lifetime, their favourite areas can change many times.

Individuals of this psycho-type seem encyclopedically formed. However, also characteristic of them, is that they harbour conservative qualities relating with their distrust of anything new, which has not survived sufficient criticism or any sort of process with an unknown conclusion.

Big sceptic and pessimistic. Passive and more conservative: does not like change, the excesses of a hurry and goryachatsya. The distrust of enthusiasts, encourages them to judgment. Very erudirovan, likes to accumulate information on issues of concern to it.

Is meticulous: Going out of the room, even briefly, checks off whether gas, electricity, the closure of the slots ...

Asperger's are very honest. ILI's actually are very deceptive, especially if they have to talk about themselves.

Balzac in any situation tries to appear objective. He with the pleasure demonstrates this his quality.

But acting in the interests of "absolute objectivity", it frequently falls into the awkward position: thinking about the absolute validity of its behavior, frequently forgets their ethical aspect – "it is correct with respect to whom?"

In any dispute Balzac holds demonstrative neutrality, trying no one not "to accompany". Its relation to any act it expresses not as particular, personal opinion, but seemingly advances certain, as it it seems, objective and correct evaluation. Balzac loves himself to place in the position of judge for it characteristically not simple to voice his opinion, namely "to carry judgment" for each question (even if to it it is proposed to only discuss theme).

It tries to be objective in all his arguments and reasoning facts.

Asperger's sometimes have no sense of humor.

It tries to stay calm and correct, sounds intelligent, sophisticated conversation. Rarely laughing, it is more sad smile.

[Jarno]

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Asperger is a very light version of autism if I remember correctly.

[machintruc]

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Asperger is a very light version of autism if I remember correctly.

so EIE is a very light version of manic depression.

[Warlord]

Which of the Asperger traits contradict most clearly with ILI's description, in your opinion?

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Two famous people that clearly had Asperger: Albert Einstein and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Do you mean that they were below average in imagination and were unintuitive? What to you mean by "imagination" then?

They are 2 famous examples of people who don't have Asperger's misdiagnosed so by some people, so that Asperger support groups can name drop more people to gain support for their cause. It's more wishful thinking, than a credible diagnosis. I'm talking now about proper diagnostic criterias, not something done by some sunday-psychiatrist. No one with any credibilty would start diagnosing dead people, who they have never even met.

People with Asperger's demand rutine. They'll have a fit if their rutine is broken somehow.

INTps fear rules and adore them, because what's clear – they fear, unclear – they dear! Nevertheless, they stick to the rules and they demand the same from others. The rules that can be interpreted in many ways guarantee freedom. Ironically, INTps learn about their environment through studying of the limitations. If the rule states you can't say "knee" and INTp decides to respect and obey it they could get extremely annoyed with someone who decides to ignore it.

The rules for INTps often transform into rituals and they have no problems with rituals. Because of this INTps could get comfortable with routine, often mistyping themselves into J types, resulting in many of them thinking of themselves as INTjs . However the most common way is for INTps to type themselves into INTxs, with undecided preference for J or P.

Both at work and at home The Critic likes peace and harmony. He values comfort, cleanness and order. However, due to his inertia he does not always achieve what he wants.

He himself repeatedly, and scrupulously, checks on everything before beginning to act.

The work is strictly on technology, slowly and clearly, looking into all the details. It can be rigorous and scrupulous to pedantry.

What has rules anything to do with daily rutine? Find me an INTp that will start to cry and scream out of control, or throw things, or start hitting people. If they don't get to eat their favourite cereals from their special batman bowl at excatly 10:00. And I will find you 10000 INTp's that miss their planned dinner time all the time, and don't mind the slightest.

You just point to another contradiction. People with Asperger's have trouble with rules, because they don't understand them. And also because people with Asperger's don't understand the consequences that actions have, something that's very unlike of INTp's. That's one of the main reasons why people with Asperger's have social problems, lack of intuition.

Want is not demand. People who really get upset about something, try to do everything so they don't "often fail". People who "often fail", don't really care about the thing they wanted.

There's a huge difference between "mistaken J'ness" and "uncertainty", to being an extreme J.

And actually I don't agree with some of those statements. Some profiles tell totally different story, actually probably the same profiles where you quoted those from. INTp's are often oblivious to their surroundings, and have messy surroundings, and don't like doing menial tasks like cleaning. The order that INTp's like is different type than that of Asperger's.

Asperger's have very few interests, and with those they have an obsession. While ILI's have wide range of interests, usually the interests dwell in areas that aren't mundane.

People with Asperger can be obsessed with many things at different times. At one time they can dive deeply into one subject, at other times into another. During a lifetime, their favourite areas can change many times.

And having one (or very few) interest at one time, is suddenly same as having many interests at the same time? You aren't making any sense whatsover.

Individuals of this psycho-type seem encyclopedically formed. However, also characteristic of them, is that they harbour conservative qualities relating with their distrust of anything new, which has not survived sufficient criticism or any sort of process with an unknown conclusion.

Big sceptic and pessimistic. Passive and more conservative: does not like change, the excesses of a hurry and goryachatsya. The distrust of enthusiasts, encourages them to judgment. Very erudirovan, likes to accumulate information on issues of concern to it.

Is meticulous: Going out of the room, even briefly, checks off whether gas, electricity, the closure of the slots ...

That's so bad machine translation, that I suppose you just draw crazy own interpretations from it. I don't see that anything to do with being obsessed about single interest. Except that encyclopediac generally means person that knows lot about lot. Not someone that is only interested in single subject.

And again I disagree with some of the statements, and so do some other profiles.

Asperger's are very honest. ILI's actually are very deceptive, especially if they have to talk about themselves.

Balzac in any situation tries to appear objective. He with the pleasure demonstrates this his quality.

But acting in the interests of "absolute objectivity", it frequently falls into the awkward position: thinking about the absolute validity of its behavior, frequently forgets their ethical aspect – "it is correct with respect to whom?"

In any dispute Balzac holds demonstrative neutrality, trying no one not "to accompany". Its relation to any act it expresses not as particular, personal opinion, but seemingly advances certain, as it it seems, objective and correct evaluation. Balzac loves himself to place in the position of judge for it characteristically not simple to voice his opinion, namely "to carry judgment" for each question (even if to it it is proposed to only discuss theme).

It tries to be objective in all his arguments and reasoning facts.

Being neutral and objective in certain situations doesn't make person incapable of lying. And how does being objective transform to making too honest subjective statements especially about themselves? INTp's avoid revealing personal stuff.

Asperger's sometimes have no sense of humor.

It tries to stay calm and correct, sounds intelligent, sophisticated conversation. Rarely laughing, it is more sad smile.

First of all that only aplies to certain situations, mainly to talking people we don't know well. Notice word "smile". That also has nothing to do with not being able to understand jokes. People with Asperger's aren't calm, they have fits everytime something upsets them, and it doesn't take much to upset them. People with Asperger's don't sound intelligent, even less sophisticated.

You taking some isolated statements, that only very remotely have something to do with the issues you try to prove. And those isolated statements you try to extrapolate to some generic rules. While in reality the statments you picked are more like exceptions. Also you fail to see the big picture. And see the difference in different degrees.

[Logos]

But how is that any different than your association of Asperger's Syndrome with INTjs?

[Warlord]

ILI's actually are very deceptive, especially if they have to talk about themselves.

Not necessarily. The potential is there, definitely, but that doesn't make it a matter of course.

Yeah, that's was exagerration. But if there's something ILI doesn't want to tell about themselves (wich is quite often), we could tell a white lie or a joke answer. Anyway I doubt that anyone would call ILI's open.

[Rocky]

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Asperger is a very light version of autism if I remember correctly.

so EIE is a very light version of manic depression.

Can you explain any of your posts, or are you just a horribly rotten person.

[Warlord]

But how is that any different than your association of Asperger's Syndrome with INTjs?

That was a joke. Associating Asperger's with any type is pointless imo. Also whole ranking of the most Aspergian types is ridicilous imo. People with Asperger's have physical differencies in their brain. But since he started to compare: INTj would fit the bill better. There's nothing that really goes against it, unlike with INTp's. But Asperger's obviously have qualities that normal INTj's don't have, and don't have some qualties that normal INTj's have.

[Phaedrus]

Which of the Asperger traits contradict most clearly with ILI's description, in your opinion?

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Two famous people that clearly had Asperger: Albert Einstein and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Do you mean that they were below average in imagination and were unintuitive? What to you mean by "imagination" then?

They are 2 famous examples of people who don't have Asperger's misdiagnosed so by some people, so that Asperger support groups can name drop more people to gain support for their cause. It's more wishful thinking, than a credible diagnosis. I'm talking now about proper diagnostic criterias, not something done by some sunday-psychiatrist. No one with any credibilty would start diagnosing dead people, who they have never even met.

You are dead wrong about that. Sweden's leading expert on Asperger's Syndrome, Christopher Gillberg, thinks that they most likely had Asperger, and he is not the only expert thinking that. Based on biographies I can tell for sure that at least Wittgenstein had it. He exhibited all the typical Asperger traits to a very high extent. It is not reasonable to think that he had not Asperger. Also Einstein is an almost clear-cut case of Asperger, but perhaps not 100 % certain like Wittgenstein.

[Gilly]

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Asperger is a very light version of autism if I remember correctly.

so EIE is a very light version of manic depression.

Can you explain any of your posts, or are you just a horribly rotten person.

It's okay Rocky, it doesn't make sense to anyone else either.

[Exodus]

ILI's actually are very deceptive, especially if they have to talk about themselves.

Line 4 : supposes that Asperger = Ethics (xxFx)

No, and no. INTps are one of the least deceptive types there is (possibly second to ISTp). And it seems to me that Asperger's Syndrome & autism have a clear relation to being a logical type, as opposed to ethical.

[FDG]

Which of the Asperger traits contradict most clearly with ILI's description, in your opinion?

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Two famous people that clearly had Asperger: Albert Einstein and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Do you mean that they were below average in imagination and were unintuitive? What to you mean by "imagination" then?

They are 2 famous examples of people who don't have Asperger's misdiagnosed so by some people, so that Asperger support groups can name drop more people to gain support for their cause. It's more wishful thinking, than a credible diagnosis. I'm talking now about proper diagnostic criterias, not something done by some sunday-psychiatrist. No one with any credibilty would start diagnosing dead people, who they have never even met.

You are dead wrong about that. Sweden's leading expert on Asperger's Syndrome, Christopher Gillberg

wow, you have a doctor only for yourself there?

[Phaedrus]

INTps are one of the least deceptive types there is (possibly second to ISTp). And it seems to me that Asperger's Syndrome & autism have a clear relation to being a logical type, as opposed to ethical.

Absolutely correct.

wow, you have a doctor only for yourself there?

No. I have only read his books. But it would be interesting to get a chance to meet him some day and discuss these and related things. We can learn a lot from the neuro science, and they can learn a lot from typologies like Socionics. Most of the research is still left to be done in this area.

[Warlord]

ILI's actually are very deceptive, especially if they have to talk about themselves.

Line 4 : supposes that Asperger = Ethics (xxFx)

No, and no. INTps are one of the least deceptive types there is (possibly second to ISTp).

Or they just have you fooled :wink:

[Warlord]

Which of the Asperger traits contradict most clearly with ILI's description, in your opinion?

Aspergers are unintuitive, and heavily autistic people have no imagination whatsover.

Two famous people that clearly had Asperger: Albert Einstein and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Do you mean that they were below average in imagination and were unintuitive? What to you mean by "imagination" then?

They are 2 famous examples of people who don't have Asperger's misdiagnosed so by some people, so that Asperger support groups can name drop more people to gain support for their cause. It's more wishful thinking, than a credible diagnosis. I'm talking now about proper diagnostic criterias, not something done by some sunday-psychiatrist. No one with any credibilty would start diagnosing dead people, who they have never even met.

You are dead wrong about that. Sweden's leading expert on Asperger's Syndrome, Christopher Gillberg, thinks that they most likely had Asperger, and he is not the only expert thinking that. Based on biographies I can tell for sure that at least Wittgenstein had it. He exhibited all the typical Asperger traits to a very high extent. It is not reasonable to think that he had not Asperger. Also Einstein is an almost clear-cut case of Asperger, but perhaps not 100 % certain like Wittgenstein.

And for instance Dr. Glen Elliott of UCSF thinks differently. Besides isn't Einstein usually typed as ENTp.

He says attempting to diagnose on the basis of biographical information is extremely unreliable, and points out that any behaviour can have various causes. He thinks being highly intelligent would itself have shaped Newton and Einstein's personalities.

"One can imagine geniuses who are socially inept and yet not remotely autistic," he says. "Impatience with the intellectual slowness of others, narcissism and passion for one's mission in life might combine to make such an individuals isolative and difficult." Elliott adds that Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome.

EDIT: And weren't there two Swedish "leading pscyhiatrists" that were convinced that there's a wide-spread satanic cult in Sweden, and some of the key Swedish politicians are part of it.

[Phaedrus]

Sweden's leading expert on Asperger's Syndrome, Christopher Gillberg, thinks that they most likely had Asperger, and he is not the only expert thinking that. Based on biographies I can tell for sure that at least Wittgenstein had it. He exhibited all the typical Asperger traits to a very high extent. It is not reasonable to think that he had not Asperger. Also Einstein is an almost clear-cut case of Asperger, but perhaps not 100 % certain like Wittgenstein.

And for instance Dr. Glen Elliott of UCSF thinks differently. Besides isn't Einstein usually typed as ENTp.

What does Einstein's type have to do with this? Einstein had Asperger and he had imagination, which proves that your general claim about Asperger and imagination is false.

And weren't there two Swedish "leading pscyhiatrists" that were convinced that there's a wide-spread satanic cult in Sweden, and some of the key Swedish politicians are part of it.

No, they were not psychiatrists. They had a totally different perspective than the neuro-biological perspective that is fundamental to psychiatry and necessary to adopt if you are going to understand anything of this. They were examples of the widely spread subjectivist/relativistic disease that has infiltrated almost all disciplines of science the last decades. They belong to the same group of pseudoscientific charlatans, who (for ideological reasons only) are against giving amphetamine to AHDH patients. One such idiot is involved in a debate with Gillberg about the nature of this phenomena, and she has written a book where she tries to argue for the thesis that ADHD is not a biological phenomenon that should be treated by medications.

[Warlord]

What does Einstein's type have to do with this?

You have been desperately trying to prove that INTp's are linked to Asperger's, and you use an ENTp as example

Einstein had Asperger and he had imagination, which proves that your general claim about Asperger and imagination is false.

No he is not. Are you reading impaired?

And weren't there two Swedish "leading pscyhiatrists" that were convinced that there's a wide-spread satanic cult in Sweden, and some of the key Swedish politicians are part of it.

No, they were not psychiatrists. They had a totally different perspective than the neuro-biological perspective that is fundamental to psychiatry and necessary to adopt if you are going to understand anything of this. They were examples of the widely spread subjectivist/relativistic disease that has infiltrated almost all disciplines of science the last decades. They belong to the same group of pseudoscientific charlatans, who (for ideological reasons only) are against giving amphetamine to AHDH patients. One such idiot is involved in a debate with Gillberg about the nature of this phenomena, and she has written a book where she tries to argue for the thesis that ADHD is not a biological phenomenon that should be treated by medications.

Who cares, that was a joke. The point was to alleviate, how easy it's to get your name out in the open in Sweden with BS research, you just have to claim something that will get peoples attention. Based on what you tell Gillberg sounds just as hack too, he sounds like someone who claims that everyone who has cough must have TB, despite them lacking any other symptoms, because he refuses to look for any other option. A doctor at worlds top medical university is multiple folds more credible, than some swedish quack, with dubious motives. Especially since Elliott's claim actually makes some sense.

[machintruc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoi...ality_Disorder

this describes ILI pretty well...

[Phaedrus]

What does Einstein's type have to do with this?

You have been desperately trying to prove that INTp's are linked to Asperger's, and you use an ENTp as example

Aspergers are unintuitive

Einstein had Asperger. Therefore Einstein was unintuitive.
But Einstein was not unintuitive. Therefore the premise "Aspergers are unintuitive" is false.

[Warlord]

What does Einstein's type have to do with this?

You have been desperately trying to prove that INTp's are linked to Asperger's, and you use an ENTp as example

Aspergers are unintuitive

Einstein had Asperger. Therefore Einstein was unintuitive.
But Einstein was not unintuitive. Therefore the premise "Aspergers are unintuitive" is false.

That's the stupidest circulatory logic I have "ever" heard.

1) Asperger's are unintuitive & Einstein was intuitive. => Einstein doesn't have Asperger's.
2) Credible experts say that Einstein didn't have Asperger's
3) If you take away unituitive as a diagnostic criteria => Asperger's don't have any real diagnostic criterias => Everyone has Asperger's => It would pointless to have Asperger's as a category.

[Warlord]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoi...ality_Disorder

this describes ILI pretty well...

Finally you are now on to something

Although that's a bad case scenario.

[Phaedrus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoi...ality_Disorder

this describes ILI pretty well...

Correct. And, as mentioned in the article, Schizoid Personality Disorder is very similar to Asperger's Syndrome. They are in fact so difficult to clearly separate that many scientists believe that they might be the same phenomenon described from slightly different angles. There is no consensus on how to distinguish them from each other. Almost everything that is true of Asperger's Syndrome is also true of SPD.

Asperger might be the wider concept, with SPD as a special case of Asperger. According to Sula Wolff (who is mentioned in the article) SPD lies somewhere between Asperger and normality on the autism spectrum, but there is no consensus on this. Those with a neuropsychiatric perspective would probably think that you have Asperger if you fit the criteria for SPD, whereas if you have other theoretical glasses on, you might think that someone who fits the criteria for Asperger has SPD.

Some scientist claim that there is a genetic link between SPD and schizophrenia. SPD is then the wider circle. Inside that circle we have a smaller circle that is Schizotypal Personality Disorder, and in the inner even smaller circle we have schizophrenia. That might be true, but in that case there should be a genetic link also between Asperger and schizophrenia. There are some indications of that, but that is inconsistent with other scientist who claim that there is no such link. What all of this shows is that no one knows for sure exactly how these different (or identical) phenomena relate to each other. More research is called for.

[Rocky]

@ machintruc: why do you keep avoiding me?


@pheadrus: why are you so enthusiastic to be lumped in with a disorder? Why be so negative? Does it make you feel better? Are you that insecure?

[Logos]

@ machintruc: why do you keep avoiding me?


@pheadrus: why are you so enthusiastic to be lumped in with a disorder? Why be so negative? Does it make you feel better? Are you that insecure?

Well at least machintruc has yet to tell the ILI's that the reason why they have personality disorders is because they do not have Roman Catholicism in their lives.

[KSpin]

Stop talking bullshit and making ridiculous statements, please Machintruc.

People might actually start believing your crazy nonsense.

[Rocky]

@ machintruc: why do you keep avoiding me?


@pheadrus: why are you so enthusiastic to be lumped in with a disorder? Why be so negative? Does it make you feel better? Are you that insecure?

Well at least machintruc has yet to tell the ILI's that the reason why they have personality disorders is because they do not have Roman Catholicism in their lives.

Not all ILI are atheists. Ignatius of Loyola, for example, is ILI.

ILI can be very friendly and cool people, if they put the efforts too (I know a girl...)

It takes just more efforts for an ILI than a LII to appear friendly.

Jesus Christ is dead.

Move the fuck on with your life.

[Phaedrus]

@pheadrus: why are you so enthusiastic to be lumped in with a disorder? Why be so negative? Does it make you feel better? Are you that insecure?

Enthusiastic!? What do you mean? This is no different from other discussions about what is true and what is false. I am just trying to correct the mistakes others make (and my own if I or someone else notice that I have made any). I am as indifferent to whether I have a disorder or not as I am indifferent to other personal considerations when it comes to questions of truth. I might be enthusiastic about finding the truth, but that's all. It doesn't matter what the truth is as long as I find it.

And I don't feel the least insecure about any of this. I find it interesting to investigate the relations between personality types and personality disorders -- what's so strange about that?

[Rocky]

@pheadrus: why are you so enthusiastic to be lumped in with a disorder? Why be so negative? Does it make you feel better? Are you that insecure?

Enthusiastic!? What do you mean? This is no different from other discussions about what is true and what is false. I am just trying to correct the mistakes others make (and my own if I or someone else notice that I have made any). I am as indifferent to whether I have a disorder or not as I am indifferent to other personal considerations when it comes to questions of truth. I might be enthusiastic about finding the truth, but that's all. It doesn't matter what the truth is as long as I find it.

And I don't feel the least insecure about any of this. I find it interesting to investigate the relations between personality types and personality disorders -- what's so strange about that?

So you're not enthusiastic about it... but you're not insecure either... so why care so much about personality disorders?

You don't really think an entire type of people is so low functioning that they could be all be described as Autistic, or Schzoid, or something else, do you? Because Carl Jung studied the mentally sick, and even he did not think that.

And if you do think this (and you think you're being truthful instead of just picking a disorder you want to be associated with) then that's really short-sighted.

[tcaudilllg]

I'd just like to say right out, that I am researching the effect of subconscious dominance over the ego. (the vital track controlling the ego track) The results don't say "this person is evil" so much as they say "their relations with the world will sow evil in their hearts because their goals are not realistic."

[Jarno]

You don't really think an entire type of people is so low functioning that they could be all be described as Autistic, or Schzoid, or something else, do you?

Well approximately 15% of the people has a personality disorder if I'm correctly informed.

Then we've got the autistic people, the schizophrenics the... etc etc.

I do think it's all pretty common.

[Phaedrus]

so why care so much about personality disorders?

Because I want to know everthing there is to know about the human brain and consciousness. I want to know how everything hangs together -- every type in every typology, every body type, every disorder, every psychiatric disease. I want to know how they all correlate with attitudes, behaviours, thinking processes, philosophies, beliefs, temperaments, etc. And when I know all that, I want to know as much as possible of everything else too.

[Gilly]

Have fun never achieving your goals.

[Rocky]

so why care so much about personality disorders?

Because I want to know everthing there is to know about the human brain and consciousness.

Have fun never achieving your goals.

I want to know how everything hangs together -- every type in every typology, every body type, every disorder, every psychiatric disease. I want to know how they all correlate with attitudes, behaviours, thinking processes, philosophies, beliefs, temperaments, etc. And when I know all that, I want to know as much as possible of everything else too.

No offense, but you're doing a pretty bad job at that. I think it's been a year since I've seriously posted on this forum, and you were there back then, too. I remember saying that you sounded a lot like I did when I was first on this forum (when I had a ton of delusions about this kind of stuff- being too sure about somethings that I shouldn't have been sure about). That was a year ago and you still sound exactly the same. As much as you defend your type, it's obvious from an objective standpoint that you use very little of your perseptive side and rely almost entirely on logic. I just wish you were more open-minded. You're so caught up in logically justifying everything in your world (i.e MBTI=socionics) that you don't even realize how little perception you use.

I'm not trying to be a dick, it's just that I know this since I used to act like this, and if I go back to read my posts from a couple of years ago I'd probably be embarassed.

[Phaedrus]

As much as you defend your type, it's obvious from an objective standpoint that you use very little of your perseptive side and rely almost entirely on logic.

There might be some truth in that. Maybe even a lot of it. And that's very interesting, because it raises the questions: What does it mean? What does it prove? I am still an ILI according to Socionics's own criteria seen from every conceivable angle (functions, intertype relations, type descriptions, Reinin dichotomies, temperaments, the four scales, etc.), but I have no personal interest in defending either that type or defending Socionics. So, if my way of thinking is inconsistent with being an ILI, that would prove that Socionics is a false theory -- and that would be very fascinating of course.

[Rocky]

As much as you defend your type, it's obvious from an objective standpoint that you use very little of your perseptive side and rely almost entirely on logic.

There might be some truth in that. Maybe even a lot of it. And that's very interesting, because it raises the questions: What does it mean? What does it prove? I am still an ILI according to Socionics's own criteria seen from every conceivable angle (functions, intertype relations, type descriptions, Reinin dichotomies, temperaments, the four scales, etc.), but I have no personal interest in defending either that type or defending Socionics. So, if my way of thinking is inconsistent with being an ILI, that would prove that Socionics is a false theory -- and that would be very fascinating of course.

Why can't you just admit you're wrong without damning an entire system for being wrong.

[Phaedrus]

As much as you defend your type, it's obvious from an objective standpoint that you use very little of your perseptive side and rely almost entirely on logic.

There might be some truth in that. Maybe even a lot of it. And that's very interesting, because it raises the questions: What does it mean? What does it prove? I am still an ILI according to Socionics's own criteria seen from every conceivable angle (functions, intertype relations, type descriptions, Reinin dichotomies, temperaments, the four scales, etc.), but I have no personal interest in defending either that type or defending Socionics. So, if my way of thinking is inconsistent with being an ILI, that would prove that Socionics is a false theory -- and that would be very fascinating of course.

Why can't you just admit you're wrong without damning an entire system for being wrong.

Because it is almost physically impossible for me to lie. I am totally honest with you when I say that the objective state of the matter is that I can be no other type than ILI in Socionics. If I still must be a type with a leading logical function, then it probably proves that MBTT is correct after all, since I also can be no other type than INTP in MBTT. But what happens to the intertype relations then? That would be a mystery.

[implied]

god why do people even bother