Example of Te reacting to Fe role criticism

[Phaedrus]

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

Not necessarily. Read Rick's summary of The Semantics of the Information Elements again. It might help to clarify a few misunderstandings people have about and .

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.

Okay, I forgot that. Too many people have thought that I am LII in the past, and all of them have had an incorrect view on how to spot in a text. But in what sense do you think that I have a preference for a system? My own ideas about the correlations between the socionic types and the MBTT types, and other things, is not a system. Surely you must realize that, anyway?

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.

No, I don't. You should try to understand this correctly, because you don't. To fit pieces together in way I have described is not at all. It is primarily an inductive process, not a deductive. The information input comes from , and the attitude is is much more typical of Gamma than of Alpha.

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.

But it works in that fashion if you have as creative function. And it is actually more about seeing how the pieces fit together.

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.

It is not a puzzle. Call it a puzzle if you want, but don't call it a puzzle. That will only result in people getting puzzled.

For -dominants a puzzle of structure may result from their piecing it together, but they do not try and make it fit a puzzle.

Maybe it is my phrasing of it that has got people confused. Of course I don't mean that there is a pre-existing puzzle before the pieces have been put together correctly. And you simply must realize that there is a big difference between having as leading function and having as creative function.

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

To point at an anomaly. There might be something wrong with Reinin's dichotomy or there might be something wrong with Einstein's type. Or there might be a bigger difference between ENTps and INTjs than between ENTjs and INTps in relation to their attitudes towards science and/or their philosophical frameworks. And I want to understand why.

Any type can be objective in the philosophical sense of the word

How do you know that?

but what you seem to be looking for is empirical.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

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.

In which case my type immediately becomes an issue, because you brought it up. Admitting that you think that I am wrong about my type is equivalent to trying to correct me about my type, and I correct you on that false belief of yours.

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.

It is not okay to leave it at that. I won't let you do that. You are wrong and I am right about my type. Period.

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?

Only someone who don't know much about logic and semantics would interpret what I say as meaning that I think that it is a logical necessity that I am an ILI. Of course it is not logically necessary. It just happens to be an empirical fact that I am an ILI. Why is that so hard to understand for you? Are you so stuck in your that you dismiss every piece of information that doesn't suit your prejudices? I find such an attitude incredibly stupid. The main reason in Expat's case is more likely sheer stubbornness and an unwillingness to admit that he is wrong.

I can't be wrong about my type, because everything fits. The only way to question my type is to question the entire theory of Socionics.

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).

Your line of reasoning is incorrect, because it is based on the false assumption that my belief is erroneous. I don't accept that I am an idiot, but I can accept that you are an idiot, if you insist on it.

[Subteigh]

Will this thread never end ? Keep tuned to find out...

Your line of reasoning is incorrect, because it is based on the false assumption that my belief is erroneous. I don't accept that I am an idiot, but I can accept that you are an idiot, if you insist on it.

How can anyone accept that God is an idiot - he is infalliable ! If he says he is God he must be, because God wouldn't say something idiotic .

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, if you know you are ILI and people are wrong, why do you continue to argue your point so tediously?

Because some ILIs (including me) have a compulsory need to correct others who are wrong. False beliefs should be eliminated -- that is almost a moral duty for me. The truth is very important, and it is even more important not to have any false beliefs. And to state your false beliefs and present them as truths, that is simply unacceptable to me. So, I insist on correcting others when they are objectively wrong. My attitude is very similar to niffweed's, and it is only in our preferred methods that we differ slightly in that respect.

You know it's the same material every time, as does everyone else - it's always about you having no whatsoever or the like.

Yeah. It is extremely irritating that people refuse to learn anything, that they refuse to study the material and change their erroneous beliefs.

But why continue?

Because they should learn. Their attitudes are wrong, and even immoral.

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?

Because they insist that I am not an ILI, and that means that they have a false belief.

Why turn every goddamn thread into a discussion of your type?

Because I am stubborn.

Is it because you like the attention?

Certainly not. I would very much prefer that they didn't bring my type up for discussion over and over again, but since they insist on doing that, I insist on correcting them. I would prefer to discuss serious issues instead of correcting people's false beliefs about my type. The fault is theirs, not mine.

If so, I can sympathise with you on some level (I've done it a few times).

You and I are very different in that respect.

But you must get bored of it!

Yes, it can be boring to repeat the same things to people who are acting like idiots, but who else will enlighten them? I wouldn't mind some help in doing the dirty work.

[Phaedrus]

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.

Despite the risk of being banned, I think this must be said now: You are a liar and an idiot, Logos. You are an idiot because you don't understand more than a iota of what you are talking about, and you are a liar, because Slacker Mom is one of the worst detectors there is, my behaviour is extremely typical of the ILI, I don't lack creative , there are no clear signs of a > preference, and everything I say about the types is logically consistent with Socionics.

[Logos]

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

Not necessarily. Read Rick's summary of The Semantics of the Information Elements again. It might help to clarify a few misunderstandings people have about and .

Would you mind providing me a link please?

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.

Okay, I forgot that. Too many people have thought that I am LII in the past, and all of them have had an incorrect view on how to spot in a text. But in what sense do you think that I have a preference for a system? My own ideas about the correlations between the socionic types and the MBTT types, and other things, is not a system. Surely you must realize that, anyway?

No I do not realize that, so you will have to educate me here. Why is it not a system? And telling me that it is not a system because it is a system will not work.

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.

No, I don't. You should try to understand this correctly, because you don't. To fit pieces together in way I have described is not at all. It is primarily an inductive process, not a deductive.

Interestingly enough, David Hume (Empiricist and extreme) denied the logical admissibility of inductive reasoning.

The information input comes from , and the attitude is is much more typical of Gamma than of Alpha.

Oh I quite agree, I just do not agree about your possession of such attitude.

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.

But it works in that fashion if you have as creative function. And it is actually more about seeing how the pieces fit together.

Then why are you trying to make the pieces do anything? Should you just see the interconnectivity and the which comes from 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.

It is not a puzzle. Call it a puzzle if you want, but don't call it a puzzle. That will only result in people getting puzzled.

But why should I describe what you detailed as a puzzle as a puzzle? Would that not puzzle people even more?

For -dominants a puzzle of structure may result from their piecing it together, but they do not try and make it fit a puzzle.

Maybe it is my phrasing of it that has got people confused. Of course I don't mean that there is a pre-existing puzzle before the pieces have been put together correctly. And you simply must realize that there is a big difference between having as leading function and having as creative function.

Of course I do, but you were describing a puzzle. For the ILI, the puzzle has always been. They should just see it empirically, but jaded and muddled through their perceptions.

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

To point at an anomaly. There might be something wrong with Reinin's dichotomy or there might be something wrong with Einstein's type. Or there might be a bigger difference between ENTps and INTjs than between ENTjs and INTps in relation to their attitudes towards science and/or their philosophical frameworks. And I want to understand why.

And if you think that Einstein is an ILE, then would it not be the dichotomy which is in error? But you have never asked why or put the question in public domain.

Any type can be objective in the philosophical sense of the word

How do you know that?

Can you prove otherwise?

but what you seem to be looking for is empirical.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Trying to get you to replace the concept of objectivism with empiricism. It is more a point of semantics and definitions.

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.

In which case my type immediately becomes an issue, because you brought it up. Admitting that you think that I am wrong about my type is equivalent to trying to correct me about my type, and I correct you on that false belief of yours.

No admitting that I think that you are wrong, is simply that, a perceived admittance of error. It requires another and separate judgment to set about to correct or bring clarity to that perception of error.

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.

It is not okay to leave it at that. I won't let you do that. You are wrong and I am right about my type. Period.

Well this is an error on my part as a I meant to say that "I left it at that," and not that "I leave at that my argument is closed."

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?

Only someone who don't know much about logic and semantics would interpret what I say as meaning that I think that it is a logical necessity that I am an ILI. Of course it is not logically necessary. It just happens to be an empirical fact that I am an ILI. Why is that so hard to understand for you? Are you so stuck in your that you dismiss every piece of information that doesn't suit your prejudices? I find such an attitude incredibly stupid. The main reason in Expat's case is more likely sheer stubbornness and an unwillingness to admit that he is wrong.

I can't be wrong about my type, because everything fits. The only way to question my type is to question the entire theory of Socionics.

So if you are somehow not an ILI then Socionics unravels? Wow, that is some weight of responsibility you have on your shoulders to keep yourself an ILI, and so I appreciate all the work you are doing to maintaining the fabric of space, time, and Socionics.

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).

Your line of reasoning is incorrect, because it is based on the false assumption that my belief is erroneous. I don't accept that I am an idiot, but I can accept that you are an idiot, if you insist on it.

And your line of reasoning is incorrect because it is based on the false assumption that your belief is not erroneous. And I will glady be the idiot who accepts his idiocy rather than the idiot who denies it. I guess I am a little Socrates in training now.

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.

Despite the risk of being banned, I think this must be said now: You are a liar and an idiot, Logos. You are an idiot because you don't understand more than a iota of what you are talking about, and you are a liar, because Slacker Mom is one of the worst detectors there is, my behaviour is extremely typical of the ILI, I don't lack creative , there are no clear signs of a > preference, and everything I say about the types is logically consistent with Socionics.

If I think that what I speak is the truth, then how is that a lie? But it does not matter, I have no qualms with being a lying idiot. I just hope that you do not mind having your and corrected by an idiotic liar.

[Phaedrus]

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

Not necessarily. Read Rick's summary of The Semantics of the Information Elements again. It might help to clarify a few misunderstandings people have about and .

Would you mind providing me a link please?

http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

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.

Okay, I forgot that. Too many people have thought that I am LII in the past, and all of them have had an incorrect view on how to spot in a text. But in what sense do you think that I have a preference for a system? My own ideas about the correlations between the socionic types and the MBTT types, and other things, is not a system. Surely you must realize that, anyway?

No I do not realize that, so you will have to educate me here. Why is it not a system? And telling me that it is not a system because it is a system will not work.

We have talked about this before, haven't we? I thought you understood the differences between a bottom-up and a top-down approach, and that you understood that a system starts with basic assumptions (axioms, premises) and deductively builds a structure from that. I start at the other end -- with the galaxies instead of the atoms. I go from large boxes to smaller ones, and some day I might find the basic premises -- the essence -- but that is not certain, because I may never arrive at the level where the INTjs start their journey. I compare theories and models as external objects in order to find what they have in common and what their differences are, and I do that in order to find the general patterns.

Interestingly enough, David Hume (Empiricist and extreme) denied the logical admissibility of inductive reasoning.

So what? He thought inductively anyway. And of course he thought deductively too. Hume's comments on the validity of inductive reasoning in comparison with deductive reasoning are not relevant to this socionic discussion.

The information input comes from , and the attitude is is much more typical of Gamma than of Alpha.

Oh I quite agree, I just do not agree about your possession of such attitude.

Then you should open your eyes and think about it some more. Maybe do some empirical research too, for example on what I have actually said on this forum and analyze its style and content in more depth.

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.

It is not a puzzle. Call it a puzzle if you want, but don't call it a puzzle. That will only result in people getting puzzled.

But why should I describe what you detailed as a puzzle as a puzzle? Would that not puzzle people even more?

I don't know. Don't call it a puzzle then. But don't call it a system either in that case.

For -dominants a puzzle of structure may result from their piecing it together, but they do not try and make it fit a puzzle.

Maybe it is my phrasing of it that has got people confused. Of course I don't mean that there is a pre-existing puzzle before the pieces have been put together correctly. And you simply must realize that there is a big difference between having as leading function and having as creative function.

Of course I do, but you were describing a puzzle. For the ILI, the puzzle has always been. They should just see it empirically, but jaded and muddled through their perceptions.

This is the usual result when I discuss things with my Quasi-Identicals. I am not sure what we agree on and what we disagree on. It could be a trivial question of semantics here, but I can't tell for sure what you really mean.

And if you think that Einstein is an ILE, then would it not be the dichotomy which is in error? But you have never asked why or put the question in public domain.

I don't think that Einstein is an ILE, and I don't think that he is not an ILE. Einstein's most likely type might be ILE, but his type is still to uncertain -- I don't have a strong opinion on his type other than that he had Asperger.

Any type can be objective in the philosophical sense of the word

How do you know that?

Can you prove otherwise?

The burden of proof is upon you. You made the claim.

but what you seem to be looking for is empirical.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Trying to get you to replace the concept of objectivism with empiricism. It is more a point of semantics and definitions.

Empiricism has something to do with it, but empiricism and objectivism are two clearly distinct philosophical concepts that are not logically dependent on each other.

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.

It is not okay to leave it at that. I won't let you do that. You are wrong and I am right about my type. Period.

Well this is an error on my part as a I meant to say that "I left it at that," and not that "I leave at that my argument is closed."

If you admit that you think that I am wrong, you are expressing an opinion. And that opinion is either true or false. There is no way you can "leave it at that" unless you don't express an opinion in the first place.

So if you are somehow not an ILI then Socionics unravels?

No, it's the other way around. If Socionics unravels, the criteria according to which I am definitely an ILI are not trustworthy anymore, and in that case we could decide to leave Socionics (which would then be regarded as a false theory of the types). And if Socionics no longer exists as an explanatory framework, what's the point of calling me an "ILI"? What would be the point of calling anyone any of the 16 types in Socionics?

Wow, that is some weight of responsibility you have on your shoulders to keep yourself an ILI, and so I appreciate all the work you are doing to maintaining the fabric of space, time, and Socionics.

I don't have any responsibility here. I don't care if Socionics falls apart or not.

I guess I am a little Socrates in training now.

So, if you train real hard you might turn into a little ILI after a while?

[Logos]

We have talked about this before, haven't we? I thought you understood the differences between a bottom-up and a top-down approach, and that you understood that a system starts with basic assumptions (axioms, premises) and deductively builds a structure from that. I start at the other end -- with the galaxies instead of the atoms. I go from large boxes to smaller ones, and some day I might find the basic premises -- the essence -- but that is not certain, because I may never arrive at the level where the INTjs start their journey. I compare theories and models as external objects in order to find what they have in common and what their differences are, and I do that in order to find the general patterns.

What systems have you compared? What commonalities and differences have you found? What patterns have you found thus far?

Interestingly enough, David Hume (Empiricist and extreme) denied the logical admissibility of inductive reasoning.

So what? He thought inductively anyway. And of course he thought deductively too. Hume's comments on the validity of inductive reasoning in comparison with deductive reasoning are not relevant to this socionic discussion.

It was just a note of interest.

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.

It is not a puzzle. Call it a puzzle if you want, but don't call it a puzzle. That will only result in people getting puzzled.

But why should I describe what you detailed as a puzzle as a puzzle? Would that not puzzle people even more?

I don't know. Don't call it a puzzle then. But don't call it a system either in that case.

What should I call it then?

For -dominants a puzzle of structure may result from their piecing it together, but they do not try and make it fit a puzzle.

Maybe it is my phrasing of it that has got people confused. Of course I don't mean that there is a pre-existing puzzle before the pieces have been put together correctly. And you simply must realize that there is a big difference between having as leading function and having as creative function.

Of course I do, but you were describing a puzzle. For the ILI, the puzzle has always been. They should just see it empirically, but jaded and muddled through their perceptions.

This is the usual result when I discuss things with my Quasi-Identicals. I am not sure what we agree on and what we disagree on. It could be a trivial question of semantics here, but I can't tell for sure what you really mean.

Objectivity. :wink:

And if you think that Einstein is an ILE, then would it not be the dichotomy which is in error? But you have never asked why or put the question in public domain.

I don't think that Einstein is an ILE, and I don't think that he is not an ILE. Einstein's most likely type might be ILE, but his type is still to uncertain -- I don't have a strong opinion on his type other than that he had Asperger.

So in other words, you have no idea?

Any type can be objective in the philosophical sense of the word

How do you know that?

Can you prove otherwise?

The burden of proof is upon you. You made the claim.

An ESFj looks up at the sky and tells you "The sky is blue, Phaedrus." It is. Or I could say that it is possible because every type has .

but what you seem to be looking for is empirical.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Trying to get you to replace the concept of objectivism with empiricism. It is more a point of semantics and definitions.

Empiricism has something to do with it, but empiricism and objectivism are two clearly distinct philosophical concepts that are not logically dependent on each other.

So it is possible to be a empirical subjectivist?

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.

It is not okay to leave it at that. I won't let you do that. You are wrong and I am right about my type. Period.

Well this is an error on my part as a I meant to say that "I left it at that," and not that "I leave at that my argument is closed."

If you admit that you think that I am wrong, you are expressing an opinion. And that opinion is either true or false. There is no way you can "leave it at that" unless you don't express an opinion in the first place.

Yes, you can.

No, my types are not the same. I am INTP in the MBTI system, and INTj in the Socionic system. I am not debating this.

I know that you don't like to debate it, so I don't insist on it. But your statement is still false.

See?

So if you are somehow not an ILI then Socionics unravels?

No, it's the other way around. If Socionics unravels, the criteria according to which I am definitely an ILI are not trustworthy anymore, and in that case we could decide to leave Socionics (which would then be regarded as a false theory of the types). And if Socionics no longer exists as an explanatory framework, what's the point of calling me an "ILI"? What would be the point of calling anyone any of the 16 types in Socionics?

I am going with that last option. Socionics no longer exists as an explanatory framework and there is no point in calling you an ILI, so what do you recommend we do now?

Wow, that is some weight of responsibility you have on your shoulders to keep yourself an ILI, and so I appreciate all the work you are doing to maintaining the fabric of space, time, and Socionics.

I don't have any responsibility here. I don't care if Socionics falls apart or not.

Why not?

I guess I am a little Socrates in training now.

So, if you train real hard you might turn into a little ILI after a while?

If you can convince yourself that you are one, surely I can.

[Logos]

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

Not necessarily. Read Rick's summary of The Semantics of the Information Elements again. It might help to clarify a few misunderstandings people have about and .

Would you mind providing me a link please?

http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

Okay, I have now read the Semantics of the Information Elements.

And this - "comparing and classifying" was under themes of as well as "certain fields of scientific knowledge: geometry, formal logic, scientific classifications and systematizations" under DOMINANT FIELDS OF ACTIVITY AND TOPICS OF CONVERSATION of . Naming life and things is not based upon any observant laws of nature, but is an arbitrary way of labeling things so that they can be categorized and compared.

So it sounds like you could do a little rereading yourself. :wink:

Edit: Dear Gods, Subterranean, please get rid of that song, because every time I make a post it plays and there is no way of stopping it.

[Expat]

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

Actually to the extent that socionics relationships work online, it does, at least a little.

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

It's certainly not because there is an "obsession" about his type as such, as he said (another bit of - analysis by him, btw).

His type, as such, is not important. And, personally, I have no illusions about ever changing his attitude of "I am right and if you disagree with me you're an idiot".

Nor do I want him to shut up. I don't want you to shut up either, for that matter.

The issue, to me at least, is not his type as such. That is secondary, to say the least. The true issue is his broader view of socionics, which I see as deeply flawed. What I do is challenge that view in other discussions. However, since he uses his own type as benchmark and references it in his arguments, his type is inevitably brought into the discussion. That is what happens.

My "problem" is that I see this as a discussion forum on socionics. You and Phaedrus seem to take the view that one approach to a subject people disagree on is to shut up about it. I do not share that view, and you and he will have to live with that.

[Expat]

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.

The thing is, even if I and/or Logos would agree to this approach, Phaedrus wouldn't, because he raises his type as an argument in most discussions.

[Expat]

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.

My point is that things like VI, energy, rhythm, a considerable amount of what you describe of your behavior - those do not really "prove" you are INTp. As far as they go, taken at face value, they merely point towards Ni IP. That was my point.

That you and I are mirrors should also be pretty obvious to anyone who has followed our debates recently.

Nah.

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?

I will explain it, since I think this is the central point of the whole matter, but first another point (more for the benefit of others than yours).

You are again - as yourself admitted - just using whatever piece of external information that happens to agree with what you already think, regardless of how said it, and why, and in which context.

So, for others who might be interested, Phaedrus is selectively quoting what Rick wrote when it supports his view, conveniently ignoring that Rick also wrote this:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...s-to-make.html

There are two steps I have made in my thinking about socionics that I consider particularly productive and highly recommend others follow:

1. Think in terms of functions, not dichotomies

It's initially easier for the mind to divide up people into two halves in four different ways and get 16 resulting types than to think about 8 possible positions of 8 different psychic functions. However, I have found the second approach to ultimately bring much more clarity and functionality.

--

Each of the four basic dichotomies is very "diluted," since it captures 8 types who express the dichotomy in 4 different ways.

--

If you create adequate dichotomy descriptions and see what they alone can say about any given type, you will get a much fuzzier picture than if you approach the type functionally.

So, first, for the record, Rick himself does not think that you get a clear picture of a type, or when typing, when you use the 4 dichotomies. I think it's just fair to mention this when quoting him (a view Phaedrus doesn't share, he just quotes whatever someone said that happens to agree with him, never mind what that someone actually thinks).

And that is the explanation of the phenomena.

1) I have a person who seems to be very clearly a Ni IP - ok, then INTp or INFp
2) Going for those simplistic, too broad logical/ethical dichotomies, the person seems to be a logical type
3) However, functional analysis, over a long period of time, shows a much more confident use of and than and , and a rather dismissive use of - above all, the > preference is very clear.

In those circumstances, I will always give priority to (3) over (2) - as Rick also would, for that matter, since you are using him as reference - and so the person is INFp rather than INTp. A "logical-looking" INFp but INFp nonetheless.

Besides, I think that his description of "ethics" from Rick's site:

Continuously consciously receptive to and quick to react to changes in ethical world around him. Dulled, delayed reactions to changes in logical world.

Describes you accurately.

[Phaedrus]

What systems have you compared? What commonalities and differences have you found? What patterns have you found thus far?

I have discussed some of the patterns I have found in various posts of mine on this forum. I have also said something about which systems, theories, models I have compared. You can check my posts if you are interested; I am not going to list everything here and now.

And if you think that Einstein is an ILE, then would it not be the dichotomy which is in error? But you have never asked why or put the question in public domain.

I don't think that Einstein is an ILE, and I don't think that he is not an ILE. Einstein's most likely type might be ILE, but his type is still to uncertain -- I don't have a strong opinion on his type other than that he had Asperger.

So in other words, you have no idea?

Of course I have. And I have explained it in more than one of my posts on this forum. It is rather obvious that Einstein was either an ILE or an ILI. Every other type is extremely unlikely. He was clearly intuitive dominant. I have read some biographies about him, and I have seen a few documentaries, without reaching a clear conclusion about his type. The fact that he had Asperger helps to narrow down the number of possible types for him, and it might be the case that his Asperger also muddles how we perceive his type (which, if true, would make the ILE hypothesis more likely, because then we can see how Asperger manifests itself differently in for example, ILEs, ILIs, and LIIs).

So it is possible to be a empirical subjectivist?

Yes. A typical example would be an phenomenalist.

No, my types are not the same. I am INTP in the MBTI system, and INTj in the Socionic system. I am not debating this.

I know that you don't like to debate it, so I don't insist on it. But your statement is still false.

See?

Yes, that's my point. So, why do you object when I correct your false statements in the same way corrected MysticSonic's false statement?

So if you are somehow not an ILI then Socionics unravels?

No, it's the other way around. If Socionics unravels, the criteria according to which I am definitely an ILI are not trustworthy anymore, and in that case we could decide to leave Socionics (which would then be regarded as a false theory of the types). And if Socionics no longer exists as an explanatory framework, what's the point of calling me an "ILI"? What would be the point of calling anyone any of the 16 types in Socionics?

I am going with that last option. Socionics no longer exists as an explanatory framework and there is no point in calling you an ILI, so what do you recommend we do now?

That you try to argue for your thesis that Socionics is a false theory of the types.

Wow, that is some weight of responsibility you have on your shoulders to keep yourself an ILI, and so I appreciate all the work you are doing to maintaining the fabric of space, time, and Socionics.

I don't have any responsibility here. I don't care if Socionics falls apart or not.

Why not?

I didn't invent Socionics, and I haven't signed any contracts regulating my responsibilities in relation to its existence. If it fell apart it would be an interesting phenomenon to observe and analyze.

I guess I am a little Socrates in training now.

So, if you train real hard you might turn into a little ILI after a while?

If you can convince yourself that you are one, surely I can.

That's quite impressive, Logos. If that ever happens, it would be even more impressive and interesting if you described your type changing process.

[Phaedrus]

What the hell has AS to do with Socionics?

Very much. If you don't understand why, I don't care.

It is really pathetic that anyone would bring it up in a discussion of anyone's type. In any case the symptoms vary quite widely, enough that there is no indication of functional preference just in knowing that someone has AS.

AS seems to be compatible with more than one functional preference, but some combinations are probably impossible, for example leading and creative in the ego block.

[Expat]

It is rather obvious that Einstein was either an ILE or an ILI. Every other type is extremely unlikely. He was clearly intuitive dominant. I have read some biographies about him, and I have seen a few documentaries, without reaching a clear conclusion about his type.

And you don't find it odd that you're split precisely between these two types? Contraries? Opposing quadras? One (ILI) loathing , the other - ILE - craving it, as Einstein from biographies, documentaries, etc, very clearly seemed to? You don't even take this argument into account?

That is one reason why I see your approach to socionics deeply flawed.

[Phaedrus]

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

Not necessarily. Read Rick's summary of The Semantics of the Information Elements again. It might help to clarify a few misunderstandings people have about and .

Would you mind providing me a link please?

http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

Okay, I have now read the Semantics of the Information Elements.

And this - "comparing and classifying" was under themes of as well as "certain fields of scientific knowledge: geometry, formal logic, scientific classifications and systematizations" under DOMINANT FIELDS OF ACTIVITY AND TOPICS OF CONVERSATION of . Naming life and things is not based upon any observant laws of nature, but is an arbitrary way of labeling things so that they can be categorized and compared.

What did I say above? I said: "Not necessarily". You can check the dictionaries if you don't understand the meaning of that expression.

[Phaedrus]

It's certainly not because there is an "obsession" about his type as such, as he said (another bit of - analysis by him, btw).

Expat's typing skills are ... well ... I am almost inclined to say "impressive".

The true issue is his broader view of socionics, which I see as deeply flawed. What I do is challenge that view in other discussions.

We all know that you are narrow-minded, but that is no legitimate excuse for your behaviour.

However, since he uses his own type as benchmark and references it in his arguments, his type is inevitably brought into the discussion. That is what happens.

It is the same for everyone here. People bring their own types into the discussion all the time, and the problem would cease to exist if people stopped questioning that I am an ILI.

My "problem" is that I see this as a discussion forum on socionics. You and Phaedrus seem to take the view that one approach to a subject people disagree on is to shut up about it. I do not share that view, and you and he will have to live with that.

Who wants whom to shut up on this forum? :wink: :wink: :wink:

[Logos]

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

Not necessarily. Read Rick's summary of The Semantics of the Information Elements again. It might help to clarify a few misunderstandings people have about and .

Would you mind providing me a link please?

http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

Okay, I have now read the Semantics of the Information Elements.

And this - "comparing and classifying" was under themes of as well as "certain fields of scientific knowledge: geometry, formal logic, scientific classifications and systematizations" under DOMINANT FIELDS OF ACTIVITY AND TOPICS OF CONVERSATION of . Naming life and things is not based upon any observant laws of nature, but is an arbitrary way of labeling things so that they can be categorized and compared.

What did I say above? I said: "Not necessarily". You can check the dictionaries if you don't understand the meaning of that expression.

But there is what people say and what they imply. And dictionaries only have words and not phrases or expressions. :wink:

[Expat]

My "problem" is that I see this as a discussion forum on socionics. You and Phaedrus seem to take the view that one approach to a subject people disagree on is to shut up about it. I do not share that view, and you and he will have to live with that.

Who wants whom to shut up on this forum? :wink: :wink: :wink:

Ezra said clearly that he wanted everyone to shut up on that issue, so he was the "you" in "you and Phaedrus". I was replying to his post there.

And you have said that you also want people to stop questioning your type (even if they think it), so on that issue at least you also want people to shut up.

And as I said, I require that neither you nor Ezra "shut up" as long as we are discussing socionics (or fooling around in AG).

Is it clear now?

[Phaedrus]

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.

My point is that things like VI, energy, rhythm, a considerable amount of what you describe of your behavior - those do not really "prove" you are INTp. As far as they go, taken at face value, they merely point towards Ni IP. That was my point.

I am not trying to prove that I am an INTp. My type is not an issue, it is not a problem. I know what type I am. The only problem is that you demand proof for it. I am not interested in proving that I am an INTp to you, since it is not relevant. I have tried too many times to convince you and others that I am really an INTp, but you won't listen to arguments. Your attitude is stupid and irritating.

That you and I are mirrors should also be pretty obvious to anyone who has followed our debates recently.

Nah.

That means that you still have something to learn about the intertype relations. You are misinterpreting your informational input, or you are blind as a bat.

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?

I will explain it, since I think this is the central point of the whole matter, but first another point (more for the benefit of others than yours).

You are again - as yourself admitted - just using whatever piece of external information that happens to agree with what you already think, regardless of how said it, and why, and in which context.

So, for others who might be interested, Phaedrus is selectively quoting what Rick wrote when it supports his view, conveniently ignoring that Rick also wrote this:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...s-to-make.html

There are two steps I have made in my thinking about socionics that I consider particularly productive and highly recommend others follow:

1. Think in terms of functions, not dichotomies

It's initially easier for the mind to divide up people into two halves in four different ways and get 16 resulting types than to think about 8 possible positions of 8 different psychic functions. However, I have found the second approach to ultimately bring much more clarity and functionality.

--

Each of the four basic dichotomies is very "diluted," since it captures 8 types who express the dichotomy in 4 different ways.

--

If you create adequate dichotomy descriptions and see what they alone can say about any given type, you will get a much fuzzier picture than if you approach the type functionally.

I have already explained my position to you on this. Just because Rick's list of typical manifestations of logical and ethical types is correct, it doesn't mean that he is right about everything. The approach he is recommending for understanding the types is not a good one. He is wrong to recommend it, because it will cement the problems people have in understanding the types correctly. People will continue to make mistypings if they adopt his approach.

So, first, for the record, Rick himself does not think that you get a clear picture of a type, or when typing, when you use the 4 dichotomies. I think it's just fair to mention this when quoting him (a view Phaedrus doesn't share, he just quotes whatever someone said that happens to agree with him, never mind what that someone actually thinks).

Yes, Rick is wrong about that, and I will continue to quote the truth wherever I find it, regardless of the name of the person expressing it. It is a ridiculous idea to assume that you have to agree with everything a person happens to believe in if you are going to quote him or her.

1) I have a person who seems to be very clearly a Ni IP - ok, then INTp or INFp
2) Going for those simplistic, too broad logical/ethical dichotomies, the person seems to be a logical type
3) However, functional analysis, over a long period of time, shows a much more confident use of and than and , and a rather dismissive use of - above all, the > preference is very clear.

Point 1 and 2 are true. Point 3 is false.

In those circumstances, I will always give priority to (3) over (2) - as Rick also would, for that matter, since you are using him as reference - and so the person is INFp rather than INTp. A "logical-looking" INFp but INFp nonetheless.

And here the inferiority of your preferred typing method is revealed. It leads to incorrect typings in some cases.

Besides, I think that his description of "ethics" from Rick's site:

Continuously consciously receptive to and quick to react to changes in ethical world around him. Dulled, delayed reactions to changes in logical world.

Describes you accurately.

Nonsense. You don't know how I react to changes in the ethical or logical world around me. You are interpreting a very limited amount of informational input, and you interpret it incorrectly.

And you are too stubborn to admit that you have made a mistake. You even deleted one of your own posts after having been caught in the act of committing a logical fallacy. Pathetic.

[Expat]

And you are too stubborn to admit that you have made a mistake. You even deleted one of your own posts after having been caught in the act of committing a logical fallacy. Pathetic.

That is not true. I deleted it shortly after I posted it, but before you had posted your reply. I wasn't happy with my own post after I had posted it, so I deleted it - something I don't do very often, but I and many others do. You had already pressed "quote" on the post to write your reply, so my deleting my own post had no effect on your quote.

Why would I delete my own post for being "caught" if it had been preserved in your quote? That would be totally pointless and useless.

Think a bit before you make accusations of this sort.

[Phaedrus]

Why would I delete my own post for being "caught" if it had been preserved in your quote? That would be totally pointless and useless.

Think a bit before you make accusations of this sort.

Yes, it would be an irrational act of the kind that Jung has described in Psychological Types in relation to the extraverted thinking type.

[Expat]

I will say it once more. I-deleted-that-post-before-you-had-posted-yours.

If I were really such a person as you think, I could have deleted my own quote from your post, too.

This is not a matter of opinion, or impression, or types, or Jung, or whatever. I am giving you and everyone else here my word of honor that that's what happened.

[Phaedrus]

I will say it once more. I-deleted-that-post-before-you-had-posted-yours.

I have no reason not to believe you on this, since it could have happened the way you describe it.

If I were really such a person as you think, I could have deleted my own quote from your post, too.

Yes, probably. Your explanation makes sense, so I withdraw my accusation on that point. But my real point was not that you might have deleted a post in order to revise history, it was that you are too stubborn to admit when you are wrong. And the fact is that you are objectively wrong about my type. There really is something wrong with your analysis, since I know that I am an ILI. And you believe that I am lying about this, because if it really is true that I know that I am an ILI, and if is also true that I know that I know that I am an ILI, then it is logically necessary that I am not deluded about my correct socionic type, and that logically implies that your analysis is necessarily incorrect.

This is not a matter of opinion, or impression, or types, or Jung, or whatever. I am giving you and everyone else here my word of honor that that's what happened.

I take your word for it. The difference between us is that you don't take mine when it comes to my correct type.

[Expat]

I take your word for it.

Ok I appreciate that. Thanks.

The difference between us is that you don't take mine when it comes to my correct type.

But not that.

Let me clarify this then because I don't see it as the same thing.

If I state something like "I have pressed a button before I saw a post", this refers to something that only I and I alone can judge. Only I can say whether I saw something or not. If someone says "no, I think you pressed it after you saw it", then that is precisely the same as calling me a liar since that someone is in no position to say what I saw or not, under any definition of the term.

Likewise, as I have already mentioned, if someone says to me, to describe their type, "I spend a lot of time fishing", if I'd say "no, I don't believe that" that is also the same thing as calling the person a liar.

I take accusations of lying very seriously and try to avoid making them.

Now when you say that I "can't admit I'm wrong", you are indirectly saying that I know I am wrong but say I am right, which is the same as lying, too.

In your case, I do not have to take your word on your type as a fact. I have to, and I do, take it that you sincerely believe you are INTp. So I don't think you're lying, I think you are mistaken. To me that's a very major difference in therms of ethics.

I have no problem when you say that anyone who disagrees with you is "incompetent". I think it only makes you look bad. Likewise, if you see my saying that you are mistaken on your type the same as "calling you an idiot", I think that's unfortunate, since I think people can have different views on something like socionics, but I can't prevent you from taking that view.

You're the one drawing a line in the sand and saying "either you agree with me, or you are lying, or you are an idiot". My own position is simply that you are honestly mistaken, which does not mean at all that you're necessarily an idiot. Or lying. That is not my definition of lying, which means an intention to deceive others.

I don't think, however, that we'll ever reach an agreement on this, and I can see no further gain to discussions with you.

Therefore I'm putting you on ignore, effective immediately, irreversibly.

[Blaze]

damn!

[Smilingeyes]

damn!

Hm?

[Blaze]

expat's post is like dunno kinda intense.

[Smilingeyes]

expat's post is like dunno kinda intense.

Sure.
...
Naturally.

[Expat]

If it is "intense", it's because that's my reaction to people questioning my ethics.

In real life, socially and professionally, I also have to go for "white lies". I see no reason to do it here. So I may be wrong, I may say things without thinking them through, whatever - but I do not say things that I know are not true. Which is why I regard things like "he refuses to admit he's wrong" as offensive - it implies that (a) I am lying about what I really think and (b) that I have some devious motive - like maintaining some supposed position, saving face, or whatever.

As I said, I may well be, and I frequently am, wrong about things. But what I say in a given moment is the state of my judgement/knowledge/interpretation/speculation in that very moment. I don't lie - not here. One of the reasons why I spend time here, by the way.

Perhaps there is a Merry/Serious divide as to how, well, seriously one takes such things. Whatever.

[Ezra]

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.

So what you're saying is that Phaedrus cannot be ILI, because FDG and dj are both definitely SxE, and thus Phaedrus would have to be their Partial Duals or their Duals, which makes no sense since they conflict with him so much.

You do realize that when I quote what you say, it appears as clear as day?

You are simply escaping your initial criticism. Please explain to me why I couldn't be SLE.

you should be able to find frustrations all around at everyone pointing out errors of reasoning in Phaedrus's posts.

Absolutely. I've warned him against statements like "Because I have investigated the matter more deeply than probably any other person in the world", as it is not a good way of showing that you look at the facts and utilise them in your argument. It's a good way of showing what an arrogant prick you are. Clearly he doesn't listen.

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.

I see Phaedrus attempting to work with the facts when he talks about MBTI INFP being the same as socionics INFp, for example. This is Te. I have also seen evidence of Ti in pretty much every goddamn post he posts. He's OBSESSED with correct logic. Can you not see this?

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.

How? Could you pick out a few examples for me?

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?

No, because I am an atheist.

[Ezra]

The issue, to me at least, is not his type as such. That is secondary, to say the least. The true issue is his broader view of socionics, which I see as deeply flawed. What I do is challenge that view in other discussions. However, since he uses his own type as benchmark and references it in his arguments, his type is inevitably brought into the discussion. That is what happens.

I see. That is a problem.

My "problem" is that I see this as a discussion forum on socionics. You and Phaedrus seem to take the view that one approach to a subject people disagree on is to shut up about it. I do not share that view, and you and he will have to live with that.

Right, I've changed my views because I ran them over in my head, and there's no logic to them. I won't tell anyone to shut up anymore because it's a discussion forum.

[Phaedrus]

Now when you say that I "can't admit I'm wrong", you are indirectly saying that I know I am wrong but say I am right, which is the same as lying, too.

I disagree. It is not the same thing as lying, but when you disregard the relevance of the fact that I am in a much better position epistemologically than you are when you try to type me, you are acting immorally.

In your case, I do not have to take your word on your type as a fact.

We agree on that.

I have to, and I do, take it that you sincerely believe you are INTp.

We agree on that too.

So I don't think you're lying, I think you are mistaken. To me that's a very major difference in therms of ethics.

We agree that it is a major difference in terms of ethics. But I am still questioning your ethics, and I am right in doing so, because you should accept the fact you can't know for sure which type I am based on your typing of me over the Internet. It is an obvious fact that I am in a much better position than you to make a reliable typing of myself. If you question that -- and you do question it -- you are treating me as if I was insane, totally deluded, totally incomepetent as a judge of my own type, or all of that together. Your are then not treating me with respect, since you are not taking what I say seriously. And that behaviour of yours is clearly unethical.

Likewise, if you see my saying that you are mistaken on your type the same as "calling you an idiot", I think that's unfortunate, since I think people can have different views on something like socionics, but I can't prevent you from taking that view.

I have stated and argued for my reasons why you are indirectly calling me an idiot. And your counter arguments have not convinced me to change my view on that. You are treating me as if I was a deluded idiot, and you think that it is okay to do so. You are wrong.

My own position is simply that you are honestly mistaken

I know that you think that. You have made that perfectly clear. And that's why you don't deserve my respect. You are acting like an idiot, so I will see you as an idiot as long as you refuse to come to your senses.

I don't think, however, that we'll ever reach an agreement on this, and I can see no further gain to discussions with you.

Therefore I'm putting you on ignore, effective immediately, irreversibly.

If you want to stick to your erroneous beliefs and your lousy typing method, you are free to do that. You don't deserve much respect as a scientist with that attitude of course, but that is your problem.

[Phaedrus]

He's OBSESSED with correct logic.

And which type is more likely to be obsessed with correct logic -- the LII or the ILI? Definitely the ILI. That is absolutely clear if you look at the empirical evidence for such a claim. It is also mentioned in the type descriptions. And Smilingeyes has explained why it is that way according to his Smilexian version of Socionics too. (See the Aricles section for reference.)

[Logos]

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.

So what you're saying is that Phaedrus cannot be ILI, because FDG and dj are both definitely SxE, and thus Phaedrus would have to be their Partial Duals or their Duals, which makes no sense since they conflict with him so much.

Of course if Phaedrus was IEI, it would be the same situation, but he does seem to be a psychologically unhealthy IEI.

You do realize that when I quote what you say, it appears as clear as day?

You are simply escaping your initial criticism. Please explain to me why I couldn't be SLE.

Well you always could be, but from a relationship perspective, I really do not see you in a supervising role to myself or other LIIs on the forum. And for some reason SLE does not seem to "click" for a lack of a better word when I read your posts as they seemingly lack a pointed directness that is evident in FDG's or discojoe's posts.

you should be able to find frustrations all around at everyone pointing out errors of reasoning in Phaedrus's posts.

Absolutely. I've warned him against statements like "Because I have investigated the matter more deeply than probably any other person in the world", as it is not a good way of showing that you look at the facts and utilise them in your argument. It's a good way of showing what an arrogant prick you are. Clearly he doesn't listen.

It's also a good way to display how little he knows.

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.

I see Phaedrus attempting to work with the facts when he talks about MBTI INFP being the same as socionics INFp, for example. This is Te. I have also seen evidence of Ti in pretty much every goddamn post he posts. He's OBSESSED with correct logic. Can you not see this?

His makes the LII and LSI heads' explode, and his is making the LIE's head do much the same. And posters do see his obsession with correct logic ( hidden agenda), but that does not necessarily make it correct logic. I think that Expat covered some of the rest that dealt with the aspects.

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.

How? Could you pick out a few examples for me?

Ignoring the role of the functions, dichotomy based approach to typing (hello MBTI!), selective quoting that takes facts and logic out of context (Rick, Smilex), his insistence on creating a hybrid system of Socionics/MBTI/Enneagram, his introduction of redundant or unnecessary foreign jargon that is covered by internal aspects of Socionics, etc.

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?

No, because I am an atheist.

So you do not believe in me despite me giving you divine revelations?

He's OBSESSED with correct logic.

And which type is more likely to be obsessed with correct logic -- the LII or the ILI? Definitely the ILI. That is absolutely clear if you look at the empirical evidence for such a claim. It is also mentioned in the type descriptions. And Smilingeyes has explained why it is that way according to his Smilexian version of Socionics too. (See the Aricles section for reference.)

Come again?

[Phaedrus]

His makes the LII and LSI heads' explode, and his is making the LIE's head do much the same. And posters do see his obsession with correct logic ( hidden agenda), but that does not necessarily make it correct logic.

So, basically you are saying that IEIs are obsessed with correct logic due to their hidden agenda. Don't you realize how incredibly stupid and ridiculous such a claim is? Have you read any type description ... ever? Have you discussed this with any self-typed IEI? Time to do that, Logos.

[aka-kitsune]

His makes the LII and LSI heads' explode, and his is making the LIE's head do much the same. And posters do see his obsession with correct logic ( hidden agenda), but that does not necessarily make it correct logic.

So, basically you are saying that IEIs are obsessed with correct logic due to their hidden agenda. Don't you realize how incredibly stupid and ridiculous such a claim is? Have you read any type description ... ever? Have you discussed this with any self-typed IEI? Time to do that, Logos.

NIMBY. Phaedrus is no IEI. No IEI would waste this much time/effort on bullheaded circular arguing. Personally, I lose interest in trying to convince anyone of anything. It's just too irritating.

[Blaze]

i dunno phaedrus, expat's logic seems totally on point to me, within itself. i mean, you could question his assumptions and conceptions and foundations, but not his logic.

i don't know if i would interpret the statement "you are just unwilling to admit you are wrong" as an implication of lying, for example. i might interpret it the person had some denial, or was saving face, or perhaps unwilling to face the truth within themselves which i spose could be seen as a lie but it would be more like lying to oneself, thus ethically less of a problem.

[Expat]

was saving face

To say something, or to refuse to say something, in order to "save face" is no different from lying, with a pusilanimous reason to boot.

[Blaze]

was saving face

To say something, or to refuse to say something, in order to "save face" is no different from lying, with a pusilanimous reason to boot.

whoa guy i'm not against you...lol

what does pusilanimous mean anyway? :wink:

[Expat]

whoa guy i'm not against you...lol

I didn't think you were.

what does pusilanimous mean anyway? :wink:

1. Destitute of a manly or courageous strength and firmness of mind; of weak spirit; mean- spirited; spiritless; cowardly


But I think I forgot one "l"