Example of Te reacting to Fe role criticism

[Phaedrus]

whether you prefer or is more evident in the style of your writing (the form of your argument) than in its content.

Why?

Because socionic functions are about the form of your thoughts. They are the "channels" through which you experience the world and try to understand it. Of course they also have an influence on the content of your thoughts, but that is secondary.

[Logos]

I can assure you that I have an externalist perspective in the theory of knowledge, that I have an externalist perspective on the concept of truth, that I am a realist in ontology, and that I am an objectivist in the sense that I am an anti-relativist in all the areas I have so far mentioned (and in some more). So, philosophically speaking, I am clearly and without the slightest doubt, an externalist and an objectivist, and that I knew long before I knew about Socionics.

The fact is (and you can check it yourself) that to be an externalist and an objectivist in a philosophical sense happens to coincide very well with how the differences between Subjectivists and Objectivists are described in the Reinin dichotomies. And according to both the criteria in Socionics and the criteria in philosophy I am clearly an objectivist, and I am clearly an externalist. It is as simple as that.

I do not think that it is quite that simple in this case, but arguing this accomplishes nothing. I will say that if the externalist/internalist dichotomy coincides with the objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy, then one of the two dichotomies is quite superfluous and unnecessary.

You call yourself an externalist and objectivist, but who has compared through the individual subject more, me and the other LIIs, ILEs, and even Expat, or you? You repeatedly reassure yourself by commending your own logic while ignoring your own logical inconsistencies that has been pointed out by both sides of the Merry () and Serious () aspects.

You reveal here that you don't understand the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy, so I suggest that a little more study would be an appropriate line of action for you. And no one has so far pointed out any logical inconsistencies in my understanding of this. I am still waiting for a good argument against my theses.

This was based upon your definitions of externalism and internalism and not the S/O dichotomy, which is not what I was addressing here, so reading comprehension would be an appropriate line of action for you.

Bold: See any any thread about S/O with you and Expat.

I have explained why I am not talking about the functions to the extent that others do. Check that recent post of mine if you are interested in my reasons for that.

But what you are bringing in does not add anything other than further complexities and redundancies which are complete unnecessary to understanding Socionics.

I have never claimed that Einstein must be anything else than a Merry ENTp, but he is clearly an externalist and an objectivist in the philosophical sense of the those words, and as I have tried to explain, Reinin's Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is clearly very resemblant of, and in some ways identical to, how those terms are understood in a philosophical framework.

While you have tried to explain the overlap of the Ex/In and S/O dichotomies, what you have repeatedly failed to do is explain why Einstein "is clearly an externalist and objectivist in the philosophical sense of the words" or in the Socionic sense of the words for that matter.

And I can tell for sure that Expat and I belong to the same Fi/Te group in Socionics. If you, or he, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.

And I and Expat can tell for sure that you do not know where you really belong. If you, or your disillusioned ego, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.

You asked how ILEs could possibly be externalistic, and I gave you logical explanation, and it was brushed aside because you said it was too simple.

It was not my intention to brush it aside. It was nothing but the usual ILI way of attacking a thesis to see whether it will crack or survive the pressure. I was hoping you could come up with further arguments, because your explanation didn't answer all the questions.

Then I hope that it sufficed this time.

Too simple? What about that lovely logical and scientific idea called Occam's Razor? The ILE is an externalist because their leading function is extroverted and deals with external possibilities, imagery, and abstract lateral thinking. Yes it is that simple. But while it peruses these external possibilities, the ILE constructs them together using creative- as a means of keeping them logically consistent. But why does the ILE's view of reality then seem to conform with reality? Because they have a strong personal knowledge function of ! This is kind of like how you insist that your flagrant use of is also part of you somehow being an ILI. Well as far as that one thing called Socionics is concerned, it is the same here too with the ILE. Why is Einstein's primary and conscious use of and somehow ignored because what he theorized appeared to conform to the reality of ?

If your explanation is not to simple, then we still have a problem with the Reinin dichotomy. Maybe the problem is the dichotomy itself in that case. And you still haven't addressed my arguments concering Einstein's externalism and objectivism in relation to that dichotomy.

Expat and I have but your choice to ignore them does not mean that they have gone unaddressed. If Einstein is proven to have consciously used and preferred and , then your entire insistence upon those dichotomies, philosophical or otherwise, are made thereby worthless. You call him a philosophical objectivist or externalist all you want, but Einstein was a clear who had a different approach, attitude, and method of science and philosophy than your textbook objectivists: Newton, Darwin, and Hume.

That is indeed an interesting analysis, and I happen to agree with everything in it -- except from my reservations regarding Einstein. A couple of weeks ago I incidentally happened to discussed the differences between Newton and Leibniz (among others) with an INTj friend of mine, who is a mathematician and and expert in q-calculus, in order to find out whether he would confirm or disconfirm my hypotheses regarding general philosophical differences in attitude between INTjs and INTps. He criticized Newton's empiricist and "inexact" bent, and very much preferred Leibniz's more exact, formalistic approach.

I am glad you liked it.

Ganin himself seems to indicate that INTjs are typically more of generalists than ILIs (compare his ILI Uncovered profile), but the fact that ILIs tend "more towards multiple-interests in wide disciplines" is definitely true, and that truth it is also clearly mentioned in the type profiles. That aspect of the differences between introverted and extraverted thinking is also mentioned in Jung's Psychological Types.

Probably one of the those rare points where we actually agree, so it is worth noting. But as said, I mentioned it because it was the one point of the quoted section which seemed to require further expansion and one of the weakest points of the argument made.

[Logos]

There is nothing at all in Socionics that suggests another type than ILI as more likely or even possible for me

Isn't that too sweeping a statement to make about anyone and any type?

No. Some person's types are clear-cut, especially when you have had a chance to meet them IRL.

"Nothing at all" and "suggests"? Even "possible"? You seem to be claiming that your being an ILI is an "absolute truth". I'd be wary of saying that about anyone and anything in socionics.

Yes, the fact that I am an ILI is an absolute truth, and I have legitimate reasons for claiming that.

Yet you insist that your type is clear-cut?

whether you prefer or is more evident in the style of your writing (the form of your argument) than in its content.

Why?

Because socionic functions are about the form of your thoughts. They are the "channels" through which you experience the world and try to understand it. Of course they also have an influence on the content of your thoughts, but that is secondary.

But since those channels shape the input and output, then the content of what is said also matters. Also, since you say that preference of or is more evident in the style of your writing, why do object so vehemently at people pointing out your > style of writing?

BTW, Implied, I happen to enjoy Tetris, so I greatly appreciated and was amused by that pictorial analogy.

[Expat]

I have explained why I am not talking about the functions to the extent that others do. Check that recent post of mine if you are interested in my reasons for that.

But what you are bringing in does not add anything other than further complexities and redundancies which are complete unnecessary to understanding Socionics.

I will be redundant myself and say that this is one of the main points here.

As to your reasons, Phaedrus, they seem more political than anything else. You did not seem to disagree, or be able to counter-argue, the point about your very intensive use of . Your main concern is that if attention is focused on your use of , people will say, "he's INTj!" So you're basically saying, let's keep quiet about that issue so that people won't have odd ideas. Which is, again, a Fe-Ti argument.

But why should that matter? Let them think what they want. The only reason - or, ok, the main reason - why your own type is eventually brought into a discussion with you is because you end up raising it in the context of other people's types. That is a consequence of your own approach to typing by benchmarking, by "seeing patterns without really knowing the reasons".

The problem you have to face is that even those who'd agree that your are ILI will not necessarily agree to type others by benchmarking.

And I can tell for sure that Expat and I belong to the same Fi/Te group in Socionics. If you, or he, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.

I certainly do not agree with that at all. And I think the lack of competence is totally on your side - due to the following.

You keep coming back to consistency. The thing is, I do not find it necessary to argue or even to conclude that your approach to types is logically inconsistent. It may well be logically consistent. It is simply not socionics, not as a system that defines types in ways that they will have their motivations as outlined in the quadras and therefore explain their intertype relationships.

You pay lip service to intertype relationships (but never as in quadras, btw) if pressed. But they are obviously totally outside the essence of your view of the types. You never make them the central point of your argument. I never saw any evidence that you truly understand that they are about, except by direct quotes of descriptions or self-evident points.

Which is why you may well have a typing system that is logically consistent and suits your own personal purposes.

It is simply not socionics.

And no, it's not about the "theory", Phaedrus. This is important to decide who is typed as what, too.

[Phaedrus]

I will say that if the externalist/internalist dichotomy coincides with the objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy, then one of the two dichotomies is quite superfluous and unnecessary.

If you can type people correctly using only one of those dichotomies -- that's fine. But for someone with leading it would probably help to have an additional angle, an additional dichotomy to look at it from. An ENTp friend of mine has said that he perceives INTps, like me, his brother, and a co-worker of his, as taxonomists. Regardless of whether we actually are taxonomists, I can understand why we are perceived as such. Do you agree with his observation?

But what you are bringing in does not add anything other than further complexities and redundancies which are complete unnecessary to understanding Socionics.

I think that our different attitudes here reflect our different preferences for systems and systems.

You prefer to hold on to one specific system, which you try to understand in its details as correctly as possible, and you try to leave everything out of it that isn't a logical implication of the system's basic premises. (That's how your attitude is perceived by me, anyway, and I would say that it is a typical bottom-up approach, a approach.)

I prefer to compare as many systems as possible (external input), I collect facts in order to get something to work with. With all that chaotic information in front of me, I start to analyze it to see whether there is a general pattern to all this mess. And the more information I collect, the more different angles or perspectives I can use to see it from, the more easy it is for me to understand the essence of whatever it is that I am looking at. Things become clearer to me when the possible logical connections between different logical concepts (which you perhaps might call "boxes" in a taxonomy) increases. In a sense, adding another logical concept increases your abstract thinking capacity.

While you have tried to explain the overlap of the Ex/In and S/O dichotomies, what you have repeatedly failed to do is explain why Einstein "is clearly an externalist and objectivist in the philosophical sense of the words" or in the Socionic sense of the words for that matter.

Einstein understood "truth" as correspondence with reality, which is the classical notion of the concept truth that I have tried to explain in several posts on this forum. He believed that reality exists in itself independently of our observations of it, and that is has a certain structure independently of our observations. That is exactly what it means to be a realist in a philosophical sense, and to an objectivist in for example epistemology is equivalent to being a realist in that area. Objectivism claims that there are universally valid truths, where "truth" is understood as correspondance with (objective) reality. Objectivism implies realism. So, it is obvious that Einstein was an objectivist and a realist.

It is a little bit more problematic to say for sure whether Einsten was truly an externalist or not, but it is more natural for an objectivist and a realist to adopt an externalist perspective in epistemology and theories of truth, because it is more natural (for such a creature) to think that it is ultimately reality itself that causes you to believe what you believe. It is reality itself that is the ultimate arbiter of whether your beliefs are true or false, and it is reality itself that is the ultimate arbiter of whether you have (objectively) good or bad reasons for yor beliefs.

Einstein seems to be an Objectivist in the socionic sense of the word, because he is an objectivist in the philosophical sense of the word, and those two meanings of the word "objectivist" are very similar, if not to say equivalent. Whether Einstein was also an externalist is not clear-cut, so we could leave that aspect out of the discussion for later.

And I can tell for sure that Expat and I belong to the same Fi/Te group in Socionics. If you, or he, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.

And I and Expat can tell for sure that you do not know where you really belong. If you, or your disillusioned ego, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.

I am in a much, much, much better position epistemologically to determine the truth of that thesis than both you and Expat. If you really think that you can determine my type better, more reliably, and more accurately than I can myself with my superior knowledge of how I am in real life, what my typical behaviours are, how I am perceived by others, what my test results are, how I look on V.I., what attitudes I have, what I identify with, what my intertype relations are like, what my energy rthythms are like, etc, etc, -- then it would be appropriate to call you an ignorant asshole and a super idiot. But of course you don't really think that, since you are far to intelligent to have such a stupid belief in the infallibility of your typing method, based on such a tiny evidence.

That is indeed an interesting analysis, and I happen to agree with everything in it -- except from my reservations regarding Einstein. A couple of weeks ago I incidentally happened to discussed the differences between Newton and Leibniz (among others) with an INTj friend of mine, who is a mathematician and and expert in q-calculus, in order to find out whether he would confirm or disconfirm my hypotheses regarding general philosophical differences in attitude between INTjs and INTps. He criticized Newton's empiricist and "inexact" bent, and very much preferred Leibniz's more exact, formalistic approach.

I am glad you liked it.

Did you write it, and/or does it mean that we agree on the correctness of the analysis and the differences between the persons mentioned there?

Ganin himself seems to indicate that INTjs are typically more of generalists than ILIs (compare his ILI Uncovered profile), but the fact that ILIs tend "more towards multiple-interests in wide disciplines" is definitely true, and that truth it is also clearly mentioned in the type profiles. That aspect of the differences between introverted and extraverted thinking is also mentioned in Jung's Psychological Types.

Probably one of the those rare points where we actually agree, so it is worth noting.

Good. That's a start. It is always a good thing to be able to establish some sort of common ground.

[Phaedrus]

Yet you insist that your type is clear-cut?

Not to you of course, because your knowledge of me is limited. To me it is a closed case, however. My type is proven, according to the criteria used in Socionics.

But since those channels shape the input and output, then the content of what is said also matters.

Yes, and that's what I said too. Of course the content matters, but it is not as reliable as an indication of your type as your style is.

Also, since you say that preference of or is more evident in the style of your writing, why do object so vehemently at people pointing out your > style of writing?

Because they are wrong about it. My > preference is obvious in my style of writing.

[Expat]

But of course you don't really think that, since you are far to intelligent to have such a stupid belief in the infallibility of your typing method, based on such a tiny evidence.

Soooooo -- Logos is lying when he says he disagrees with you? To which purpose?

[Expat]

how I look on V.I., what attitudes I have, what I identify with, what my intertype relations are like, what my energy rthythms are like

VI, attitudes, and energy rhythms do not help much between INTp and INFp, do they? Especially in the case of Ni-focused IP? They are useful to differentiate INTj from INTp; not so much INFp from INTp. And my understanding is that he said you are INFp rather than INTp.

As for intertype relations: between INTp and INFp, they are tricky. Then we're talking about duality vs semi-duality, conflict vs supervision, superego vs look-alike, superego vs comparative, etc. Unless you truly understand, in their concepts, what those relationships truly imply, they're not really easy to apply to differentiate INTp from INFp. The best is to see the relationships with ENFj, ESTj, ENTj, ESFj and see which are supervision, mirror, conflict.

So, unless you can really make a clear case in terms of these relationships - and if you really think VI, energy, etc really help to differentiate INTp from INFp, I suggest you drop these arguments from the list.

[Ezra]

Phaedrus, you write like an ILI.

You also have a skill with words; at being able to shape them around for your own agenda (which many, not just I, have noticed in the past, and thus I will not bring them up here).

Why can you not stick with ILI - what is the problem that's withholding you from knowing you are ILI?

[Expat]

Why can you not stick with ILI - what is the problem that's withholding you from knowing you are ILI?

Best post ever.

[krieger]

I am in a much, much, much better position epistemologically to determine the truth of that thesis than both you and Expat. If you really think that you can determine my type better, more reliably, and more accurately than I can myself with my superior knowledge of how I am in real life, what my typical behaviours are, how I am perceived by others, what my test results are, how I look on V.I., what attitudes I have, what I identify with, what my intertype relations are like, what my energy rthythms are like, etc, etc, -- then it would be appropriate to call you an ignorant asshole and a super idiot. But of course you don't really think that, since you are far to intelligent to have such a stupid belief in the infallibility of your typing method, based on such a tiny evidence.

This is a good point; one that I hope people on this forum would take in account more often when they brazenly go off claiming a 'mistype' as regards a person they have never met in real life.

[Ezra]

[W]hile he does stress the validity of facts at times, his main pursuit is theoretical than factual evolutionary biology.

NO WAY. He is factual through and through. Have you ever read anything of his? He throws fact after fact (even if they're pointless) at you.

Dawkins has a tendency to ignore evidence in regards points and practical value (Te) if it does not fit with his system (Ti).

That's because he's a scientist! Scientists are based on Te, and because it is all-encompassing, Ti is kind of joined with it. Read about Ti as a 7th function - you'll see what I mean when I say Dawkins is LSE.

[He] generally speaks in mostly conceptual lines of thinking. Also, in terms of his philosophical views of how he perceived of the universe, he found himself in the God Delusion agreeing more with Einstein (ILE), Stephen Hawking (ILE), and Spinoza (ILE).

I agree with Bertrand Russell (LII). That doesn't make me an LII.

And just like how Stephen Hawking wanted to make the basic concepts of science accessible by popularizing popular science, Richard Dawkins is doing the same with the arguments for atheism in what can be called popular non-theism.

As I said, science is all about Te, so the only simplification of concepts necessary is that which means people know what compound "big" words are.

[Ezra]

i don't know anything about dawkins. i don't think the video proves him to be Te. i don't think this particular argument is valid.

I made a thread, especially for Richard Dawkins and his typing. Phaedrus replied. About 60 people viewed. What a joke.

[Elro]

I made a thread, especially for Richard Dawkins and his typing. Phaedrus replied. About 60 people viewed. What a joke.

Hahahahahaha

[Blaze]

@ezra: i disagree that science is mainly about Te. science about Ti: developing systems, categories, classifications, and timelines to explain Te facts and data. it's Ti and Te working together. scientific research is inherently system oriented as well.

-5 ezra

[Gilly]

I am in a much, much, much better position epistemologically to determine the truth of that thesis than both you and Expat.

[Phaedrus]

But of course you don't really think that, since you are far to intelligent to have such a stupid belief in the infallibility of your typing method, based on such a tiny evidence.

Soooooo -- Logos is lying when he says he disagrees with you? To which purpose?

I don't know. Or maybe he isn't lying. Maybe it was meant as kind of twisted joke. But he can always come to his senses and realize his mistake. It is of course stupid of anyone to think that they can type me (Phaedrus) better than I can myself.

[Phaedrus]

VI, attitudes, and energy rhythms do not help much between INTp and INFp, do they? Especially in the case of Ni-focused IP?

Correct.

They are useful to differentiate INTj from INTp; not so much INFp from INTp. And my understanding is that he said you are INFp rather than INTp.

That's what I think he meant too.

As for intertype relations: between INTp and INFp, they are tricky. Then we're talking about duality vs semi-duality, conflict vs supervision, superego vs look-alike, superego vs comparative, etc. Unless you truly understand, in their concepts, what those relationships truly imply, they're not really easy to apply to differentiate INTp from INFp. The best is to see the relationships with ENFj, ESTj, ENTj, ESFj and see which are supervision, mirror, conflict.

We agree on that too.

So, unless you can really make a clear case in terms of these relationships - and if you really think VI, energy, etc really help to differentiate INTp from INFp, I suggest you drop these arguments from the list.

Of course my "list" didn't include every aspect of what I know of my type. It is very clear that I have a relation of conflict with ESFjs, and that ENTjs are my mirrors. That you and I are mirrors should also be pretty obvious to anyone who has followed our debates recently.

The easiest way (but not the only) to tell whether I am an INTp or an INFp is to look at, for example, Rick's list of manifested differences in behaviours, talking style, V.I., etc, etc. between logical and ethical types. According to those critera (and every other similar criteria used in Socionics) it is clear as day that I am a logical type. Everything in Rick's list strongly indicates logical type for me. Nothing in that list indicates ethical type. How do you explain that phenomenon, given the assumption that I am an INFp?

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, you write like an ILI.

I know. Your observation skills are superior to some others on this forum in that respect.

You also have a skill with words; at being able to shape them around for your own agenda (which many, not just I, have noticed in the past, and thus I will not bring them up here).

Thanks. I know that too. English is not my native language, so I make some mistakes in grammar, and my vocabulary is limited. But I have a natural skill with the Swedish language, which I have developed through the years by a lot of writing, by taking creative writing courses, and by finishing an education to become a Swedish language consultant.

Why can you not stick with ILI - what is the problem that's withholding you from knowing you are ILI?

I have sticked with ILI almost since my first posts on forum. Nothing is withholding me from knowing that I am an ILI. I know for a fact that I am an ILI. The problem is that some other person's on this forum seem to be obsessed with proving that I am not. They will never succeed, of course, but the keep on trying anyway.

[Ezra]

it's Ti and Te working together. scientific research is inherently system oriented as well.

Shit, this is what I meant to say. Spot on.

[Phaedrus]

And I can tell for sure that Expat and I belong to the same Fi/Te group in Socionics. If you, or he, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.

I certainly do not agree with that at all. And I think the lack of competence is totally on your side - due to the following.

You keep coming back to consistency.

Yes, exactly in the way that ILIs are described as doing that, for example in Stratiyevskaya's ILI description in relation to the ILI's 8:th function. Sometimes I wonder if you have read the socionic ILI type descriptions -- or have you misunderstood their content? My behaviour is so typical of ILIs that it is almost embarrassing to point that out.

You pay lip service to intertype relationships (but never as in quadras, btw) if pressed. But they are obviously totally outside the essence of your view of the types. You never make them the central point of your argument. I never saw any evidence that you truly understand that they are about, except by direct quotes of descriptions or self-evident points.

Why should I repeat what others have already said? I very often happen to agree with, for example, your quadra or function analyses, so there is no reason for me to contribute if I don't happen to disagree, or if I can't add something to the discussion. Quite often my main reason for saying things that are not strictly within the socionic domain is to add another angle to it, to point at a perspective that can be useful to adopt if you are interested in getting a deeper understanding of whatever is under scrutiny.

[Phaedrus]

I agree with Bertrand Russell (LII). That doesn't make me an LII.

It doesn't make Bertrand Russell an LII either. Russell was certainly not an LII. His a typical example of a person whose whole approach to both science and life in general is typically . There is no way Russell was an LII.

But your are right when you say that science in general is , because the typical scientific attitude is .

i disagree that science is mainly about Te. science about Ti: developing systems, categories, classifications, and timelines to explain Te facts and data. it's Ti and Te working together. scientific research is inherently system oriented as well.

Developing systems is . Classifications and categories, as in correlating names with phenomena and substantiating things, are sub-themes. It is also important to keep in mind that quantification and empirical measurement is , whereas a qualitative analysis (which is not highly regarded among scientist with a "positivistic" view of science in general) is .

[Ms. Kensington]

And that's why we have a problem, Houston.

haha.

[Logos]

I will say that if the externalist/internalist dichotomy coincides with the objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy, then one of the two dichotomies is quite superfluous and unnecessary.

If you can type people correctly using only one of those dichotomies -- that's fine. But for someone with leading it would probably help to have an additional angle, an additional dichotomy to look at it from. An ENTp friend of mine has said that he perceives INTps, like me, his brother, and a co-worker of his, as taxonomists. Regardless of whether we actually are taxonomists, I can understand why we are perceived as such. Do you agree with his observation?

This actually sounds more like . And no I do not understand why he perceives you as a taxonomist unless he explained his rational for why he does.

But what you are bringing in does not add anything other than further complexities and redundancies which are complete unnecessary to understanding Socionics.

I think that our different attitudes here reflect our different preferences for systems and systems.

Perhaps, but tcaudillig would be a potential counterexample for who have overly complicated and extraneous fluff.

You prefer to hold on to one specific system, which you try to understand in its details as correctly as possible, and you try to leave everything out of it that isn't a logical implication of the system's basic premises. (That's how your attitude is perceived by me, anyway, and I would say that it is a typical bottom-up approach, a approach.)

I suppose that is true, but what about your system?

I prefer to compare as many systems as possible (external input), I collect facts in order to get something to work with. With all that chaotic information in front of me, I start to analyze it to see whether there is a general pattern to all this mess. And the more information I collect, the more different angles or perspectives I can use to see it from, the more easy it is for me to understand the essence of whatever it is that I am looking at. Things become clearer to me when the possible logical connections between different logical concepts (which you perhaps might call "boxes" in a taxonomy) increases. In a sense, adding another logical concept increases your abstract thinking capacity.

But you also ignore, brush aside, and misuse facts which are given to you.

Bold: the abstract essence of external objects is .

While you have tried to explain the overlap of the Ex/In and S/O dichotomies, what you have repeatedly failed to do is explain why Einstein "is clearly an externalist and objectivist in the philosophical sense of the words" or in the Socionic sense of the words for that matter.

Einstein understood "truth" as correspondence with reality, which is the classical notion of the concept truth that I have tried to explain in several posts on this forum. He believed that reality exists in itself independently of our observations of it, and that is has a certain structure independently of our observations. That is exactly what it means to be a realist in a philosophical sense, and to an objectivist in for example epistemology is equivalent to being a realist in that area. Objectivism claims that there are universally valid truths, where "truth" is understood as correspondance with (objective) reality. Objectivism implies realism. So, it is obvious that Einstein was an objectivist and a realist.

This still sounds like Kant, because you seem to misunderstand how extensive Kant's work was: he combined the rationalist and empirical traditions. You can call him an idealist all you like, but he saved the empirical tradition from its own stagnancy caused by its skepticism.

It is a little bit more problematic to say for sure whether Einsten was truly an externalist or not, but it is more natural for an objectivist and a realist to adopt an externalist perspective in epistemology and theories of truth, because it is more natural (for such a creature) to think that it is ultimately reality itself that causes you to believe what you believe. It is reality itself that is the ultimate arbiter of whether your beliefs are true or false, and it is reality itself that is the ultimate arbiter of whether you have (objectively) good or bad reasons for yor beliefs.

So he is an externalist because he was most likely a realist, and he is a realist because he is most likely an objectivist. So why is it even necessary to go beyond the objectivist level? You are putting the cart in front of the horse in this case. The dichotomy does not define the functions which a person prefers, but the personal functions defines the dichotomy. In order to place someone in the many dichotomies of Socionics, the only requirement is a certain use of particular functions whether individually or with other functions. So instead of trying to prove that they are through objectivism, externalism, realism, and any other pointless concepts you can pull out of thin air to make your case, all you have to do is look at Einstein and his processes and say "This aspect shows a preference for ." Einstein showed a preference for as a means of seeking an explanation for the universe, and he used to come behind and to make it all make sense, and he furthermore was a seeker of and not . This makes him by the definition of the S/O dichotomy in Socionics a Subjectivist. Now you may call him an ILI, but little of Einstein's life could possibly be worthy of receiving the title of "The Critic" but Einstein does fit with the archetype of "The Seeker" far better.

Einstein seems to be an Objectivist in the socionic sense of the word, because he is an objectivist in the philosophical sense of the word, and those two meanings of the word "objectivist" are very similar, if not to say equivalent. Whether Einstein was also an externalist is not clear-cut, so we could leave that aspect out of the discussion for later.

Objectivist in the philosophical meaning of the word is Ayn Rand's system, and I doubt that you mean that. And Socionics defines objectivism/subjectivism merely as the Fe-Ti/Fi-Te divide. And what defines whether or not a person uses Ti/Te, it is not whether or not they are a S/O, because that would largely be circular reasoning as far as Socionics is concerned. And a person is Ti/Te based upon how those functions are defined which is basically as structural and algorithmic logic respectively.

And I can tell for sure that Expat and I belong to the same Fi/Te group in Socionics. If you, or he, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.

And I and Expat can tell for sure that you do not know where you really belong. If you, or your disillusioned ego, are unable to see that, the lack of competence is on your side, not mine.

I am in a much, much, much better position epistemologically to determine the truth of that thesis than both you and Expat. If you really think that you can determine my type better, more reliably, and more accurately than I can myself with my superior knowledge of how I am in real life, what my typical behaviours are, how I am perceived by others, what my test results are, how I look on V.I., what attitudes I have, what I identify with, what my intertype relations are like, what my energy rthythms are like, etc, etc, -- then it would be appropriate to call you an ignorant asshole and a super idiot. But of course you don't really think that, since you are far to intelligent to have such a stupid belief in the infallibility of your typing method, based on such a tiny evidence.

Of course you are in a much better position epistemologically to determine the truth than either of us, paradoxically you are also by logical extension in a much better position to make personal, subjective judgmental error. So until you can provide more of what you are like (in barebone descriptions that lack your reliance upon jargon), Expat and I can only work with what you provide us, which as of now is indicating error. And you misunderstand me, I am not trying to determine or dictate your type. Telling you that you are something else is futile, but not necessarily because you are right, because you could very well be quite wrong (which I happen to believe), but because you do not listen. As I said, I am not here to discuss your type, I am here because you made error in your claims about Einstein and your misunderstandings of the functions and their manifestations and I seek to correct them as best as a teacher can correct a brickwall can.

That is indeed an interesting analysis, and I happen to agree with everything in it -- except from my reservations regarding Einstein. A couple of weeks ago I incidentally happened to discussed the differences between Newton and Leibniz (among others) with an INTj friend of mine, who is a mathematician and and expert in q-calculus, in order to find out whether he would confirm or disconfirm my hypotheses regarding general philosophical differences in attitude between INTjs and INTps. He criticized Newton's empiricist and "inexact" bent, and very much preferred Leibniz's more exact, formalistic approach.

I am glad you liked it.

Did you write it, and/or does it mean that we agree on the correctness of the analysis and the differences between the persons mentioned there?[/quote]I just found it.

I made a thread, especially for Richard Dawkins and his typing. Phaedrus replied. About 60 people viewed. What a joke.

Hahahahahaha

Probably because other people know that your thread will just turn into a repetition of this thread now that Phaedrus replied.

But of course you don't really think that, since you are far to intelligent to have such a stupid belief in the infallibility of your typing method, based on such a tiny evidence.

Soooooo -- Logos is lying when he says he disagrees with you? To which purpose?

I don't know. Or maybe he isn't lying. Maybe it was meant as kind of twisted joke. But he can always come to his senses and realize his mistake.

Of course, we have been saying the same thing about you for some time now, and you have not come around, so I doubt that we will.

It is of course stupid of anyone to think that they can type me (Phaedrus) better than I can myself.

Phaedrus, I (Logos) know your name. But why is it stupid? Can the subject not be in self-error? If the subject shows misunderstandings of the matter at hand, can one not also question the basis with which they typed themselves?

[Ezra]

It doesn't make Bertrand Russell an LII either. Russell was certainly not an LII. His a typical example of a person whose whole approach to both science and life in general is typically . There is no way Russell was an LII.

LIE or LSE?

[Phaedrus]

If you can type people correctly using only one of those dichotomies -- that's fine. But for someone with leading it would probably help to have an additional angle, an additional dichotomy to look at it from. An ENTp friend of mine has said that he perceives INTps, like me, his brother, and a co-worker of his, as taxonomists. Regardless of whether we actually are taxonomists, I can understand why we are perceived as such. Do you agree with his observation?

This actually sounds more like . And no I do not understand why he perceives you as a taxonomist unless he explained his rational for why he does.

Both ENTps and INTps are intuitives. It might be relevant for both. My ENTp friend has observed the same behaviour in me (and also in others) as you and others on this forum have observed. It is about naming things, putting the correct label on a phenomenon (and that is an aspect of by the way). He mentioned it in relation to Carl von Linné, the Swedish taxonomist who is now attracting attention in Sweden, since he was born in 1707, and he suggested the possibility that Linné might have been an INTp. I haven't investigated Linné's type, so I don't have an opinion on his type yet.

But what you are bringing in does not add anything other than further complexities and redundancies which are complete unnecessary to understanding Socionics.

I think that our different attitudes here reflect our different preferences for systems and systems.

Perhaps, but tcaudillig would be a potential counterexample for who have overly complicated and extraneous fluff.

Now when you mention tcaudillg, you could take a look at how different the writing styles of me and him are. Tcaudillg's writing style is a good (or even extreme) example of .

You prefer to hold on to one specific system, which you try to understand in its details as correctly as possible, and you try to leave everything out of it that isn't a logical implication of the system's basic premises. (That's how your attitude is perceived by me, anyway, and I would say that it is a typical bottom-up approach, a approach.)

I suppose that is true, but what about your system?

My "system" is not a system, and I am reluctant to call it a "system". My approach is top-down. I compare lots of theories and models without committing myself to any of them wholeheartedly.

I prefer to compare as many systems as possible (external input), I collect facts in order to get something to work with. With all that chaotic information in front of me, I start to analyze it to see whether there is a general pattern to all this mess. And the more information I collect, the more different angles or perspectives I can use to see it from, the more easy it is for me to understand the essence of whatever it is that I am looking at. Things become clearer to me when the possible logical connections between different logical concepts (which you perhaps might call "boxes" in a taxonomy) increases. In a sense, adding another logical concept increases your abstract thinking capacity.

But you also ignore, brush aside, and misuse facts which are given to you.

I try to make the pieces fit the big puzzle. I question everything that doesn't seem to fit.

Bold: the abstract essence of external objects is .

I am primarily trying to find the abstract essence of external fields. I look for general patterns.

Einstein understood "truth" as correspondence with reality, which is the classical notion of the concept truth that I have tried to explain in several posts on this forum. He believed that reality exists in itself independently of our observations of it, and that is has a certain structure independently of our observations. That is exactly what it means to be a realist in a philosophical sense, and to an objectivist in for example epistemology is equivalent to being a realist in that area. Objectivism claims that there are universally valid truths, where "truth" is understood as correspondance with (objective) reality. Objectivism implies realism. So, it is obvious that Einstein was an objectivist and a realist.

This still sounds like Kant, because you seem to misunderstand how extensive Kant's work was: he combined the rationalist and empirical traditions. You can call him an idealist all you like, but he saved the empirical tradition from its own stagnancy caused by its skepticism.

Kant's philosophy is perhaps too big a topic to discuss in length in this thread. At least we agree that Kant was an INTj, don't we?

Now you may call him an ILI, but little of Einstein's life could possibly be worthy of receiving the title of "The Critic" but Einstein does fit with the archetype of "The Seeker" far better.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I haven't called Einstein an ILI. I agree with you that the most likely type for him is still probably ILE, but there are some aspects of his personality and behaviour that point in another direction. He was not a typical ILE, and he had Asperger's Syndrome.

Einstein seems to be an Objectivist in the socionic sense of the word, because he is an objectivist in the philosophical sense of the word, and those two meanings of the word "objectivist" are very similar, if not to say equivalent. Whether Einstein was also an externalist is not clear-cut, so we could leave that aspect out of the discussion for later.

Objectivist in the philosophical meaning of the word is Ayn Rand's system, and I doubt that you mean that.

Objectivism in the philosophical meaning of the word is certainly not Ayn Rand's system. Rand's "Objectivism" is quite another thing than objectivism in a general sense (she has "kidnapped" the word "objectivism" and given a very special personal meaning to it), but it is true that Rand's "Objectivism" is a form of objectivism. I am not an Objectivist in Rand's sense, even though I agree with some of her ideas, but I am definitely an objectivist.

Of course you are in a much better position epistemologically to determine the truth than either of us, paradoxically you are also by logical extension in a much better position to make personal, subjective judgmental error. So until you can provide more of what you are like (in barebone descriptions that lack your reliance upon jargon), Expat and I can only work with what you provide us, which as of now is indicating error.

I have provided more than enough material on what I am like in real life. Neither you, nor Expat, have any legitimate reason what-so-ever to be in doubt about me being an ILI.

And you misunderstand me, I am not trying to determine or dictate your type.

I don't misunderstand you on this particular point, and yes you are.

Telling you that you are something else is futile, but not necessarily because you are right, because you could very well be quite wrong (which I happen to believe), but because you do not listen.

And here is the proof that you are a liar. I listen to every argument, but the truth is that I can't be wrong about my type. That is simply impossible. That I am an ILI is a proven fact within the system of classical Socionics.

As I said, I am not here to discuss your type, I am here because you made error in your claims about Einstein and your misunderstandings of the functions and their manifestations and I seek to correct them as best as a teacher can correct a brickwall can.

I have made no error in my claims about Einstein, I don't misunderstand the functions, and you make unfounded and false claims about my type. I correct you when you make false claims, that's all.

Of course, we have been saying the same thing about you for some time now, and you have not come around, so I doubt that we will.

Accept that I am an ILI, or accept that you are an idiot. Your choice.

It is of course stupid of anyone to think that they can type me (Phaedrus) better than I can myself.

Phaedrus, I (Logos) know your name. But why is it stupid? Can the subject not be in self-error?

In many cases -- yes. In this particular case -- no.

If the subject shows misunderstandings of the matter at hand, can one not also question the basis with which they typed themselves?

Yes. I have done that myself in some cases. But if you are questioning someone's understanding of the matter at hand, you have to be damn right when you claim that you understand it better. In this case you don't.

[Phaedrus]

It doesn't make Bertrand Russell an LII either. Russell was certainly not an LII. His a typical example of a person whose whole approach to both science and life in general is typically . There is no way Russell was an LII.

LIE or LSE?

LIE is my guess. Lytov has him typed as IEE, but I think that is a mistake. LSE is an even more unlikely type for Russell.

[MysticSonic]

"Classifications and categories, as in correlating names with phenomena and substantiating things, are Extraverted Thinking sub-themes."

What do you mean here, exactly? Creating classifications or classifying?

[Phaedrus]

"Classifications and categories, as in correlating names with phenomena and substantiating things, are Extraverted Thinking sub-themes."

What do you mean here, exactly? Creating classifications or classifying?

The words "classifications" and "categories" were diamond8's. That's why I commented and said that if we by any or both of those words are referring to the act of correlating phenomena with names, that is , not . But I'm not sure exactly what diamond8 meant by "categories" and "classifications". What's the important difference between "creating classifications" and "classifying", according to your understanding of those terms, MysticSonic?

[Logos]

If you can type people correctly using only one of those dichotomies -- that's fine. But for someone with leading it would probably help to have an additional angle, an additional dichotomy to look at it from. An ENTp friend of mine has said that he perceives INTps, like me, his brother, and a co-worker of his, as taxonomists. Regardless of whether we actually are taxonomists, I can understand why we are perceived as such. Do you agree with his observation?

This actually sounds more like . And no I do not understand why he perceives you as a taxonomist unless he explained his rational for why he does.

Both ENTps and INTps are intuitives. It might be relevant for both. My ENTp friend has observed the same behaviour in me (and also in others) as you and others on this forum have observed. It is about naming things, putting the correct label on a phenomenon (and that is an aspect of by the way). He mentioned it in relation to Carl von Linné, the Swedish taxonomist who is now attracting attention in Sweden, since he was born in 1707, and he suggested the possibility that Linné might have been an INTp. I haven't investigated Linné's type, so I don't have an opinion on his type yet.

But isn't the creation of categories, labeling, etc. a part of the determination of relationships of objects as defined by ?

But what you are bringing in does not add anything other than further complexities and redundancies which are complete unnecessary to understanding Socionics.

I think that our different attitudes here reflect our different preferences for systems and systems.

Perhaps, but tcaudillig would be a potential counterexample for who have overly complicated and extraneous fluff.

Now when you mention tcaudillg, you could take a look at how different the writing styles of me and him are. Tcaudillg's writing style is a good (or even extreme) example of .

But that is because he is a LII, and I do not think that you are an LII, though you still have a preference of a system.

You prefer to hold on to one specific system, which you try to understand in its details as correctly as possible, and you try to leave everything out of it that isn't a logical implication of the system's basic premises. (That's how your attitude is perceived by me, anyway, and I would say that it is a typical bottom-up approach, a approach.)

I suppose that is true, but what about your system?

My "system" is not a system, and I am reluctant to call it a "system". My approach is top-down. I compare lots of theories and models without committing myself to any of them wholeheartedly.

But have thereby gone about what appears to be a separate system entirely: Phaedronics.

I prefer to compare as many systems as possible (external input), I collect facts in order to get something to work with. With all that chaotic information in front of me, I start to analyze it to see whether there is a general pattern to all this mess. And the more information I collect, the more different angles or perspectives I can use to see it from, the more easy it is for me to understand the essence of whatever it is that I am looking at. Things become clearer to me when the possible logical connections between different logical concepts (which you perhaps might call "boxes" in a taxonomy) increases. In a sense, adding another logical concept increases your abstract thinking capacity.

But you also ignore, brush aside, and misuse facts which are given to you.

I try to make the pieces fit the big puzzle. I question everything that doesn't seem to fit.

And here you sound like an LII. You are trying to make the pieces () fit some puzzle (), but does not operate in that fashion if you are a -dominant or if you prefer it. And then you say that you question everything that does not fit, which is again questioning all which does not fit the structure of your puzzle. For -dominants a puzzle of structure may result from their piecing it together, but they do not try and make it fit a puzzle.

Bold: the abstract essence of external objects is .

I am primarily trying to find the abstract essence of external fields. I look for general patterns.

Patterns come in all shapes in sizes from to patterns, and you wrote of a pattern in that case.

Einstein understood "truth" as correspondence with reality, which is the classical notion of the concept truth that I have tried to explain in several posts on this forum. He believed that reality exists in itself independently of our observations of it, and that is has a certain structure independently of our observations. That is exactly what it means to be a realist in a philosophical sense, and to an objectivist in for example epistemology is equivalent to being a realist in that area. Objectivism claims that there are universally valid truths, where "truth" is understood as correspondance with (objective) reality. Objectivism implies realism. So, it is obvious that Einstein was an objectivist and a realist.

This still sounds like Kant, because you seem to misunderstand how extensive Kant's work was: he combined the rationalist and empirical traditions. You can call him an idealist all you like, but he saved the empirical tradition from its own stagnancy caused by its skepticism.

Kant's philosophy is perhaps too big a topic to discuss in length in this thread. At least we agree that Kant was an INTj, don't we?

That has never been questioned.

Now you may call him an ILI, but little of Einstein's life could possibly be worthy of receiving the title of "The Critic" but Einstein does fit with the archetype of "The Seeker" far better.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I haven't called Einstein an ILI. I agree with you that the most likely type for him is still probably ILE, but there are some aspects of his personality and behaviour that point in another direction. He was not a typical ILE, and he had Asperger's Syndrome.

So if you think that he is an ILE or perhaps something else, what exactly are you trying to get at with this?

Einstein seems to be an Objectivist in the socionic sense of the word, because he is an objectivist in the philosophical sense of the word, and those two meanings of the word "objectivist" are very similar, if not to say equivalent. Whether Einstein was also an externalist is not clear-cut, so we could leave that aspect out of the discussion for later.

Objectivist in the philosophical meaning of the word is Ayn Rand's system, and I doubt that you mean that.

Objectivism in the philosophical meaning of the word is certainly not Ayn Rand's system. Rand's "Objectivism" is quite another thing than objectivism in a general sense (she has "kidnapped" the word "objectivism" and given a very special personal meaning to it), but it is true that Rand's "Objectivism" is a form of objectivism. I am not an Objectivist in Rand's sense, even though I agree with some of her ideas, but I am definitely an objectivist.

Any type can be objective in the philosophical sense of the word, but what you seem to be looking for is empirical.

Of course you are in a much better position epistemologically to determine the truth than either of us, paradoxically you are also by logical extension in a much better position to make personal, subjective judgmental error. So until you can provide more of what you are like (in barebone descriptions that lack your reliance upon jargon), Expat and I can only work with what you provide us, which as of now is indicating error.

I have provided more than enough material on what I am like in real life. Neither you, nor Expat, have any legitimate reason what-so-ever to be in doubt about me being an ILI.

But all that you provided has been covered in the muck of your jargon as your just reaffirm your type in your description with self-analysis as you go along.

And you misunderstand me, I am not trying to determine or dictate your type.

I don't misunderstand you on this particular point, and yes you are.

Telling you that you are something else is futile, but not necessarily because you are right, because you could very well be quite wrong (which I happen to believe), but because you do not listen.

And here is the proof that you are a liar. I listen to every argument, but the truth is that I can't be wrong about my type. That is simply impossible. That I am an ILI is a proven fact within the system of classical Socionics.

And here is the proof that you lack basic reading comprehension. I have narrowed your type down in other threads, but I did not come here to participate in this thread to correct you about your type, but about these other issues. All I did here, was admit that I think you are wrong. That is not me coming to correct you or here seeking to determine your type, but me just admitting that I think that you are wrong and I leave it at that. Why is the truth that you cannot be wrong about your type? Why is it somehow logically necessary that you are an ILI? Why is that simply impossible?

As I said, I am not here to discuss your type, I am here because you made error in your claims about Einstein and your misunderstandings of the functions and their manifestations and I seek to correct them as best as a teacher can correct a brickwall can.

I have made no error in my claims about Einstein, I don't misunderstand the functions, and you make unfounded and false claims about my type. I correct you when you make false claims, that's all.

Of course, we have been saying the same thing about you for some time now, and you have not come around, so I doubt that we will.

Accept that I am an ILI, or accept that you are an idiot. Your choice.

That is not much of a choice: I either have to accept your erroneous belief or accept that I am an idiot for somehow not believing, but if I accept that you are somehow an ILI, by accepting the belief in your error I thereby must accept further idiocy for being idiotic enough to believe the idiot. So I will gladly accept that I am an idiot and that you are one too, and that this idiot savant (Logos) happens to be right about the error of the village idiot (Phaedrus).

If the subject shows misunderstandings of the matter at hand, can one not also question the basis with which they typed themselves?

Yes. I have done that myself in some cases. But if you are questioning someone's understanding of the matter at hand, you have to be damn right when you claim that you understand it better. In this case you don't.

Unless you are mistakingly in self-delusional error of course.

[MysticSonic]

Ti is about creating structure, systems, and determining _how_ to classify an object. Te is about what is classified as what. For instance, the debate about whether or not Pluto was a planet is pointedly Te, using a widely-accepted Ti structure to determine the accurate conclusion. I'm not really sure how clear the distinction between the two is, however, or which type does which more.

Edit: to be sure, though, the former is a distinctly Ti activity.

[Ezra]

RIGHT FOR FUCK'S SAKE LET'S SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL.

EVERYONE AGREE THAT PHAEDRUS IS ILI, AND PHAEDRUS WILL SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HIS TYPE FOREVER MORE. THERE IS NO NEED TO QUESTION ILI. WHAT QUALMS DO YOU HAVE? THEY ARE EMPTY. PHAEDRUS IS ILI.

[Logos]

RIGHT FOR FUCK'S SAKE LET'S SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL.

EVERYONE AGREE THAT PHAEDRUS IS ILI, AND PHAEDRUS WILL SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HIS TYPE FOREVER MORE.

Bullshit.

THERE IS NO NEED TO QUESTION ILI.

Why not? If there is error in his reasoning whether factually or logically, then there is need to question his outcome.

WHAT QUALMS DO YOU HAVE? THEY ARE EMPTY.

How can you tell me that my qualms are empty immediately asking what they are. Unless you know what my qualms are, then you have no basis to judge their emptiness. But using your psychic powers, why do you our qualms are empty? And please try avoid the circular reasoning of stating, that our qualms are empty simply because you think Phaedrus is an ILI.

PHAEDRUS IS ILI.

On what grounds? You barely know your own type, still question it, are constantly having your own assessments corrected, and spent an entire thread of pages upon pages arguing your type, and you are going to tell me that he is a ILI just because you typed it in all caps?

[Ezra]

1. My type is immaterial. It bears no consequence to the eventual outcome of this discussion, nor to Phaedrus' own type.

2. I'll have you know that I don't barely know my type. I don't know it at all. It is either LIE or SLE.

3. Why are you so sure that Phaedrus is incorrect in his reasoning that he is an ILI?

4. If Phaedrus says he is an ILI, why question that?

[Logos]

1. My type is immaterial. It bears no consequence to the eventual outcome of this discussion, nor to Phaedrus' own type.

It deals with your capacity to proclaim Phaedrus's type.

2. I'll have you know that I don't barely know my type. I don't know it at all. It is either LIE or SLE.

Wow, that is so much better...

If you were SLE, you would be my supervisor, and I have difficulties imagining you supervising anything. If you are LIE, I have a hard time seeing the overlaps between you, Expat, Thunder, and even Joy.

3. Why are you so sure that Phaedrus is incorrect in his reasoning that he is an ILI?

::throws hands up in the air in disgust and walks away::

4. If Phaedrus says he is an ILI, why question that?

If I say I'm God, why question that?

[Ezra]

1. My type is immaterial. It bears no consequence to the eventual outcome of this discussion, nor to Phaedrus' own type.

It deals with your capacity to proclaim Phaedrus's type.

Only insofar that I could be his dual or the like, which is why I empathise with much of what he says.

2. I'll have you know that I don't barely know my type. I don't know it at all. It is either LIE or SLE.

Wow, that is so much better...

If you were SLE, you would be my supervisor, and I have difficulties imagining you supervising anything. If you are LIE, I have a hard time seeing the overlaps between you, Expat, Thunder, and even Joy.

Your first point is entirely meaningless, thus, you have no foundation whatsoever for my not being SLE. Perhaps you could revise that statement you fucking dick.

Your second point I would like it if you elaborated on. Could you do that for me?

3. Why are you so sure that Phaedrus is incorrect in his reasoning that he is an ILI?

::throws hands up in the air in disgust and walks away::

I was actually hoping for an answer to this.

4. If Phaedrus says he is an ILI, why question that?

If I say I'm God, why question that?

Because we know you're not. We don't, however, know Phaedrus is not an ILI.

[inumbra]

Okay, so the point is that is centered on making sure something is logically consistent in and of itself, where as is more concerned with making sure multiple 'somethings' are logically consistent in relation to one another across the board. (???)

--------------------------

So if I have one 'something' that I have made a system of (in that it is logically perfect within itself) I used a lot of in doing that. If I try to take my Ti-system and apply it to other 'somethings' and make those other 'somethings' fit into my system that I derived from the first 'something' (I'm still using ) even though I'm now looking at multiple 'somethings.'

But if I realize that these other 'somethings' don't fit within my system I devised for the first 'something,' and then devise a new system that is logically consistent for ALL of these multiple 'somethings' then I've made a Te-system and am using .

(???)

--------------------------

is then needed to understand individual components correctly; needed to understand the bigger picture that the components fit into... or how the components or parts are interrelated so as to form the whole. Of course if I walk too far on that path I'll start confusing T with N...

Clear as mud!

Please feel free to correct my logical inconsistencies! Was this post or ? Or something else entirely?

[Phaedrus]

AND PHAEDRUS WILL SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HIS TYPE FOREVER MORE.

No. I will not shut up. Since I know that I am an ILI, there is no reason for me not to include my own real life experiences as an ILI if I find that appropriate in order to illustrate a point in relation to ILIs in general. I will continue to talk about the 16 types, and I will use examples from real life occasionally -- like many other people on this forum do all the time.

[Ezra]

AND PHAEDRUS WILL SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HIS TYPE FOREVER MORE.

No. I will not shut up. Since I know that I am an ILI, there is no reason for me not to include my own real life experiences as an ILI if I find that appropriate in order to illustrate a point in relation to ILIs in general. I will continue to talk about the 16 types, and I will use examples from real life occasionally -- like many other people on this forum do all the time.

Phaedrus, if you know you are ILI and people are wrong, why do you continue to argue your point so tediously? You know it's the same material every time, as does everyone else - it's always about you having no whatsoever or the like. But why continue? Why bother to reply or even try to convince those who will not be convinced that you are ILI, when you know you are ILI? Why turn every goddamn thread into a discussion of your type? Is it because you like the attention? If so, I can sympathise with you on some level (I've done it a few times). But you must get bored of it! So, seriously, why continue? WHY WHY WHY WHY WH YWHYWHWYHWYYWywywwyywhywhywhHYWHWYWYWHWYWHWYWYWHWY WY???????

[Logos]

1. My type is immaterial. It bears no consequence to the eventual outcome of this discussion, nor to Phaedrus' own type.

It deals with your capacity to proclaim Phaedrus's type.

Only insofar that I could be his dual or the like, which is why I empathise with much of what he says.

Well if you are an SLE, he probably would be your dual. But neither FDG or discojoe really empathize with him all that much and they have the SxE covered. And type does not dictate behavior, behavior dictates type.

2. I'll have you know that I don't barely know my type. I don't know it at all. It is either LIE or SLE.

Wow, that is so much better...

If you were SLE, you would be my supervisor, and I have difficulties imagining you supervising anything. If you are LIE, I have a hard time seeing the overlaps between you, Expat, Thunder, and even Joy.

Your first point is entirely meaningless, thus, you have no foundation whatsoever for my not being SLE. Perhaps you could revise that statement you fucking dick. [/quote]You do realize that when I quote what you say, it appears as clear as day?

Your second point I would like it if you elaborated on. Could you do that for me?

Well Expat, Joy, and Thunder primarily deal with . What matters is that things are true as they conform to the facts.

3. Why are you so sure that Phaedrus is incorrect in his reasoning that he is an ILI?

::throws hands up in the air in disgust and walks away::

I was actually hoping for an answer to this.[/quote]Because it has been done before. Go digging through old Phaedrus threads that involve Expat, Rocky, FDG, Slacker Mom ( detector) and you should be able to find frustrations all around at everyone pointing out errors of reasoning in Phaedrus's posts. But what it amounts to is that what Phaedrus says as well as how he says it does not match with the behavior of the ILI. There is a lack of and , but there are signs for a > preference. And as Expat said, Phaedrus's system of logic may be logically consistent on its own merit, but it is not logically consistent with Socionics.

4. If Phaedrus says he is an ILI, why question that?

If I say I'm God, why question that?

Because we know you're not. We don't, however, know Phaedrus is not an ILI.[/quote]But do you know that Phaedrus is an ILI? How do you know I am not God? I've said I'm God, should that not be good enough for you?