INTp Appreciation Thread

[crazedrat]

don't break your own rules idiot and don't write anything at me k ? I wonder... why ILI's are so damn stupid ehhh... They think that they are special, but they are nothing. That's so, so, so saddd.

Well, I didn't technically break my rules. That is irrelevent anyway, because I wrote the rules after I wrote you.
You say don't write anything at you? Kind of like punching someone in the face, then telling them... Do not throw punches at me k?! Well, I guess that's what Si-polr means... having no grasp on how things "are"
Since you said nothing except for "feeling words" I'm just gona let you have that... special fuzzy feeling that you get, or whatever it is.

[liveandletlive]

i think it's pretty damn funny that an Fe-leading type is calling someone else stupid...

[emeye]

i think it's pretty damn funny that an Fe-leading type is calling someone else stupid...

I think it's pretty damn funny that a Se-leading type restrains herself to mere words

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I think it's pretty damn funny that a Se-leading type restrains herself to mere words

Well, this is the internet. Still, you've got a point.

[liveandletlive]

I think it's pretty damn funny that a Se-leading type restrains herself to mere words

u didn't see my fist pounding on my desk and the vulgar cusses leaving my mouth haha jk- i try to restrain myself occasionally.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

u didn't see my fist pounding on my desk and the vulgar cusses leaving my mouth haha jk- i try to restrain myself occasionally.

At least when you act like that, people know where you stand. It sounds kind of like an honest way to interact.

[lastdance]

Well, I didn't technically break my rules.

I know ILI's don't have rules that relate exactly to them. Rules only relate to others. You wright to everyone with that offensive style of yours BUT YOU DONT WANT TO TALK TO PEOPLE you insult... I don't know what's the problem ? You have in that funny signature that you don't talk with ENFj. I am ENFj you know, and I didnt written anything at you in the first place. I have a bad opinion about ILI's so I wrote it in this thread, that wans't for you, I'm sorry you are ILI's but that wasn't for you exactly.

i think it's pretty damn funny that an Fe-leading type is calling someone else stupid...

I know it's very hard with that Ti-polr... That's a pity... You say not directly that Fe-leading is stupid, but what to say about SEE and it's Ti-polr... which is precisely a logic function...
I know SEE's and you don't have to reply anything to me in this case. All of them are just stupid.

[Iconoclast IX]

I know ILI's don't have rules that relate exactly to them. Rules only relate to others. You wright to everyone with that offensive style of yours BUT YOU DONT WANT TO TALK TO PEOPLE you insult... I don't know what's the problem ? You have in that funny signature that you don't talk with ENFj. I am ENFj you know, and I didnt written anything at you in the first place. I have a bad opinion about ILI's so I wrote it in this thread, that wans't for you, I'm sorry you are ILI's but that wasn't for you exactly.

I know it's very hard with that Ti-polr... That's a pity... You say not directly that Fe-leading is stupid, but what to say about SEE and it's Ti-polr... which is precisely a logic function...
I know SEE's and you don't have to reply anything to me in this case. All of them are just stupid.

Zzz....

[aestrivex]

i laugh at everybody participating in this discussion.

[crazedrat]

I know EIE's don't have rules that relate exactly to them. Rules only relate to others. I write to everyone with my offensive comments BUT I DONT WANT TO TALK LOGICALLY TO PEOPLE I insult... I don't know what's the problem ? You have in that funny signature that you don't want ENFj to talk to you. I am ENFj you know, and I wrote to ILIs, and you are ILI. I have a bad opinion about ILI's so I wrote it in this thread, that was for you, I'm sorry you are ILI.

I know it's very hard with my Si-polr... That's a pity... You say Fe-leading is stupid, but what to say about EIE and it's Si-polr... which is precisely a reality function...
I know EIE's quite well, being one, and you don't have to reply anything to me in this case. All of them are just stupid.

I de-EIEd it for you. Gave it a little bit of Si, cleaned it up.. you know. Glad to help out those less able than myself : )

[Lord Java the 3rd]

What?! Looks like someone is suffering from the Hidden Agenda, to love. But seriously, if you feel sorry for us, leave us alone.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

well i meant in the worst situation in terms of that they are very susceptible to the decadency. like Se is very much about praise, acclaim, pride, sexual obscenity and perversion, etc. and Fi can be bad, evil, satanic, etc. all these do seem like really evil i think from the point of view of morality (on the path of Jesus one tries to control these though).

Sounds like my kind of group. Also, you're not very smart. Equating people with worst, better, blah blah blah. Those are relational operators you brain you. If you liked those, you might consider using other operators, so you could leave behind that raunchy opinion.

I'm new to this thread now, I'm just trying to understand this obvious war going on here. It seems we have a battle of pride on our hands, with other types defending their own turf. Some of them seem so keen on insulting the other group that they go over to one of the quadrants to do just that. You people are so silly in that you don't realize that anyone has every one of the functions, that any fault one of us is guilty of, surly we are all guilty of the same thing. Type probably wouldn't exist if not for the need to stabilize the different types of chaos we deal with as a species. End this pitiful war already, for the sake of progress.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

On second thought, I'd like to take the moment afforded more or less by this thread to say: "I love you guys!"

INTps rock! Such flare, such cunning. Ever spoken to one? They have an intense ability to listen, their comments are usually dead on, their ego is glorious, and their reign imminent(until they get distracted, which they always do). Take them seriously, they have great ideas, great insights. They might just surprise you with a brilliant solution to some of the most horrendous of problems.

Also, if you want to talk about morality issues, INTps are the ones who actively think of ways to solve world problems. Yeah, we are watching out for you guys, even the ones that hate us for no reason. I seriously don't get that... actually I do, but really, cut it out.

So many ideas, lol. Gosh, we should really make threads discussing deep thoughts instead of this flame war mess. Alpha seems nearly eager to see our potential, we could easily show it to them, so why not?

I have a few ideas we could work on as a group effort, but I'm afraid*literally* that most of you probably would be more interested in pie throwing. I guess I'll just read some more and get to know you guys a little better before I suggest such a thing.

INTp: "What I would show you, if you could only see."

[Brilliand]

You people are so silly in that you don't realize that anyone has every one of the functions, that any fault one of us is guilty of, surly we are all guilty of the same thing.

No three types have the same element+function pair. dominant is different from demonstrative, etc. But it is also true that faults aren't inextricably tied to types.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

No three types have the same element+function pair. dominant is different from demonstrative, etc. But it is also true that faults aren't inextricably tied to types.

Nice to meet you too. *sarcasm*

Ok, I don't know a lot about type, I think I've stated that.

My point was that we are not alien from one another, we are the same species. That type does not mean we are evolving away from each other, but that the different types are needed to support the human species.

Also, one human mind basically works from the same fundamentals as any other human mind. That the type of a person does not mean that the brain is different, it just works through another format. Because we basically share the same brain, we are fundamentally all the same.

Therefore, arguments about information, point of view, and so on, are irrelevant, for all the different viewpoints offer something.

The question should be, how to tie in together all the dominate functions into a working model. People are what they are, correctness is irrelevant because the function is there for a reason. I don't mean to repeat myself, but you people are ignoring the truth, that we are all together in this and we had better get along.

[Brilliand]

Eh, you'll learn (about the types). Nice to meet you, yes.

Therefore, arguments about information, point of view, and so on, are irrelevant, for all the different viewpoints offer something.

The question should be, how to tie in together all the dominate functions into a working model. People are what they are, correctness is irrelevant because the function is there for a reason. I don't mean to repeat myself, but you people are ignoring the truth, that we are all together in this and we had better get along.

All types are capable of being wrong. Yes, we all need to get along, but I can't agree with making wrong things right for that reason. You can't disagree with me at all without claiming that correctness is somehow relevant...

I agree, however, that every IM element is necessary. I'm inclined to argue this on the basis of correctness, but I agree that getting every dominant function to work together would be a very good thing. This would require some sort of system to keep the conflictors apart... or, at the very least, Alpha and Beta would need to be held together by a system of protocols, because of our valuing.

About subtypes: Your subtype is whichever function you use the most, the function that is most obvious. For instance, if people often mistake you for an ISTp, you're a subtype; if people often mistake you for an INFp, you're an subtype.

By the way, I'm a Creationist... arguments from evolution don't mean much to me, I find them rather silly. Although that could be just as related to my demonstrative...

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Hey Brilliand,

You made me laugh and second guess myself/what I meant, when you said: "You can't disagree with me at all without claiming that correctness is somehow relevant..." That's still funny to me.

I guess what I meant is a different type of correctness, one that had to do with two or more people separating and going separate ways from a difference of opinion. I was emphasizing integration of information through type functions. I realize that's a bit esoteric, but I think it is something to try to accomplish in the future.

Arguing with you dominate thinkers is a tough task indeed, I find myself laughing at my seemingly contradictory statements when one of you point them out. I think it's good entertainment to hear one of you destroy my point through fitting it into a system of thought. I digress.

I plan on making a topic about INTp and INTj with respect to which group believes in gods, is religious, or what have you. Over at Socionics.com they say that the INTp is good for nothing if not business and church, while the INTj they said was good for nothing if not all realms of thought, science, invention, philosophy, just anything intellectual that has respect. However, I've never met a religious INTp, but nearly every INTj i've met believed in the Christianity or Buddhism. It's even more humorous that you equate you being religious with Ni; I really wonder at the soundness of your statements from this.

Religion is nothing but mass agreement. Valuing something that is esoteric is an intuition thing.

Anyway, I'm not trying to defend a position I don't even hold. I know that I have very little knowledge about type, no argument. The way you said, "Eh, you'll learn..." was a tad to much wasn't it? Or was your purpose to entice me?

Also, thanks for the answer to my signature question, I found it informative and short, the best kind.

When you said that you couldn't agree with making wrong things right just for the sake of my reason, I was dumbfounded. I think you misunderstood me, when I said arguments on correctness are irrelevant, I meant that of course said information is correct. Arguments aren't about correctness but about ones security and position relative to the group. Arguments on correctness are about getting another to conform to ones dominate function, which is not in the favor of the other person for their weakness in that function. My point was that functions have function, that is to say they do something. Put all the pieces that make a clock run together correctly, and guess what, it runs*given anything else needed I didn't include*.

To be redundant and throughly block headed:

If all people with their respective functions are in their place in a group, they will *i think* safe guard all of human insecurity, by growing together in a healthy manner. That's a bit idealistic, but that was my thought when I posted the above.

Instead, what I see in this forum is a lot of function clashing. Why are we clashing? Making fun of each others weaknesses, consuming time with wasteful hate and bickering. Why? I'm not here to stand up for what's right or anything like that. I'm here for 2 reasons thus far. Number one is to learn as much as I can, and number 2 is to initiate ideas and build a wonderful environment of creative and analytical thought. To show people our ideas, build upon them with the wealth of powerful minds, get knee deep into abstractions, esoteric meaning, linguistics, dark arts uncovered, self help. I could go on for quite a while, but I think you get my point. What you take away from it hopefully won't be restricted to Ti.

I'm saying that we could do a lot with what we have in this forum, it would be constructive house building. Making a place where we can all go for mental masturbation.

*eats some Cheeto's* Anyone want some?

[anon50557]

Hey Brilliand,

However, I've never met a religious INTp, but nearly every INTj i've met believed in the Christianity or Buddhism.

I'll second that. I may enjoy getting into discussions about various beliefs and religions, I am definitively atheist, and if anything see myself as incapable of religion (having attended a catholic grade school for two years and tried quite hard to believe in god like they told me I should). The one other ILI I know is rather inimical to religion likewise.

Of the two LIIs I know, both have personalized religious belief systems, that seem to matter to them.

This may be off topic, but it's the one part of the type descriptions that's always felt extremely jarring to me.

[Brilliand]

I plan on making a topic about INTp and INTj with respect to which group believes in gods, is religious, or what have you. Over at Socionics.com they say that the INTp is good for nothing if not business and church, while the INTj they said was good for nothing if not all realms of thought, science, invention, philosophy, just anything intellectual that has respect. However, I've never met a religious INTp, but nearly every INTj i've met believed in the Christianity or Buddhism. It's even more humorous that you equate you being religious with Ni; I really wonder at the soundness of your statements from this.

I thought that having as my eighth function (strong but unvalued) might cause me to regard the very -oriented theory of Evolution as silly. I didn't mean that it was related to religion, just to my particular attitude toward evolution.

One possible explanation for the difference between the Russian descriptions and your experience is that Christianity is explained in a very Alpha way in the West, but in a Gamma way in Russia. That is, religions make their cycle around the socion, and if you catch them at the wrong point, you're not likely to believe them.

But all this is - please don't assume that I've performed experiments and observed the cycle of religion.

The way you said, "Eh, you'll learn..." was a tad to much wasn't it? Or was your purpose to entice me?

My purpose was to reassure you; I see now that it was unnecessary.

[Phaedrus]

I plan on making a topic about INTp and INTj with respect to which group believes in gods, is religious, or what have you. Over at Socionics.com they say that the INTp is good for nothing if not business and church, while the INTj they said was good for nothing if not all realms of thought, science, invention, philosophy, just anything intellectual that has respect. However, I've never met a religious INTp, but nearly every INTj i've met believed in the Christianity or Buddhism. It's even more humorous that you equate you being religious with Ni; I really wonder at the soundness of your statements from this.

Please make such a topic if you can, because you are almost totally right about the things you say here, and this is a very important problem in the theory of the types. We should try to clear this mess up, because it continues to lead to mistypings and misunderstandings about these two types over and over again.

[Logos]

Please make all these stupid misconceptions of INTps and INTjs in this thread go away!

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Please make all these stupid misconceptions of INTps and INTjs in this thread go away!

Hello Logos,

There are no misconceptions of ILI and LII on my part in this thread. I was more or less marking territory in an attempt to spark debate into the misunderstood issue. My arguments weren't for the arguments, but for the action which they would cause.

Religiousness is to large a chunk of unsorted data to be attributed to an attribute. Such reckless sorting of information should be resolved for accuracy at least. I have no qualms with Ti or those that use it as a dominate function. I find your type to be extremely useful, full of information, and a group which begs to be understood for all that they are, for what they are not being used for.

Religion is the opponent in this thread, not your or my type. Thank you for reading.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

My purpose was to reassure you; I see now that it was unnecessary.

Hello Brilliand,

I'm very touchy it seems. I like you, need no reassurance. I find that I will or I won't based solely on my effort, not on kind words. When you made that comment, I took it as you saying something from a higher up point of view, an educated point of view, in relation to my not being informed, for the sole purpose of the contrast.

The theory of evolution is Ni? I would say thanks in jest, but that would be inflammatory and incorrect.

You made a good argument with respect to Christianity coming off in a very Alpha way in the west, I really hadn't thought of that.

I brought up the subject only because you said that you were a Christian, you need not look more deeply than that.

One might make the argument that Religion and intuition are deeply tied together. That dominate intuitives are more likely to be religious than any other type for that reason. However, in my experience, it's dominate intuitives that cannot support religion because they see so many other interesting thoughts that clash with one another. For that reason, it seems to me that people with an undeveloped intuitive function are more likely to fall with in the trap of religion, because they aren't able to gather the type of information that would bring religious claims to relational objection. For what would you use to measure objectively the intangible assertions that religion makes? Like grasping at a hologram, one would forever remain unable to sort that which does not exist. But having more than one thing that does not exist would enable a person to combat religion on its own level. That was all that I was saying.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Hello Brilliand,

I'm very touchy it seems. I like you, need no reassurance. I find that I will or I won't based solely on my effort, not on kind words. When you made that comment, I took it as you saying something from a higher up point of view, an educated point of view, in relation to my not being informed, for the sole purpose of the contrast.

The theory of evolution is Ni? I would say thanks in jest, but that would be inflammatory and incorrect.

You made a good argument with respect to Christianity coming off in a very Alpha way in the west, I really hadn't thought of that.

I brought up the subject only because you said that you were a Christian, you need not look more deeply than that.

One might make the argument that Religion and intuition are deeply tied together. That dominate intuitives are more likely to be religious than any other type for that reason. However, in my experience, it's dominate intuitives that cannot support religion because they see so many other interesting thoughts that clash with one another. For that reason, it seems to me that people with an undeveloped intuitive function are more likely to fall with in the trap of religion, because they aren't able to gather the type of information that would bring religious claims to relational objection. For what would you use to measure objectively the intangible assertions that religion makes? Like grasping at a hologram, one would forever remain unable to sort that which does not exist. But having more than one thing that does not exist would enable a person to combat religion on its own level. That was all that I was saying.

The trap of religion? Perhaps you should start a new thread in anything goes rather than use ILI appreciation thread as a soap box for your views. Among other things you (seemingly unwittingly) have said. For instance that only those with ego N are able to think, (which is pretty much what your saying in regards to deciding/thinking - with religion as your example.)

[Phaedrus]

One might make the argument that Religion and intuition are deeply tied together. That dominate intuitives are more likely to be religious than any other type for that reason. However, in my experience, it's dominate intuitives that cannot support religion because they see so many other interesting thoughts that clash with one another. For that reason, it seems to me that people with an undeveloped intuitive function are more likely to fall with in the trap of religion, because they aren't able to gather the type of information that would bring religious claims to relational objection. For what would you use to measure objectively the intangible assertions that religion makes? Like grasping at a hologram, one would forever remain unable to sort that which does not exist. But having more than one thing that does not exist would enable a person to combat religion on its own level. That was all that I was saying.

That's a very interesting line of thought. If we look at the types of the most accentuated and aggressive atheist critics of religious beliefs, many of them are typed ENTp by Rick and others. And it is certainly my personal experience that INTps also tend to be atheists, despite how they are described in Socionics literature. Regardless of whether the most famous atheists are correctly typed or not, there might be a clear pattern to see here.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Eh, you'll learn (about the types). Nice to meet you, yes.

By the way, I'm a Creationist... arguments from evolution don't mean much to me, I find them rather silly. Although that could be just as related to my demonstrative...

Hi again,

After reading through our posts to each other, I think I'm at fault for not understanding what you were saying. I now think that we shared a point, that weakness in Ni would cause someone to use as a crutch someone elses Ni thought, like religion.

If that is the case, then I'm sorry for not having realized it earlier. It's because I didn't understand what a function "demonstrative" was. I still don't, but maybe I'll do a little more research before concluding what something means by context only.

- Justin

[Logos]

Hello Logos,

There are no misconceptions of ILI and LII on my part in this thread.

There never are. But when I am seeing a potential egg getting ready to open that is on the verge of labeling LII/ILE/Alpha = religious and ILI = irreligious, then should I not have worry for potential misconceptions based on past experience (especially when Phaedrus is involved)?

I was more or less marking territory in an attempt to spark debate into the misunderstood issue.

As am I.

My arguments weren't for the arguments, but for the action which they would cause.

And my comments were to stop stupidity before it began to sprout wings and spread like a virus.

Religiousness is to large a chunk of unsorted data to be attributed to an attribute. Such reckless sorting of information should be resolved for accuracy at least. I have no qualms with Ti or those that use it as a dominate function. I find your type to be extremely useful, full of information, and a group which begs to be understood for all that they are, for what they are not being used for.

I hope you realize how condescending this sounds. My type should not be an issue here!

Religion is the opponent in this thread, not your or my type. Thank you for reading.

But when you turn religion issues into type issues, then it becomes ripe for misconceptions and battles of us vs. them, or more commonly, their function vs. ours. Religion should not be an opponent, but an issue of debate, criticism, refinement, or whatever else depending upon your preconceived disposition towards it. Religion is made up of people, who have people of all functions and types. As such, you are going to find religion to be used in a plethora of ways by different types and with different functions. Religion is largely defined by a cultural context such that religion should or cannot be treated as a monolithic concept.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

I hope you realize how condescending this sounds. My type should not be an issue here!

Religion should not be an opponent, but an issue of debate, criticism, refinement, or whatever else depending upon your preconceived disposition towards it.

Religion is made up of people, who have people of all functions and types. As such, you are going to find religion to be used in a plethora of ways by different types and with different functions. Religion is largely defined by a cultural context such that religion should or cannot be treated as a monolithic concept.

I don't understand the difference between seeing religion as an opponent and a subject to be sorted through.

However, you seem to be correct on your views from how I understand it, not that I'm some measure, but I and you seem to agree.

As for my condescending statement. I'm very sorry, I really just used the wrong words. I meant to say that a lot of the problems people in general have, culture, many many things. Your type could sort out and it would be done with. When I said it in a way that implied us using you, I really did not mean that as such. However, your type was an issue because I'm very specifically talking about the differences between the ILI and LII. Now, I'm new to this particular forum, but back at Socionics.com they seem to have a great deal against the ILI. They continually put that type down and claim they are "in their element" when their career is in business or church. I was just going off onto a tangent in memory of their spite.

Anyway, again I'm sorry for coming off as condescending to your type, as I cannot say enough how much I love you guys. I really just wish I understood more about how your type thinks, as I would find it invaluable if I could do the same myself. I don't think of myself as a very logical person, I don't think logical enough to be useful or credible as far as logic. However I am a visionary with regards to ideas unnoticed, I do enjoy pointing them out to people that would have otherwise passed them by. For me, that is my virtue, and I would argue that it is a virtue in the realm of thought, worthy of the time of any passerby.

[Logos]

I don't understand the difference between seeing religion as an opponent and a subject to be sorted through.

There should be a lack of an adversarial relationship in relation to the subject.

As for my condescending statement. I'm very sorry, I really just used the wrong words. I meant to say that a lot of the problems people in general have, culture, many many things. Your type could sort out and it would be done with. When I said it in a way that implied us using you, I really did not mean that as such. However, your type was an issue because I'm very specifically talking about the differences between the ILI and LII. Now, I'm new to this particular forum, but back at Socionics.com they seem to have a great deal against the ILI. They continually put that type down and claim they are "in their element" when their career is in business or church. I was just going off onto a tangent in memory of their spite.

Most of that types and your careers stuff is bullshit, so type should never be used as a justification for vocation. If this is what you had to hear at Socionics.com, then I weep for them.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

There should be a lack of an adversarial relationship in relation to the subject.

Most of that types and your careers stuff is bullshit, so type should never be used as a justification for vocation. If this is what you had to hear at Socionics.com, then I weep for them.

In the interests of keeping things straight, this is not the case.

[Brilliand]

Hi again,

After reading through our posts to each other, I think I'm at fault for not understanding what you were saying. I now think that we shared a point, that weakness in Ni would cause someone to use as a crutch someone elses Ni thought, like religion.

If that is the case, then I'm sorry for not having realized it earlier. It's because I didn't understand what a function "demonstrative" was. I still don't, but maybe I'll do a little more research before concluding what something means by context only.

- Justin

is your demonstrative function. The demonstrative function isn't weak, but it's easy to disrespect.

Christianity to me is not -oriented at all - it is very -oriented, with an emphasis on creation by a logically consistent God. When I first came to this forum, I presented an argument that belief that there is no God is logically inconsistent - it was taken as an argument that belief in God is not logically inconsistent, and I decided to leave it at that.

I thought the theory of Evolution would be primarily because Darwin was an INTp.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

In the interests of keeping things straight, this is not the case.

Care to provide a link Cyclops? Or does your name qualify what you say as truth?

I'll provide a link for my statement.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/intjorintp.htm

4th paragraph down. The forums on the other hand are ripe with slander with regard to the ILI. Look if your interested.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Care to provide a link Cyclops? Or does your name qualify what you say as truth?

I'll provide a link for my statement.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/intjorintp.htm

4th paragraph down. The forums on the other hand are ripe with slander with regard to the ILI. Look if your interested.

You say everyone at socionics.com thinks [whatever it is you say]. How can you possibly know what everyone there thinks.

This is one of thousands of items on the site, regardless of how you interpret this particular information (which if you look past your current view, you may start to see there is other pictures, some bigger, some smaller)

Also, it is something published for discussion. There is a section for adding your comment(s) and discussing for that very purpose. And if you weren't such a condescending prick you could have asked Ganin directly on his forum, instead of getting yourself banned.

Ask yourself, if you start a new job, do you insult people on the first day? Perhaps compare that to your behaviour on this other website.

[JRiddy]

is your demonstrative function. The demonstrative function isn't weak, but it's easy to disrespect.

Christianity to me is not -oriented at all - it is very -oriented, with an emphasis on creation by a logically consistent God. When I first came to this forum, I presented an argument that belief that there is no God is logically inconsistent - it was taken as an argument that belief in God is not logically inconsistent, and I decided to leave it at that.

I thought the theory of Evolution would be primarily because Darwin was an INTp.

I wouldn't suggest that any religion is particularly oriented towards a specific function. There are aspects of each IM element in every religion out there.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I wouldn't suggest that any religion is particularly oriented towards a specific function. There are aspects of each IM element in every religion out there.

I agree. I remember reading an article on Rick's site where he was saying his experience of mormonism has it with a heavy influence on Fi. Some others he talks of focus on Se- ie through harsh acts of self denial and conquering ones bodies needs, and such.

[JRiddy]

(I moved this post after realizing it didn't belong here. It's now here.)

[Logos]

is your demonstrative function. The demonstrative function isn't weak, but it's easy to disrespect.

Christianity to me is not -oriented at all - it is very -oriented, with an emphasis on creation by a logically consistent God. When I first came to this forum, I presented an argument that belief that there is no God is logically inconsistent - it was taken as an argument that belief in God is not logically inconsistent, and I decided to leave it at that.

I thought the theory of Evolution would be primarily because Darwin was an INTp.

Please stop using your religion to hijack Socionics.

Care to provide a link Cyclops? Or does your name qualify what you say as truth?

I'll provide a link for my statement.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/intjorintp.htm

4th paragraph down. The forums on the other hand are ripe with slander with regard to the ILI. Look if your interested.

And that is one of the reasons why this forum has not and will not take Socionics.com seriously.

[Logos]

I think it's a bad idea to dismiss socionics.com as a source, I don't know what SG's take is and I am not going to debate his perspective with you. I tend to debate with him on his own site. He has a good understanding of the theory, the article that Rick wrote on the Trivialities of the Reinin Dichotomies, SG wrote it a long time before Rick. Now you may not like that particular article or a lot of articles that SG writes but he's probably no less knowledgeable then most of the people who trivializes his contribution, especially when some of the time they use the techniques and terminology he's popularized(and dismiss when it suits them).

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

You seem to view yourself as being quite well informed about Ganin. I'd be interested in hearing about the topics you have discussed with him. .

[Logos]

You seem to view yourself as being quite well informed about Ganin. I'd be interested in hearing about the topics you have discussed with him. .

I've read a number of his type-specific articles, but have not had a discussion with him nor do I really have an interest to do so.