Originally Posted by
Warlord
Originally Posted by
Logos
This isn't about daring, but level heads.You can have a level head and still be daring.
= INTp.
But not INTj, who are only level headed. That's was the whole point. Just read any description of INTj's.
INTps lack
. They value and seek it, but that does not necessarily mean that they act upon it. And if an INTj's PoLR has been pressured, then that INTj will be far less reluctant to dare.
Like your brain-diarrhea of
and
?
Except that there's has been no such thing
You are just saying so, and hoping to be right out of miracle. Ever considered having at least tiny bit of originality?
Why do you continue to say that as if by doing so validates your own misconceptions of
and
? Miracles do not exist, and I do not require the aid of miracles to make my views of INTjs and INTps even more valid. And I am quite willing to lack of originality in the pursuit of truthful objectivity and validity any day.
I have proven my points. You haven't proved most of what you say, you just state them. Just saying "likewise" proves nothing, except childish attitude.
You have hardly proven your points,
Or maybe you just haven't understood them.
Perhaps and perhaps not, but if you have also failed to understand my points proven, then we obviously have mutually missed each other dearly.
Alpha with an appreciate of humor even in arguments. :wink:
Yeah I agree, some of your arguments
are a joke
Well once I find your arguments in your past few piles of rubbish, I will provide be sure to provide a laugh. But the content is quite serious, and it is just their non-serious presentation and willingness to joke around even in argument that is Alpha.
I'm glad to be of service, but my view of reality on this matter is also based on empirical experience with INTjs and INTps, and my empirical evidence is contradicting your empirical evidence. Now you can say that you this based on your empirical evidence, but just like in your scientific worldview to which you hold yourself to esteem, the data can be wrong.
Of course it can be wrong.
But I also have what other people have said, plus type descriptions on my side. You just have your own
now alleged emperical evidence. Wich just as well could be total bullshit, and you are copying what I'm saying. Like you have been so far. It would be untypical for INTj suddenly change. Because that would be a P thing.
But I have provided you with functional evidence, but you have chosen to ignore it. So I too have an understanding of the functions and empirical evidence in the content of past threads. So once again the point is that while the INTp is indeed incredible at winning arguments due to the presence of creative-
, by no means are they necessarily the best as an INTj's use of primary functional
, creative-
, and demonstrative-
is capable of being used as a method of keeping up with, and depending upon individual differences, exceeding INTps' capabilities of winning arguments. And also keep in mind that you said that INTps tend to be vague in what they say, well INTjs tend to generalize, and both of which offer a great deal of flexibility in an argument.
Plus you are losing this one
Or so you say. But saying that I am losing does not make it so, no more than if I were to now announce that I am clearly winning this case, which I am by the way.
It's the realm of
, a generic vision of the state of the reality, connectiveness and causal connections. Invidual details of the vision may change, but it doesn't considerably alter the whole.
No it's the realm of
, as
is the structural logic
Hows lack of structure suddenly same as structural logic?
I never said that
was the lack of structure nor was I trying to claim that what you were clearly describing as
was in fact
, but merely that
can juggle the pieces of
so that they fit into a structure of their choosing, so
is as immaterial as
.
It's possible to make logically consistent statements that have nothing to with reality. Also it's possible to make statements that coincide with reality, while the statement contains logical jumps. The latter is more convincing. Except maybe to INTj's then.
Like what?
Like: (the claims that have been made to come up with conclusion, that) ...the universe expands exponentially.
Or socionics
There are logical jumps? There are assumptions that act as constants (especially in regards to the exponentially expanding universe) which are used to generalize and since there is a lack of adequate evidence on those places, but I would not necessarily call them logical jumps, but more like lines of best fit used to describe the general pattern based upon the current existing evidence. They follow logical thought processes (often devised by scientific Alpha NTs like Einstein, Hawking, etc.), but there is little jumping about.
Well thanks for the compliment.
But I don't think the INTj's that I'm comparing myself to, aren't unintelligent either.
But combining these two. I might win more often because I can pick battles better.
In which case it is not about argument style, but when you choose to get into arguments and picking battles, and that would make sense as an INTj who finds himself getting into an argument may have done so as a result of an
-PoLR. It is possible that since INTjs use creative-
and are willing to entertain different ideas (and often bluntly) that it results in an indiscretion in selecting battles. The INTj does not pick battles, but kind of cause them. So since INTps pick their battles (and especially those they can win), they have a higher winning average, than the INTj whose blunt opinions attract arguments. Interesting idea, and one worth looking into elsewhere.
No, it's more of a "I refuse to back down and admit I am wrong to my significant other or the person I am in an argument with, so in order to win and prove my point I make stuff up."
Wich could be what you are doing right now
Of course, but it could also be something you are doing as well. Both exist as real possibilities.
The INTp PoLR is only an advantage if it actually has an affect on the INTj, and that is questionable.
Well it has seemed to work, same according to other people too.
If you go to Ganins site, and read the Q&A. There are whines from (more than one) INTj's that some INTp they know, has been "emotionally stifling" etc. I think it's because the way INTp's argue.
Then how would you say that an INTj's
-PoLR would manifest itself in an argument (apart from physical violence, which is again a popular misconception of
)?