tcaudilllg seems incredibly LSI

[tcaudilllg]

This thread seems to me to say more about the ignorance of the participants regarding socionics, than it does about my type.

[Logos]

This thread seems to me to say more about the ignorance of the participants regarding socionics, than it does about my type.

And what do you say about your type?

[tcaudilllg]

And what do you say about your type?

I've got far better things to do than to commit my limited time to a conversation with you, who has apparently no faith in his own intellectual competence. That said, if you want to learn more about the Bible you hold so dear, I will continue to discuss that with you.

As for my type, see my signature.

[Logos]

I've got far better things to do than to commit my limited time to a conversation with you, who has apparently no faith in his own intellectual competence.

You are mistaken.

That said, if you want to learn more about the Bible you hold so dear, I will continue to discuss that with you.

What the hell does this mean?

As for my type, see my signature.

That tells me nothing apart from your conclusion.

[Phaedrus]

No LSI would be that interested in theory. It never ever happens, because LSIs simply aren't interested in theory.

[FDG]

LSIs simply aren't interested in theory.

???

[Ezra]

tcaudilllg is a blatent Ti base, and I think Ne > Se is clearly evident. Why is LII in question? It fits far better than LSI. A difference I've noticed between the LIIs here and the LSIs (such as PotatoSpirit) is the depth in which they pursue socionics. Notice how PotatoSpirit will relate what he says to real life almost always. He never borders on abstract; it's always here, now and down-to-earth; he's concerned with issues at hand, regardless of whether they're personal or impersonal. Now compare him to people like thehotelambush, labcoat and Logos, all of whom have similar ways of speaking, similar tones, and similar judgements. Then you have people like machintruc and tcaudilllg who essentially love to theorise extensively and create systems based on their many ideas. These, in my eyes, are two kinds of LIIs, from which PotatoSpirit is competely distinct. He has little in common with them (at least that he shares on the forum), and I can draw more parallels with the self-typed LIIs on here than I can with PotatoSpirit and tcaudilllg. Hence, I stand by with LII for tcaudilllg. It's obvious in my and many others' eyes.

i mean check out the amount of theoretical rubbish he spews out.

Hold up. Some of the stuff I've seen from you is more theoretical (maybe it's simply harder to understand).

No LSI would be that interested in theory. It never ever happens, because LSIs simply aren't interested in theory.

He is able to rationally and adequately choose the best of the available systems or dogmas and to fight for its implementation uncompromisingly up to the point of impertinence. He categorically rejects everything that cannot fit into this system, and perfects it to its ideal state. He is very consistent in the realization of his system, even when it comprises inconstancy.

He does not read much, prefers more to reflect – this is his favorite condition.

It all depends one what you consider to be 'theory'.

That said, if you want to learn more about the Bible you hold so dear, I will continue to discuss that with you.

Don't you mean machintruc?

[Phaedrus]

A difference I've noticed between the LIIs here and the LSIs (such as PotatoSpirit) is the depth in which they pursue socionics. Notice how PotatoSpirit will relate what he says to real life almost always. He never borders on abstract; it's always here, now and down-to-earth; he's concerned with issues at hand, regardless of whether they're personal or impersonal.

I don't have an opinion on PotatoSpirit's type (I have never analyzed it), but as a general description of how LSIs relate to theories I basically agree with this.

I have never met a LSI in real life that has been interested in theorizing, and I have never read about a LSI that has had that kind of interest either. They are always very much down-to-earth, always focused on describing factual details in a historical perspective. In papers written by LSIs the theoretical parts tend to be the weakest, whereas their accuracy and completness with facts in the empirical parts are much, much better. They do not problematize enough, they are not critical enough, when it comes to analyze the findings in a more general and more theoretical perspective.

Do any of you guys have an example of a LSI that is different from how I and Ezra have described them here? Can you provide an example of a theoretical LSI?

I'm not saying that LSIs can be influenced by theory or that they cannot trying their best to implement what others would describe as a definite system, but if they do I think that they do it totally uncritically, without ever seriously questioning the correctness of what they are doing. They let others come up with the theory, they let others explain and refine it, whereas they focus on the practical problems that are always there -- with or without any theory.

[Ezra]

Phaedrus, do you agree with Weisband's LSI description? There is a fair bit in there that actually states that they're good at finding the solution and critically analysing stuff.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, do you agree with Weisband's LSI description? There is a fair bit in there that actually states that they're good at finding the solution and critically analysing stuff.

Yes, I agree with it. This passage is right to the point:

He is able to rationally and adequately choose the best of the available systems or dogmas and to fight for its implementation uncompromisingly up to the point of impertinence. He categorically rejects everything that cannot fit into this system, and perfects it to its ideal state. He is very consistent in the realization of his system, even when it comprises inconstancy.

It accentuates the fact that LSIs are focused on the implementation of the system, but it does not state that they are good at critically analyzing it. Stalin is mentioned in the description, and he fits it perfectly, since he was not a theoretician but only a practical implementer.

I have personal experiences of this kind of leader in at least two of the organizations I have been involved with, and the potential evil of this kind of mentality is something I have recently become extremely aware of after having seen this clear pattern both in Russia's internal politics (Stalin and recently Putin) and depressingly also in the acting of one LSI I personally know.