What are ILIs-INTps like as children?

[machintruc]

it's obvious these LIIs have a vendetta against us.

It's weird how there seems to be lot of LII's that have some weird animosity against ILI's. Not that I care, I just find it funny.

If there was a "LII children" thread, my first thought wouldn't be to write there something like:"all LII's are bed-wetters, because of their HA they can't hold their wee-wee".

Say anything you want against LII, dude. I ain't any afraid of you.

[Warlord]

Say anything you want against LII, dude. I ain't any afraid of you.

lol you are killing me

I told you, I like LII's

[FlameReborn]

Say anything you want against LII, dude. I ain't any afraid of you.

Oh dear....

Poor thing needs an ESE to give him milk and cookies, and many loving hugs.

[Logos]

You have to understand with alpha.. they don't talk in a Te way. I.E., they don't use language to make sense. Rather, they use language to play around with. I really feel like they're another species, sometimes. They remind me of a gang of monkeys in a zoo cage all hooting to eachother, and I have no idea what they're hooting about. Each hoot gets louder and louder, they start to experiment with different styles of hooting... Here I am sitting on the sidelines, I have no idea how to join in. Should I make meaningless noises too? Is this fun?

Can I put that in my sig?

If you don't, I will. There should be at least a minimum of one Alpha with that sig.

[FlameReborn]

I don't know whether to be amused, annoyed, or apathetic. I have a bad, yet vague, feeling the monkeys are finding some potential hootiness in ths...

[Logos]

I don't know whether to be amused, annoyed, or apathetic. I have a bad, yet vague, feeling the monkeys are finding some potential hootiness in ths...

Why should you be annoyed? You are not the subject being slighted in the quote.

[FlameReborn]

Okay then. I applaud the ingenious INTjs... Turned a slight into a badge of honor. Almost as ingenious as me.

[Warlord]

it's obvious these LIIs have a vendetta against us.

It's weird how there seems to be lot of LII's that have some weird animosity against ILI's. Not that I care, I just find it funny.

Huh? Machintruc is the only LII who's been bagging you guys out ... (why the plural "LIIs")?

Phaedrus is probably LII too. Actually those two aren't the only ones, I've seen a more general trend of passive aggressiveness against ILI's. Not all LII's though, especially not in real life. But on this thread it has just been those two.

[Logos]

it's obvious these LIIs have a vendetta against us.

It's weird how there seems to be lot of LII's that have some weird animosity against ILI's. Not that I care, I just find it funny.

Huh? Machintruc is the only LII who's been bagging you guys out ... (why the plural "LIIs")?

Phaedrus is probably LII too. Actually those two aren't the only ones, I've seen a more general trend of passive aggressiveness against ILI's. Not all LII's though, especially not in real life. But on this thread it has just been those two.

But entertaining the idea that Phaedrus is an LII, that would make him an LII who identifies as an ILI. Why would someone who identifies as an ILI possibly have any "weird animosity against ILI's"? And if you are seeing this "passive aggressiveness against ILI's" is it not possible that you are just playing the Victim and your own sense of paranoia is getting the best of you?

[Warlord]

And if you are seeing this "passive aggressiveness against ILI's" is it not possible that you are just playing the Victim and your own sense of paranoia is getting the best of you?

Nope, because I don't care if some of the LII's are passive-aggressive against us, I just find it funny. In order to feel paranoia, I would have to feel like I'm being hunted, but I'm merely amused by what I see. And being "The Victim" is just a "erotic" attitude (shouldn't that be romantic), even as so I think it's a misnomer something like the prize is more accurate, the chaser & the prize (or the chased). "The Aggressor" and "The Victim" just gets more attention, and that's probably why they were originally named that way. In anything else it has no relevance, when I said like, I didn't mean that way :wink:

Maybe your reply was triggered by your passive-aggressiveness, especially considering the style how it's written :wink:

Phaedrus is another issue. First of all I replied to FlameReborn, so you have to take my message in that context. Phaedrus either thinks that he has AS, or does have AS, and also assumes that he is ILI, and therefore assumes that ILI's have "AS traits". Or he has some self-hate issue that makes him want to connect himself to a personality disorder or mental retardation, and he expands that to all ILI's. But he's more likely to be LII. (I think this has already been discussed before) Or he's really just as clueless as I said him to be I would really have to dig in his AS-issue, to find out what's up with him.

[machintruc]

it's obvious these LIIs have a vendetta against us.

It's weird how there seems to be lot of LII's that have some weird animosity against ILI's. Not that I care, I just find it funny.

Huh? Machintruc is the only LII who's been bagging you guys out ... (why the plural "LIIs")?

Actually, correct spelling at plural is LII, because "Logical Intuitive Introtims". It's like the word "sheep".

[Logos]

And if you are seeing this "passive aggressiveness against ILI's" is it not possible that you are just playing the Victim and your own sense of paranoia is getting the best of you?

Nope, because I don't care if some of the LII's are passive-aggressive against us, I just find it funny. In order to feel paranoia, I would have to feel like I'm being hunted, but I'm merely amused by what I see. And being "The Victim" is just a "erotic" attitude (shouldn't that be romantic), even as so I think it's a misnomer something like the prize is more accurate, the chaser & the prize (or the chased). "The Aggressor" and "The Victim" just gets more attention, and that's probably why they were originally named that way. In anything else it has no relevance, when I said like, I didn't mean that way :wink:

Maybe your reply was triggered by your passive-aggressiveness, especially considering the style how it's written :wink:

Maybe, but doubtful.

[FlameReborn]

Boooooring...

Hey, all potatoes are pink things, 18 cubic centimeters. This statement is false.

[Phaedrus]

Actually, autism is more related to E4 than E5...

No. Definitely not.

Let's do a demonstration to prove that E4 is the most "autistic" type.

Okay. I'll try to find objections (and/or comments) to your demonstration, if possible.

Some people confuse E4 with E5 or E9.

Yes. All three types are introverted, and ILI 5s can think that they are E9s because of their IP temperament, which is more accentuated in E9. ILI 5s can also think that they are E4s because E4 is very intuitive with a world approach that they would tend to like to some degree. But both E4 and E9 are ethical types.

Some ILI are E9, this is true, but they are mostly E4.

No. That is a false assumption of yours. How can that be the case when ILI is a logical type?

E5 are caracterised by anxiety (i.e. high level of norepinephrin).

No. The most anxious type is probably E6. E5 is a knowledge seeker who might feel "empty", "alienated", "distanced from self", etc., but not really "anxious".

ILI, as irrational types, aren't really likely to be "anxious".

I agree.

(Intuitive Rational types are the most "anxious" ones)

Maybe, I'm not sure. They are more anxious than ILIs anyway.

I know E5 people that are: LII, ILE, EII, and SLI (mostly what Pavlov calls the "Strong type")

Unproven assumption. I think you are wrong.

I know E4 people that are : SEI, IEI, and ILI (mostly what Pavlov calls the "Weak type")

False. You cannot know any SEI E4, because every single E4 is an intuitive type. No sensing type can be an E4.

I know lots of ILI-4 people, but not a single ILI-5 dude/girl.

Unproven assumption. My guess is that every ILI is an E5, but I cannot prove it.

E4 have the lowest level of neurotransmitters. Autism is strongly related to that.

Unproven assumption.

Therefore, yes. E4 is the most autistic type.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and it is almost provably false on other grounds.

That DOES NOT mean E4=autistic=E4. That just means E4 is the most correlated to autism, because of lack of neural activity.

What is your source(s) of information?

[Phaedrus]

People with Asperger usually spend much more time than the average person on reading, and they are much more focused on knowledge than on understanding (if you -- like for example Sergei Ganin -- want to draw that logical distinction).

People with AS yes. But autists have trouble even in learning to read.

AS is a mild form of autism. So every person with AS is autistic.

Do you two even have the faintest idea what autism is?

Yes, I have spent some years (6-7 I think) studying that phenomenon.

In that case, maybe you should find a new interest. Since it seems that you have learned nothing.

Incorrect. I have most likely learnt more than anyone else on the forum (including you) on the subject.

[Warlord]

AS is a mild form of autism. So every person with AS is autistic.

If we get technical. AS supposedly is part of ASD. And autism is the part of ASD, that's not any of the other ASDs.

Incorrect. I have most likely learnt more than anyone else on the forum (including you) on the subject.

Does it look that way? All you do is constant mistakes, and can't apply your knowledge. If you know something, you certainly can't show it.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus either thinks that he has AS, or does have AS, and also assumes that he is ILI, and therefore assumes that ILI's have "AS traits".

Every socionist that is able to read and comprehend type descriptions agree that ILIs are described as slightly autistic. What my type is, and what I think of it, is totally irrelevent here. Why don't you compare ILI descriptions with lists of typical AS traits? Ganin describes ILIs as autistic in his INTp Uncovered profile, and Lytov has said in one of his posts on this forum that ILIs are (mildly) autistic. Everything is there for anyone to see, if you bother to look at the evidence.

[Phaedrus]

Incorrect. I have most likely learnt more than anyone else on the forum (including you) on the subject.

Does it look that way? All you do is constant mistakes, and can't apply your knowledge. If you know something, you certainly can't show it.

You don't contradict my claim here.

[Warlord]

Why don't you compare ILI descriptions with lists of typical AS traits?

If we look superficially at these traits, then yes. That is someone wrote on french lines: social problems etc. But ILI's have no more common than any other NT's or ITs, even then AS traits apply better to Alpha NTs, and least to LIE's. And there are traits that ILI's have that totally contradict autism.

And if we scope down to how these traits actually are in real life, and what are the actual reasons that cause these traits. ILI's end up having nothing at all common with AS, and it's practically impossible to have autism and to be ILI at the same time.

For example: Both ILIs and people with AS can have social problems, yes. What kind of social problems these are actually, then there's nothing common at all with them. In fact ILIs are good in the areas where the AS have problems.

You already made yourself look like total moron once with this. Want to go there again? You'll just end up looking twice the moron.

There's no connection with type and autism. Whatever seems to be similar is just a coincidence.

Ganin describes ILIs as autistic in his INTp Uncovered profile, and Lytov has said in one of his posts on this forum that ILIs are (mildly) autistic. Everything is there for anyone to see, if you bother to look at the evidence.

Ganin and Lytov probably know nothing about autism.

What my type is, and what I think of it, is totally irrelevent here.

On the contrary. That has ALL to do with your view on AS. Even more so what actually is your connection to AS? And what's up with your obsession with it? It's things like that can cause a bias to your view, and therefore make you blind to the truth.

[machintruc]

What is your source(s) of information?

It's experience of concrete typing of people. Maybe we don't have the same idea of such typologies.

You should read that article : http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtTina.asp

[Jarno]

I want to add two things to this boring subject of autism.

- I once read that types using as their lead function, give the IMPRESSION to be autistic. So just an impression...
One of my colleagues actually accused me and an INFP of being autistic. Which I'm not, as once been officialy tested.

- Secondly autistic people sometimes have this handflapping thing going on, that is something that I as an ILI am definitely missing.

They shoud do a survey among autistic people to do a test (even MBTI) and see what they score. So this boring discussion can end.

And since were all no doctors, we shouldn't be talking about these disorders we know shit about.

[machintruc]

I want to add two things to this boring subject of autism.

- I once read that types using as their lead function, give the IMPRESSION to be autistic. So just an impression...
One of my colleagues actually accused me and an INFP of being autistic. Which I'm not, as once been officialy tested.

- Secondly autistic people sometimes have this handflapping thing going on, that is something that I as an ILI am definitely missing.

They shoud do a survey among autistic people to do a test (even MBTI) and see what they score. So this boring discussion can end.

And since were all no doctors, we shouldn't be talking about these disorders we know shit about.

Normally, if one says that you're autistic, it means you're having autistic behaviour. behaviour is mostly autistic-like.

[FlameReborn]

Machintruc... I have a question.

[machintruc]

Machintruc... I have a question.

Saying that one has a question and not asking it is very ILI-like behaviour.

That's one more reason to hate ILI's.

[Creepy-bg]

Machintruc... I have a question.

Saying that one has a question and not asking it is very ILI-like behaviour.

That's one more reason to hate ILI's.

lol pwnt

[Warlord]

Normally, if one says that you're autistic, it means you're having autistic behaviour.

Normally, if one says that you're retard, it means you're having retarded behaviour. Machintruc you are retard.

[machintruc]

Normally, if one says that you're autistic, it means you're having autistic behaviour.

Normally, if one says that you're retard, it means you're having retarded behaviour. Machintruc you are retard.

I'd prefer to be a retard than an autist, because retards are usually more friendly than autists.

I hate autists, and I hate ILI - oh man - why should I like ILI ? ILI don't like people.

[Logos]

Normally, if one says that you're autistic, it means you're having autistic behaviour.

Normally, if one says that you're retard, it means you're having retarded behaviour. Machintruc you are retard.

I'd prefer to be a retard than an autist, because retards are usually more friendly than autists.

I hate autists, and I hate ILI - oh man - why should I like ILI ? ILI don't like people.

Is anyone else laughing at rich irony of this series of statments?

[FlameReborn]

Machintruc... I have a question.

Saying that one has a question and not asking it is very ILI-like behaviour.

That's one more reason to hate ILI's.

I was just going to say...

When are you going to get the hell out of this quadra?

[MysticSonic]

Wow Machintruc, why you are such a brain-dead fundamentalist with fucking everything?

[crazedrat]

Actually, autism is more related to E4 than E5...

No. Definitely not.

Let's do a demonstration to prove that E4 is the most "autistic" type.

Okay. I'll try to find objections (and/or comments) to your demonstration, if possible.

Some people confuse E4 with E5 or E9.

Yes. All three types are introverted, and ILI 5s can think that they are E9s because of their IP temperament, which is more accentuated in E9. ILI 5s can also think that they are E4s because E4 is very intuitive with a world approach that they would tend to like to some degree. But both E4 and E9 are ethical types.

Some ILI are E9, this is true, but they are mostly E4.

No. That is a false assumption of yours. How can that be the case when ILI is a logical type?

E5 are caracterised by anxiety (i.e. high level of norepinephrin).

No. The most anxious type is probably E6. E5 is a knowledge seeker who might feel "empty", "alienated", "distanced from self", etc., but not really "anxious".

ILI, as irrational types, aren't really likely to be "anxious".

I agree.

(Intuitive Rational types are the most "anxious" ones)

Maybe, I'm not sure. They are more anxious than ILIs anyway.

I know E5 people that are: LII, ILE, EII, and SLI (mostly what Pavlov calls the "Strong type")

Unproven assumption. I think you are wrong.

I know E4 people that are : SEI, IEI, and ILI (mostly what Pavlov calls the "Weak type")

False. You cannot know any SEI E4, because every single E4 is an intuitive type. No sensing type can be an E4.

I know lots of ILI-4 people, but not a single ILI-5 dude/girl.

Unproven assumption. My guess is that every ILI is an E5, but I cannot prove it.

E4 have the lowest level of neurotransmitters. Autism is strongly related to that.

Unproven assumption.

Therefore, yes. E4 is the most autistic type.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and it is almost provably false on other grounds.

That DOES NOT mean E4=autistic=E4. That just means E4 is the most correlated to autism, because of lack of neural activity.

What is your source(s) of information?

This is what makes LIIs think we're autistic.
This whole debate is stupid. You guys are trying to organize your imagination.. that's all fine, but reality is probably alot more variant and specific. So please stop trying to organize everyone elses imagination, too

[Phaedrus]

And there are traits that ILI's have that totally contradict autism.

What are those ILI traits exactly? I am genuinely interested in finding at least one very typical ILI trait that is clearly incompatible with AS. I haven't find any yet, so it would be very nice if you could suggest one or two.

it's practically impossible to have autism and to be ILI at the same time.

If that is true, neither Wittgenstein nor Beckett could have been ILIs, because both were clearly autistic (at least AS). But can you explain why it is possible to be an ILE and have AS but not an ILI with AS? Einstein had AS for sure (if not a less mild form of autism) and he was not an LII. So, if Einstein was not an ILI, he must have been an ILE -- unless he was untypable in principle because of his AS.

In fact ILIs are good in the areas where the AS have problems.

Which areas exactly? Concrete examles would be very helpful here.

You already made yourself look like total moron once with this. Want to go there again? You'll just end up looking twice the moron.

I don't mind looking like a total moron if that helps me in finding the truth of the matter. I really want to understand this, and if you can prove that I have an incorrect understanding of it, I would be grateful.

[crazedrat]

autistics have problems with facial recognition. I have absolutely no problems in this area. Autistics also have problems with reading body language. I consider myself particularly good at reading body language. Autistics learn through rote memorization. ILIs do not rote memorize, rather they analyze the structure and use the structure to aid in the expantion and utilization of their memory. Autistics usually have below average IQs, ILIs have above average IQs. Autistics don't have a longing for emotional attachment the way ILIs do. Aspergers syndrome is milder autism, and all I see here is an over-emphasis on the "normal" side of what Aspergers is, for the purpose of correlating it with ILI. If you examine what makes an autistic, or an aspergers, autistic: the abnormal side of aspergers... does not correlate with ILI.
Most of you are thinking of the few very high functioning individuals known to have aspergers: like perhaps einstein, wittgenstein, etc. ... The famous aspies: and you think this reflects the normal aspie. It doesn't. You just don't know your object, in this case.
You guys are being too hastey with your conclusions on psychology. It's almost like you close the box as quickly as you can, just so you can be comfortable. From what I can tell this trait is common among people obsessed with pop psych like socionics.
The whole deal is annoying.

[Phaedrus]

Autistics learn through rote memorization. ILIs do not rote memorize, rather they analyze the structure and use the structure to aid in the expantion and utilization of their memory.

ILIs are usually good at rote memorization (which doesn't mean that they must be bad at anlyzing in the way you describe), and they are known as "walking encyclopedias" -- which is also exactly what people with Asperger's Syndrome are described as.

Autistics usually have below average IQs, ILIs have above average IQs.

People with Asperger's Syndrome (as a group) have above average IQ. Only people with classical autism have below average IQ.

Autistics don't have a longing for emotional attachment the way ILIs do.

Not correct. Many people with AS have a longing for emotional attachment but don't know how to get it. And not every ILI has a longing for emotional attachment. The presence or absence of a longing for emotional attachment is not a defining trait of either ILIs or people with AS.

If you examine what makes an autistic, or an aspergers, autistic: the abnormal side of aspergers... does not correlate with ILI.

Explain how it does not correlate with ILI. Which essential ILI traits do not correlate with AS?

Most of you are thinking of the few very high functioning individuals known to have aspergers: like perhaps einstein, wittgenstein, etc. ...

Wittgenstein was very intelligent, and AS is practically the same thing as "high functioning autism", but in many ways it is clearly misleading to say that Wittgenstein was "very high functioning". He had a very typical form of AS.

The famous aspies: and you think this reflects the normal aspie. It doesn't.

I clearly does in every way except for the IQs. Both Einstein and Wittgenstein had high above average IQs, but in their behaviours and attitudes they were both very typical aspies. Another very typical aspie with high IQ is the former World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer.

You just don't know your object, in this case.

I certainly do, but I cannot speak for others.

[Warlord]

Phaedrus:

First of all this really boring subject, and everyone is saying the same thing. None else shares your obsession with the subject.

My job as INTp is to point out mistakes. And maybe emphasize it with:"you're moron" when the person is way off, or just persistent with being wrong. It someone else job to fix those mistakes. I have better things to do

In the case the person to fix the mistakes is you. For change consider the option that INTp's can't have AS, with the same vigor you are trying "prove" that INTp's do. It's not hard, and will only take 15 minutes, because it's so fucking obvious. It's even more obvious if you see INTp's and autists in person.

I already proved you wrong, with most of the same shit, you write now. I'm not going to retype them. Go read them again.

And how about not writing these long listings, of pointless trivia, to prove something. You see it only takes one error, to prove something wrong. And that's already been done.

But "shortly":

And there are traits that ILI's have that totally contradict autism.

What are those ILI traits exactly? I am genuinely interested in finding at least one very typical ILI trait that is clearly incompatible with AS. I haven't find any yet, so it would be very nice if you could suggest one or two.

Autism is defined basically by lack of . That's the main criteria, all other traits either are caused by lack of intuition, or are secondary in importance as autism can affect many areas of the brain.

INTp's are usually very calm and also concentrated if necessary, autists are very fidgety and can't sit still or concentrate.
Whole IP temperament is known for being laid back. Not for acting like a coked up gerbil.

Autists often have involuntary eye movement, that's typical only to them. I've seen many INTp's and have never seen one do that. It would take some practice from me, to even try to imitate that.

it's practically impossible to have autism and to be ILI at the same time.

If that is true, neither Wittgenstein nor Beckett could have been ILIs, because both were clearly autistic (at least AS). But can you explain why it is possible to be an ILE and have AS but not an ILI with AS? Einstein had AS for sure (if not a less mild form of autism) and he was not an LII. So, if Einstein was not an ILI, he must have been an ILE -- unless he was untypable in principle because of his AS.

I doubt that the first two has been diagnosed with AS. Anyone who diagnoses a persons that they haven't even met has zero credibility and probably is a laughing stock of entire medical community.

There's many different reasons why these people act they way they do than AS or autism.

One of top the doctors in this field, has said that Einstein doesn't have AS. I wrote his name in the other thread.

Ever considered the actual motives of the people who make claims like this? And no, it's not "search of truth".

In fact ILIs are good in the areas where the AS have problems.

Which areas exactly? Concrete examles would be very helpful here.

For starters, predicting what people are going to do or say. Seeing how peoples motives play out in action.

crazedrat wrote:
Autistics learn through rote memorization. ILIs do not rote memorize, rather they analyze the structure and use the structure to aid in the expantion and utilization of their memory.

ILIs are usually good at rote memorization (which doesn't mean that they must be bad at anlyzing in the way you describe), and they are known as "walking encyclopedias" -- which is also exactly what people with Asperger's Syndrome are described as.

"Walking encyclopedia" means that the person that knows lot about lot. In practice this means two things: (1) wide range of understanding about different subjects = INTp. (2) Rote memorisation of all kinds of trivia = especially ISTjs. INTp's aren't especially good or bad at rote memorization, but it's not an "INTp-thing".

People with AS have major problems (1), that's part of definition of AS. And use (2) just like crazedrat said. And secondly autists only have very few interests that they are interested, could be just one, and they obsess about it. So they actually aren't even "walking encyclopedias", just can give the impression of it, they actually can't apply their "knowledge" in practice. However applying knowledge in practice is an "INTp-thing", because of creative . Also INTp's either have very wide range of interests, but aren't really that interested in anything spesific. So in the end INTp's and AS are the total opposites in this manner.

An example of area of interest of high functioning autist: the names and phonenumbers of all people in phonebook. It's not something that would ever interest INTp's.

[crazedrat]

Autistics learn through rote memorization. ILIs do not rote memorize, rather they analyze the structure and use the structure to aid in the expantion and utilization of their memory.

ILIs are usually good at rote memorization (which doesn't mean that they must be bad at anlyzing in the way you describe), and they are known as "walking encyclopedias" -- which is also exactly what people with Asperger's Syndrome are described as.

K. No, that's not how our memory works. What type are you? I am ILI, I am telling you this. I know. K? I do not, ever, purely rote memorize... it goes against my nature. I figure out the structure, memorize the structure, and the facts just seem to fall into place as I keep the structure in mind.

Autistics usually have below average IQs, ILIs have above average IQs.

People with Asperger's Syndrome (as a group) have above average IQ. Only people with classical autism have below average IQ.

No, they have average IQs. Not above average. ILIs, above average.

Autistics don't have a longing for emotional attachment the way ILIs do.

Not correct. Many people with AS have a longing for emotional attachment but don't know how to get it. And not every ILI has a longing for emotional attachment. The presence or absence of a longing for emotional attachment is not a defining trait of either ILIs or people with AS.

ILIs hidden agenda is Fi, read about it.

If you examine what makes an autistic, or an aspergers, autistic: the abnormal side of aspergers... does not correlate with ILI.

Explain how it does not correlate with ILI. Which essential ILI traits do not correlate with AS?

You didnt address the facial recognition or body language recognition issues, which are the defining points of autism.

[Phaedrus]

Autism is defined basically by lack of .

Explain in what way.

autists are very fidgety and can't sit still or concentrate.

Totally false. What you describe is not an autistic trait even though many autists can have it. It is an ADHD trait, and only those with both AS and ADHD typically behave like that.

Whole IP temperament is known for being laid back. Not for acting like a coked up gerbil.

Correct and totally irrelevant.

Autists often have involuntary eye movement, that's typical only to them. I've seen many INTp's and have never seen one do that. It would take some practice from me, to even try to imitate that.

Involuntary eye movement is definitely not a defining trait of autism. Many autists don't have it.

it's practically impossible to have autism and to be ILI at the same time.

If that is true, neither Wittgenstein nor Beckett could have been ILIs, because both were clearly autistic (at least AS). But can you explain why it is possible to be an ILE and have AS but not an ILI with AS? Einstein had AS for sure (if not a less mild form of autism) and he was not an LII. So, if Einstein was not an ILI, he must have been an ILE -- unless he was untypable in principle because of his AS.

I doubt that the first two has been diagnosed with AS.

They have -- by me and by many of the most respected experts on autism, for example Christopher Gillberg. It is obvious that all three of them have (or had) AS. (Though Einstein might have got the diagnosis high functioning autism instead of AS since his language development was delayed.)

Anyone who diagnoses a persons that they haven't even met has zero credibility and probably is a laughing stock of entire medical community.

The moron here is of course you, since you reveal that you don't know much about the research and the discussions among leading experts on autism.

There's many different reasons why these people act they way they do than AS or autism.

No, there isn't.

One of top the doctors in this field, has said that Einstein doesn't have AS. I wrote his name in the other thread.

He is of course wrong in that case. There is absolutely no doubt that Einstein had AS or high functioning autism.

And secondly autists only have very few interests that they are interested, could be just one, and they obsess about it. So they actually aren't even "walking encyclopedias", just can give the impression of it, they actually can't apply their "knowledge" in practice.

ILIs are also described as having problems or little interest in applying their knowledge in practice. That's a common problem for leading types.

However applying knowledge in practice is an "INTp-thing", because of creative .

It is so depressing to notice that people never seem to learn anything. Study more Socionics and get rid of that erroneous view of yours on the nature of creative . There are many differences between having as an accepting function and having it as a creative function. Smilingeyes has explained it better than anyone else on this forum, so I suggest that you start reading his matieral in the Articles section.

Also INTp's either have very wide range of interests, but aren't really that interested in anything spesific. So in the end INTp's and AS are the total opposites in this manner.

Ridiculous and false.

An example of area of interest of high functioning autist: the names and phonenumbers of all people in phonebook. It's not something that would ever interest INTp's.

False again.

[Warlord]

Autism is defined basically by lack of .

Explain in what way.

Well aren't you supposed to be the "autism expert"?

autists are very fidgety and can't sit still or concentrate.

Totally false. What you describe is not an autistic trait even though many autists can have it. It is an ADHD trait, and only those with both AS and ADHD typically behave like that.

No, it's totally correct. The definition of ADHD includes that the person can't be autistic or have AS. Because on autists that trait is caused by the same neurological differences in brains as autism. And on people with ADHD the cause is different.

the motor cortex in the ADHD patients was seen to mature faster than normal, suggesting that both slower development of behavioral control and advanced motor development might both be required for the restlessness and fidgetiness that characterise an ADHD diagnosis. Aside from the delay, both groups showed a similar back-to-front development of brain maturation with different areas peaking in thickness at different times. This contrasts with the pattern of development seen in other disorders such as autism, where the peak of cortical thickening occurs much earlier than normal.

If you start denying every trait autists do have an INTp's don't have, you will end up with 0 autistic traits.

These were just some examples, because you were crying for a couple. There are plenty of more. The point wasn't to start to deny every single one, one by one, you fucktard.

Whole IP temperament is known for being laid back. Not for acting like a coked up gerbil.

Correct and totally irrelevant.

Obviosly it's highly relevant.

Autists often have involuntary eye movement, that's typical only to them. I've seen many INTp's and have never seen one do that. It would take some practice from me, to even try to imitate that.

Involuntary eye movement is definitely not a defining trait of autism. Many autists don't have it.

How fucking stupid can you be? Obviously if only autists have it, it's a "defining term". See above.

it's practically impossible to have autism and to be ILI at the same time.

If that is true, neither Wittgenstein nor Beckett could have been ILIs, because both were clearly autistic (at least AS). But can you explain why it is possible to be an ILE and have AS but not an ILI with AS? Einstein had AS for sure (if not a less mild form of autism) and he was not an LII. So, if Einstein was not an ILI, he must have been an ILE -- unless he was untypable in principle because of his AS.

I doubt that the first two has been diagnosed with AS.

They have -- by me and by many of the most respected experts on autism, for example Christopher Gillberg.

What did I just say? Besides being a moron, are you reading impaired too? I doubt he has said that, hopefully you have understood wrong, or Gillberg is a just a quack with no credibility in the medical community. I have already told this to you before.

And prove it. Show the medical records where it states that they have AS. Or stfu.

Anyone who diagnoses a persons that they haven't even met has zero credibility and probably is a laughing stock of entire medical community.

The moron here is of course you, since you reveal that you don't know much about the research and the discussions among leading experts on autism.

I just told what the real leading experts tell, the ones that do actually do proper research. Not some what some swedish living joke says. That's not research, that's idiocy that doesn't hold to the standards of medical, pscychiatric or neurological research.

There's many different reasons why these people act they way they do than AS or autism.

No, there isn't.

LOL, you are a fucktard. And the only possible reason for cough is lung cancer?

One of top the doctors in this field, has said that Einstein doesn't have AS. I wrote his name in the other thread.

He is of course wrong in that case. There is absolutely no doubt that Einstein had AS or high functioning autism.

Of course there is. If the the actual leading experts in this field, from the highest ranking medical schools in the world says that Einstein doesn't have AS, then he doesn't have.

And secondly autists only have very few interests that they are interested, could be just one, and they obsess about it. So they actually aren't even "walking encyclopedias", just can give the impression of it, they actually can't apply their "knowledge" in practice.

ILIs are also described as having problems or little interest in applying their knowledge in practice. That's a common problem for leading types.

Where has it been described that INTp's can't do this? Does it look like it on this thread? Find a setence, that says that excatly as it is, not something vaguely and distantly similar, like how your "proof" always is. If you can't, STFU retard.

However applying knowledge in practice is an "INTp-thing", because of creative .

It is so depressing to notice that people never seem to learn anything. Study more Socionics and get rid of that erroneous view of yours on the nature of creative .

Just speak for yourself.

Smilingeyes has explained it better than anyone else on this forum, so I suggest that you start reading his matieral in the Articles section.

"Oh Smilingeyes has said so" ROFL. Why not Hitta or Tcaud?

Also INTp's either have very wide range of interests, but aren't really that interested in anything spesific. So in the end INTp's and AS are the total opposites in this manner.

Ridiculous and false..

Except that probably 100% of INTp's agree with this. That's actually something that does read in the profiles, exactly in the meaning as I said.

An example of area of interest of high functioning autist: the names and phonenumbers of all people in phonebook. It's not something that would ever interest INTp's.

False again.

Well this just shows your idea of "false". How about you stop saying false, then continue with some retarded statement (if even that), and ending up showing no proof whatsover to back up that statement.

1) That was an actual interest of an actual autist. He had learned all the names and phonenumbers in a phonebook. That's the style of interests that autists often have. If you would know anything about autism you would know this. So part A = correct.
2) Find one single INTp that has this interest. No a real INTp, your autistic self doesn't count. Until you find one: Part B = correct.

[Phaedrus]

Autism is defined basically by lack of .

Explain in what way.

Well aren't you supposed to be the "autism expert"?

You made the claim that autism is defined by lack of -- a statement that probably no expert on autism has heard of before. I can see no reason to believe that your claim is true. The burden of proof is upon you.

The definition of ADHD includes that the person can't be autistic or have AS.

Many people are diagnosed with both AS and ADHD. If you are right, all of those people have at least one incorrect diagnosis. I don't want to make a claim about what exact percentage of people are believed to have both AS and ADHD at the same time, but they are no little minority according to the "experts".

Because on autists that trait is caused by the same neurological differences in brains as autism. And on people with ADHD the cause is different.

That doesn't exclude the possibility that you can have both.

Whole IP temperament is known for being laid back. Not for acting like a coked up gerbil.

Correct and totally irrelevant.

Obviosly it's highly relevant.

Of course not. Your reasoning is lacking in logical stringency.

Autists often have involuntary eye movement, that's typical only to them. I've seen many INTp's and have never seen one do that. It would take some practice from me, to even try to imitate that.

Involuntary eye movement is definitely not a defining trait of autism. Many autists don't have it.

How fucking stupid can you be? Obviously if only autists have it, it's a "defining term". See above.

You don't think logically correct here. You cannot conclude from the absence of involuntary eye movement in the ILIs you have observed that they are not autistic, if not all autists have involuntary eye movement. It is not a necessary prerequisite for being autistic to have involuntary eye movement. Therefore it is not a defining trait of autism. End of logic lecture.

What did I just say? Besides being a moron, are you reading impaired too?

No. Not to my knowledge.

I doubt he has said that, hopefully you have understood wrong, or Gillberg is a just a quack with no credibility in the medical community. I have already told this to you before.

You can search for Gillberg on the Internet if you are interested. The information is easy to find.

And prove it. Show the medical records where it states that they have AS. Or stfu.

You seem to be losing this interesting debate ... You are an emotional creature, are you? Well, not everyone can win ...

I just told what the real leading experts tell, the ones that do actually do proper research.

I'm sorry. But in that case you are mislead by incorrect information.

One of top the doctors in this field, has said that Einstein doesn't have AS. I wrote his name in the other thread.

He is of course wrong in that case. There is absolutely no doubt that Einstein had AS or high functioning autism.

Of course there is. If the the actual leading experts in this field, from the highest ranking medical schools in the world says that Einstein doesn't have AS, then he doesn't have.

Either your "leading expert in this field" is wrong, or he is not the actual leading expert. There doesn't seem to be any other reasonable option, I'm afraid.

And secondly autists only have very few interests that they are interested, could be just one, and they obsess about it. So they actually aren't even "walking encyclopedias", just can give the impression of it, they actually can't apply their "knowledge" in practice.

ILIs are also described as having problems or little interest in applying their knowledge in practice. That's a common problem for leading types.

Where has it been described that INTp's can't do this? Does it look like it on this thread? Find a setence, that says that excatly as it is, not something vaguely and distantly similar, like how your "proof" always is. If you can't, STFU retard.

I hope you've got a strong heart. That much emotional excitement can't be good for your health ...

Smilingeyes has explained it better than anyone else on this forum, so I suggest that you start reading his matieral in the Articles section.

"Oh Smilingeyes has said so" ROFL. Why not Hitta or Tcaud?

I don't care what you read as long as you get it right. Personally, I find Smilingeyes's inormation somewhat easier to digest than Tcaud's information -- how about you?

Also INTp's either have very wide range of interests, but aren't really that interested in anything spesific. So in the end INTp's and AS are the total opposites in this manner.

Ridiculous and false..

Except that probably 100% of INTp's agree with this. That's actually something that does read in the profiles, exactly in the meaning as I said.

Many INTps have wide range of interests, but that is a trait that is more typical of extraverts. What you describe is more true of ENTps.

[Warlord]

You made the claim that autism is defined by lack of -- a statement that probably no expert on autism has heard of before. I can see no reason to believe that your claim is true. The burden of proof is upon you.

I already did. You were just too dumb and didn't understand it. That's all your problem.

Because on autists that trait is caused by the same neurological differences in brains as autism. And on people with ADHD the cause is different.

That doesn't exclude the possibility that you can have both.

That doesn't. But what I said right after that does exclude it. Apparently, since you wrote that retarded statement, you were too stupid to understand that too, again I might add. Still not my problem.

Whole IP temperament is known for being laid back. Not for acting like a coked up gerbil.

Correct and totally irrelevant.

Obviosly it's highly relevant.

Of course not. Your reasoning is lacking in logical stringency.

So great that you also managed to also prove your moronic statement. No wait... you didn't. To come to think of it. You have managed prove none of your statements.

Maybe you should start by now, because I have proved all of mine. Just too bad, that you don't understand them.

Btw. >>

You don't think logically correct here. You cannot conclude from the absence of involuntary eye movement in the ILIs you have observed that they are not autistic, if not all autists have involuntary eye movement. It is not a necessary prerequisite for being autistic to have involuntary eye movement. Therefore it is not a defining trait of autism. End of logic lecture.

Btw. that's another argument in a row. When you start to make those statements like you should be, if you are INTp as you believe you are? Also what happened to your ?

If "INTp's" = "autists" => "INTp's & autists have the same % of involuntary eye movement" & "INTp's don't have involuntary eye movement" => false =>
"INTP's = "autists" == FALSE

You need check your logic numbskull.

If logic lectures is the way you want to go. I can could give a similar lecture of logic after just about every statement you make.

What did I just say? Besides being a moron, are you reading impaired too?

No. Not to my knowledge.

Just a moron then, ok.

I doubt he has said that, hopefully you have understood wrong, or Gillberg is a just a quack with no credibility in the medical community. I have already told this to you before.

You can search for Gillberg on the Internet if you are interested. The information is easy to find.

Nope, I'm not interested in your boyfriend It's my turn to go to read about him, after you get that thing, wich is never.

You seem to be losing this interesting debate ... You are an emotional creature, are you? Well, not everyone can win ...

If the "competition" is about proving wich one of us has AS. Yes, you lead: 1000 to 0. Congratulations!

Since I'm INTp, and you obviously are not. That's also one more score for INTp's not having AS category.

If the "competition" is about making factual staments and proving them. Then unfortunately you are still at 0, and I'm winning. Go me!

In fact, everytime I ask you to prove something. You just skip it and don't answer at all. The same thing happens thing to questions that I ask you.

Since you are so demanding of proof and answering questions, wouldn't it be fair that you also do the same, instead of being sniveling coward. So here's first two unanswered questions I have asked you, how about you answer them this time:
Even more so what actually is your connection to AS? And what's up with your obsession with it?

I just told what the real leading experts tell, the ones that do actually do proper research.

I'm sorry. But in that case you are mislead by incorrect information.

You wouldn't get correct information even if it hit you in the face.

One of top the doctors in this field, has said that Einstein doesn't have AS. I wrote his name in the other thread.

He is of course wrong in that case. There is absolutely no doubt that Einstein had AS or high functioning autism.

Of course there is. If the the actual leading experts in this field, from the highest ranking medical schools in the world says that Einstein doesn't have AS, then he doesn't have.

Either your "leading expert in this field" is wrong, or he is not the actual leading expert. There doesn't seem to be any other reasonable option, I'm afraid.

It has been proved million times that your "reason" is worth of shit. Amazing how you just keep on making these totally retarded staments, and don't even get it. Didn't I just tell you what actually are the requirements in the real the world for medical research? How stupid can you be that you don't see that diagnosing Einstein with AS doesn't fit any of these criterias? Even when these criterias are essential to the researchers credibility? No matter that Einstein has loads of qualities that also contradict AS? Despite the fact that the proof that you presented for Einstein having AS isn't even true? I mean how stupid can you be, really?

Where has it been described that INTp's can't do this? Does it look like it on this thread? Find a setence, that says that excatly as it is, not something vaguely and distantly similar, like how your "proof" always is. If you can't, STFU retard.

I hope you've got a strong heart. That much emotional excitement can't be good for your health ...

So you don't have any proof, that's what I thought. So what I originally said is still correct. And all you can come up with is more retarded crap.

How come this doesn't suprise me the least? As almost if, there was pattern

"Oh Smilingeyes has said so" ROFL. Why not Hitta or Tcaud?

I don't care what you read as long as you get it right. Personally, I find Smilingeyes's inormation somewhat easier to digest than Tcaud's information -- how about you?

You just can't get a point.

Also INTp's either have very wide range of interests, but aren't really that interested in anything spesific. So in the end INTp's and AS are the total opposites in this manner.

Ridiculous and false..

Except that probably 100% of INTp's agree with this. That's actually something that does read in the profiles, exactly in the meaning as I said.

Many INTps have wide range of interests, but that is a trait that is more typical of extraverts. What you describe is more true of ENTps.

Whoa! You are able to change your mind after all. That "Ridiculous and false" was just sooo absolutist that I can't believe that you just changed your mind. Or should I just take that as you have no idea what you are talking about in the first place.

Nope, it's no more true. As I said it reads in the profiles. Extraversion has nothing to do with amount of interests.