Dear me! I've become Phaedrus!Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Yes
No
I am not LII (I am a retard - I don't even know why I'm answering this poll to be honest)
Dear me! I've become Phaedrus!
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
You can't prove otherwise. Besides, most of the descriptions were written by a five year old who drew inspiration from Finnegans Wake by James Joyce. As evidence, look at the descriptions. What other proof do you need? Descriptions can't write themselves.
Hahahaha. No you haven't. You don't value "objective truth" enough. "Objective truth" is what it is because Phaedrus says it, remember?
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Phaedrus, you appear to be in a truly tragic situation. On the one hand you desire the unity of MBTI with Socionics, and on the other you will not allow yourself to interpret the information necessary to that same unity.
Phaedrus if you will not accept my word for it whose word will you accept?
Why is it that LIIs may identify with the profile, in your words, but they "should" not? What is the risk of identifying with it? Do you believe such may lead one away from socionics in blind adherence to the authoritative academic regimes of the past?
Phaedrus, please discuss with us who has influenced you in your beliefs.
The conclusive arguments are the same as they have always been. The four dichotomies/dimensions are identical in the two models, which means that if not every correctly typed LII is an INTJ and every correctly typed ILI is an INTP, then we have a logical contradiction. It is obvious that Paul James, who has written that INTP profile, is himself an ILI. Do you disagree with that?
I never blindly accept anyone's word for anything. I only accept the objective truth. And you haven't commented on any of my very strong arguments for the claim that what is being portrayed in that profile is indeed the ILI type (with a perhaps too strong emphasis on).
No LII should identify with IP temperament, I hope we can agree on that. And every LII should be able to accept the basic differences in attitudes and behaviours between LIIs and ILIs. But that means that a LII should recognize the obvious parts in that profile that are incompatible with LII. Why do you ignore them?
Mistypings, delusions, misunderstandings ...
I don't follow your thought processes here. I don't know what your point is.
What do you mean? Take this seriously by arguing -- for or against -- the relevant theses here. Don't hide in the dark.
I can't believe I'm doing this, because it is a fruitless endeavor, but I guess I feel I have to.
The four dichotomies are merely semantically identical. The way they are both described and defined is very different. You are confusing "objective truth" with semantic equivalence. This is a logical fallacy called "equivocation", and you should have learned about it in your study of formal logic.
It has been stated consistently that MBTI and Socionics have important theoretical differences that extend far beyond a different abbreviation convention for types. Socionics is defined in terms of Information Metabolism, which is integrated with Jungian theory. MBTI is another interpretation of Jungian theory, with more emphasis on traits and behaviors.
I fail to see why Socionics or MBTI or Enneagram or any of this is "objective truth". You clearly do not understand the real meaning of the phrase, and substitute your own meaning of "what Phaedrus believes," and declare that anyone who dares to argue against you is illogical and ignorant of basic facts. Let's define objective truth: truth that exists as such independent of observation. Your versions of "objective truth" are completely dependent on your own understandings and observations.I never blindly accept anyone's word for anything. I only accept the objective truth. And you haven't commented on any of my very strong arguments for the claim that what is being portrayed in that profile is indeed the ILI type (with a perhaps too strong emphasis on
And the most hilarious thing of all about this is that these are theories. These aren't even theories that have a strong, broad-base support among the experts in the fields. They are speculations as to the nature of the human psyche. Which is all well and good, except when you treat it like it's something that has always existed and is a perfect description of reality. I actually feel sorry for you that you are seemingly incapable of comprehending the distinction between what you believe and what is true.
Again you are assuming that your understanding of the temperaments and types is perfect. There is sufficient reason to doubt this because your ability to distinguish between fact and opinion is already suspect.
Why are your "understandings" any better than anyone else's? You've studied more? So? Though studying is a wonderful thing, more time spent studying something does not necessarily mean you understand it better than someone else. Your temperament and general demeanor make me think that you haven't actually experienced very much in the way of actual social contact, at least not successful contact, and you are likely the one who is deluded in thinking that you have any real grasp of this stuff.
Phaedrus, I know you're a smart guy, but if you continue posting these pedantic atrocities, no one will ever take you seriously. You live in a fantasy world where you can know and understand every little thing that comes your way, and you are so defensive about it that any thing that could possibly penetrate your delusional fortress is so quickly shot down or ignored that you will never learn what any of this really means.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
You are a total idiot, are you? No brain capacity at all, is that it? I will consider every person who claims that the four dichotomies are not referring to the exact same empirical phenomenon an idiot.
You are absurdly ignorant and unable to think logically correct. I have explained this mistake of yours and others countless of times on this forum by now, and I certainly don't feel like doing it again. You are the one of us two who is confusing the semantic content with empirical reality. The definitions themselves are irrelevant here -- how many fucking times to I have to tell you morons that simple truth? The four dichotomies -- the labels -- refer to the same object, the same phenomenon. Is that logical distinction impossible for people to grasp? The only type that seems capable of grasping it is the ILI, because almost every ILI here seems to agree with what I say, but very few people of other types do it, with a few intelligent exceptions.
Irrelevant.
Yes, you are right about that one. You certainly fail to see the truth.
You would benefit from studying some philosophy of science.
Yes, and every theory is either true or false. But the real types are independent of the theories -- another objective truth that you are unable to grasp.
Irrelevant. Every belief, whether mine, yours, or somebody else's is either true or false and nothing else. That we doesn't always know that what we are convinced is true really is true is another matter, a matter that doesn't change one bit the truth value of our beliefs.
Close to it, yes.
I am one of very few people on this forum who really understands that distionction perfectly. Most people here don't.
Because they are more correct and because my beliefs are true.
Yes.
Here you deliver a totally irrelevant comment again. Do you find it funny and amusing to focus on irrelevancies? I don't. Of course more time spent studying something doesn't necessarily mean that you understand it better than some one else, but it doesn't necessarly mean that you understand it worse than someone else either.
Now you are focusing on irrelevant aspects again. Social contacts, or a lack of them, have almost nothing to do with your competence as a socionist. My views don't become less true becuase I lack in social competence.
And I have already tried to explain countless of times that I don't care about that. Of course I am aware of the fact that my way of expressing my views diminishes the chances that people will take the truth seriously. But that only proves that people are idiots, because they should care more about the truth than they should care about my person.
I really can't understand why people are so interested in "helping" me. Why can't you stop caring about my mental helth and focus on the relavant issues instead? Why do you refuse to understand the conclusive arguments? Why do you refuse to study the relevant material? Why do you insist on being ignorant fools? Why do you insist on sticking to your prejudices? Why, why, why?
I'm not sure about that.
What I'm thinking is this. If you read the description as a whole, in a "forest instead of trees" manner, especially if you leave out the bits about specific tastes in music, etc, then yes, I think most NTs (and some NFs) would resonate with it. Because what it most consistently describes it essentially a person with more focus on, but in such a way that might also resonate with
If, on the other hand, you actually read it in detail - "trees rather than the forest" - there is a lot of stuff that doesn't make much sense to me. It describes a person who's "afraid of emotions out of control", whatever that means, but who's also an "emotional chameleon" who's somehow skilled in using emotions to "take the measure" of other persons. It describes a person who's supposedly detached, but on the other hand concerned with status and image - the bit about either being seen as the genius, the center of attention, or then a critic. That is, if I'm not seen as the big enchilada, I will criticise whoever it is. Or, in other words, I'm so sure of being right, that all is well only if others acknowledge that; if they don't, then they are wrong and I will tear them apart. Which is pretty much Phaedrus's stance; but is that of ILIs generally? I think not.
My point is this: if that description is read in a broad-brush way, then, I do think that lots of different types will identify with its overall flavor (in a way that, say, ESEs or SEIs would not), but then it's so broad as to make that mean little in terms of precise types.
If that description is read in detail, painfully analyzing stuff like what I mentioned above (and much more), I wonder who'd actually, truly, identify with it without raising their eyebrows now and then. Besides Phaedrus that is.
Correct.If you read the description as a whole, in a "forest instead of trees" manner, especially if you leave out the bits about specific tastes in music, etc, then yes, I think most NTs (and some NFs) would resonate with it. Because what it most consistently describes it essentially a person with more focus on
That is strange, because you should be expected to see what it is about. But on the other hand your capacity for reading type descriptions correctly is, even though not as limited as some others, still rather limited.
It means the exact same phenomenon that is described in the ILI profiles.
You have always totally misinterpreted that passage. It does not say, nor does it mean, that the INTP is skilled in using emotions. It has nothing at all to do with. It is rather the opposite, and the behaviour of the INTP would not be seen as an expression of social competence when he is in the "chameleon" mode. It is all about collecting data that can be analyzed. In a sense, it can be seen as a somewhat cynical use of other people as some sort of guinea-pigs in order to test hypotheses about their behaviours. On the other hand, the INTP uses himself as a guine-pig too (as pointed out in James's profile). It is a perspective in which both the INTP himself and other people are perceived as objects to study. Compare that attitude with typical descriptions of the attitudes of ILIs, and you will see the similarities (hopefully).
Yes, and this detachment is very typical of ILIs. There is no other socionic type that have that detachment to a similar degree. Here's an example:
His analysis is devoid of any self-encouragement. “You shouldn’t have a different attitude towards life than you have for the kitchen – the same amount of stinking odor; if you want to cook a dish, you’ll have to get your hands dirty, just make sure you’ll be able to wash the dirt off once you are done; that’s the entire moral of our day and age." So speaks Vautrin, a hero of Balzac’s books. Such misanthropy can kill the anybody’s spirits, except his dual (Julius Caesar, The Politician)!
Total misunderstanding on your part. This is the exact same problem that you have always had. It is exactly in this respect that you have completely misunderstood the motives of me and other ILIs on this forum. It has nothing at all to do with status and image. There is no other type that is less interested in status and image than the ILI or the INTP.
Your general understanding of the ILI type is simply flawed. You misunderstand us. Correct your false views, please.
Again, it's good to know I don't have to take Phaedrus's nonsense seriously:
From the 2nd paragraph of the "Extraverted Intuition" section:
And from the 6th paragraph of the same section:an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there. The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out.
Or have I also misinterpreted those passages?The chameleon behaviour can be particularly strong when discussing something. The INTP may even argue something that he doesn't really believe himself. Sometimes it is for the intellectual stimulation that comes with the challenge of arguing from a variety of standpoints. Otherwise, it may be to avoid early conflict before the situation has been fully assessed.
Utter bullshit. ILI's are not detached. Their attitude is better described as "dissolved" or "immersed". If you do a search on the forum you'll find posts by both Cone and Smilingeyes emphasizing an inability on the part of ILI's to fully control their reaction to events outside of them. Cone (ILI) says you can tell an ILI apart from LII by testing their reaction to questions like "do you like that girl?". A really detached person would have no problem simply answering no, but what does the ILI characteristically do according to Cone..? Stutter, bumble, try to find a way out... This is coming from an ILI. Smilex describes the IxTp personality class as "controlling their reaction to events, not the emotions themselves". Again, this is NOT what people mean when they use the word "detached".Yes, and this detachment is very typical of ILIs.
Detachment = LII, not ILI.
This reaction is tied into the INTp hidden agenda, to love. The INTp has difficulties in commencing the relationship, they are ok when it's up and running. The ISTp with the same HA has no problems starting the relationship, they're problems arise when the relationship *is* up and running. I attribute this difference to the S/N dichotomy.
This is due to the IxTp Fe PoLR.Smilex describes the IxTp personality class as "controlling their reaction to events, not the emotions themselves". Again, this is NOT what people mean when they use the word "detached".
This part is subjective. I'm not convinced either way, but personally I *would* attach the word "detach" to my experiences with ILI.Detachment = LII, not ILI.
Sure, we've got a lot of pretty words to explain those dispositions with. That's not what's at issue here though. We're discussing wether the ILI should or should not be described as "detached" and if they typically can't control their reactions then they are not typically detached. Simple as that.
BTW, from cyclops reaction we can deduce that he finds the behaviors I highlighted to be in line with his experiences. Add another ILI to the list of ILI's without typical detachment.
Again a wrong statement. Descriptions of the LII unilaterally emphasize a characteristic talent at "digging to the essence", "sepparating primary from secundary" and "presenting thoughts in clear succession, working from voiced assumptions to a well reasoned conclusion". If that doesn't qualify at providing clarity, nothing does.LIIs are not the providers of clarity -- that is simply not what they are focused at, and they are not very good at it either.
Appearantly the people who you've established as LIIs do, which is a rather pointless thing to bring to light given that no one can find indications in their experiences that you're views on this are correct! Obviously the kind of philosophical behavior you describe exists, but to say that all LII's engage in it is an assumption founded only in old descriptions of a speculative part of socionics (Reinin) which, according to Augusta, we shouldn't trust in the first place due to it's being based on an inordinately small sample of test subjects. Furthermore, I believe in objective truth, so the claim is hereby falsified.Instead the LIIs tend to criticize the very notions of objective knowledge and and objective truth and focus more on meaning.
If you had paid attention to Hitta's and my posts, not to mention those of Mysticsonic (correct if I'm wrong), you'd know that a good portion of LII's has a pretty tenacious difficulty at staying motivated for the tasks of life. As forLIIs are not lazy, and they do not believe that doing is of lower necessity than knowing, as is described in that profile.
the emphasis on "doing", take a look at my "abstract function descriptions" thread in the non-mainstream socionics board. Where is the "doing" element in that...? What practical activity am I trying to derive from it...? Why do I do it at all if value the doing element as much as the knowing...?
Yes, but the situation appears to be such that the average LII identifies MORE with the INTP profile than with that of the INTJ. How distorted must the distribution be for you to accept as an indication that things just aren't as simple as superficial indications might lead one to estimate?It is an obvious fact that people here are bad at comparing type descriptions. They identify with some parts of a description (there are always such parts that are almost identical in the descriptions of different types) but they ignore the parts that are in conflict their own type. A LII should realize that James's INTP description is not a description of a LII. I expect all of you "LIIs" to recognize that fact.
Last edited by krieger; 05-07-2008 at 01:58 PM.
So you like to play with words? Fine. Then you can explain exactly what you see as the most relevant difference between detachment and dissolution or immersion. How do you tell the difference in someone's behaviour?
Yes, what's the problem with that? Do you really believe that those attitudes are incompatible?
More play with words. There is also another sense of the word detached according to which an ILI is definitely more detached than the LII. That sense has to do with how objective you can be toward your own reactions and your own feelings. LIIs are more emotionally sensitive than ILIs in this respect. They are in a sense more "human", an aspect that is also tied to the fact that LIIs see humans as agents, whereas ILIs tend to see them as material objects. An ILI is usually much more "scientifically detached" than any LII in that the ILI have a tendency to see everything, including himself, from a scientific perspective.
Wrong for the reasons just stated.
By the way, what Cyclops says regarding INTps in # 53 is totally correct.
Detached means "unattached". A detached person is separate from their environment. Whatever goes on around them does not affect them, except if they intend fot it to do so. An "immersed" person has a continuous flow going on between evironment and themselves. Whatever goes on has an immediate counterpart in the person's thoughts. ILI's immersed in this sense and LII's detached. You'll find this to be in line with the descriptions of the thought styles in the associated thread. Process + Dynamic = immersed, Result + Static = detached.So you like to play with words? Fine. Then you can explain exactly what you see as the most relevant difference between detachment and dissolution or immersion. How do you tell the difference in someone's behaviour?
I find myself wondering where you get these ideas as in my experiences and probably in those of a lot of other people as well the INTj posesses just the same kind of objectivity, be it that they practice it in a different way. INTj's see the full range of possible standpoints a person can take to an issue. Lenore Thompson describes this attitude in her INTJ description. I'm sure you're aware of the passage. This is just as much an objective attitude, and just as much a detached one.There is also another sense of the word detached according to which an ILI is definitely more detached than the LII. That sense has to do with how objective you can be toward your own reactions and your own feelings. LIIs are more emotionally sensitive than ILIs in this respect. They are in a sense more "human", an aspect that is also tied to the fact that LIIs see humans as agents, whereas ILIs tend to see them as material objects. An ILI is usually much more "scientifically detached" than any LII in that the ILI have a tendency to see everything, including himself, from a scientific perspective.
But INTJ's are detached in both these ways, INTP's in just one.
That description of LIIs does not fully hold up to a comparison with reality. And if you compare that behaviour of LIIs with the behaviour that Paul James is attributing to INTPs, you should realize that there is a difference. It is extremely obvious that what James is desribing is the fault finding, and criticizing behaviour of ILIs, not the behaviour of a tcaudilllg or some other typical representative of the LII type.
Every single one of the LIIs I know in real life is correctly typed. Some "LIIs" on this forum are not. And if you want to know the real nature of the LII type you should compare the attitudes and behaviours of real life examples of LIIs, such as Kant, Robespierre, David Carradine, The Unabomber, Sergei Ganin, etc.
Explain what you mean by an "objective truth". How do you define the concept "truth"? And what do you mean by the word "objective"?
Good that you brought that issue up, because both hitta and MysticSonic are almost certainly not LIIs. Both of them are most likely mistyped.
That is a big practical problem, because a typical ILI fits James's INTP profile much better than any LII does.
I don't know. But there are no signs of a distorted distribution yet. A true LII who actually believes that Paul James is describing an LII in that INTP profile of his is clearly somewhat deluded. It is totally obvious that it is not a typical LII that is being portrayed.
Can you provide one single, clear example of such a famous "objective" LII? At least Kant wasn't, that's for sure.
I assume that you are referring to this passage (correct me if I'm wrong):
INJs acknowledge many conceptual standpoints. They experience no need to declare one inherently better than another. Indeed, these types have the disconcerting habit of solving a problem by shifting their perspective and defining the situation some other way.
This is a typically Subjectivist perspective. It is essentially the denial of the existence of an objective truth. Lenore Thomson also says that
which is another way of expressing a Subjectivist's relativistic stance toward questions of truth and knowledge. To call such an attitude "objective" is an insult and an abuse of language. It is a totally non-objective attitude.For INJs, truth isn't about logic. Truth is a frame of reference, a way of organizing information, which serves one set of needs or another.
And here's yet another very clear illustration of the fact that INTjs are not objective but subjectivistic relativists:
For INJs, patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us – the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems. A disease syndrome is a useful construct, but that's all it is – an aggregate of observations attached to a label, telling us what to see and how to deal with it.
Look, I'm talking about objectivity in the colloquial sense here. Colloquial subjectivity refers to whim, emotion, impulse, arbitrarity. Detachment signifies a lack of these qualities in a person. Do you agree with this?
This describes a lack of whim and impulse on the part of the person and thus exactly pin-points what I mean. You'll also find several passages in which Thompson points out detachment as a typical INTJ characteristic, so this discussion is pretty much moot anyway. Lenore's view is that INTJ's are detached.They experience no need to declare one inherently better than another.
Possibly. But the fault is not mine as this is a way people regularly use the word objectivity. In any case it serves the purpose of signifiying detachment just fine.To call such an attitude "objective" is an insult and an abuse of language.
LOLZ Phaedrus!!!You and this thread make me smile!!!
Seriously though, this thread is absolutely hilarious. Any thread where anybody actually tries to argue with Phaedrus is hilarious. He is a master of the comic farce, and will not let a simple thing like "coming to a mutual understanding" or "demonstrating basic human decency" get in the way of his precious "objective truth." It's a sublime act, my friend. Bravo!
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
An extremely severe statement, given that these kind of descriptions make up a major portion of the information that is available on LIIs. Take the LII profile on this website. http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html If Phaedrus is right, we are to cut out it's first line, a line reserved for a concise defining description of the type in each of the profiles. Are we to believe that the people who garnered this data excercised such incompetence and lack of care as to present a fully corrupt, misdirecting image of what was supposed to be the LII but appearently ends up being a motley crew of mistypes? If the data we derive this conclusion from can so easily invalidate that in the profile, why can the opposite direction not be the case?That description of LIIs does not fully hold up to a comparison with reality.
I am aware of each of their cases and have studied each to an extent. If you want my assessment of what is going on, I think you have taught yourself to detect a subset of LIIs that share a certain peculiarity. From my own case and a number of others I deduce that this peculiarity is not requisitely part of the LII attitude, so your understanding of the type is overfitted. That being said I do think you have typed these men correctly and that you have a number of correct ideas on the type that the forum would benefit from adopting.Every single one of the LIIs I know in real life is correctly typed. Some "LIIs" on this forum are not. And if you want to know the real nature of the LII type you should compare the attitudes and behaviours of real life examples of LIIs, such as Kant, Robespierre, David Carradine, The Unabomber, Sergei Ganin, etc.
A legit standpoint, though I should remind you have once litterally said you thought Hitta to be an INTj based on his tendency not to check theories against reality. The observation in question would have to be explained in a different light. Which type is not judging and displays this tendency?Good that you brought that issue up, because both hitta and MysticSonic are almost certainly not LIIs. Both of them are most likely mistyped.
I'd like to take a bit more time before I tackle the article as a whole. For now a question: what do you think of the possibility that the description was intended to describe either of the two types, but ended up being based off a contaminated sample of test subjects, thus in an attempt to find the common characteristic of the group came to describe many characteristics that INTj and INTp have in common.I don't know. But there are no signs of a distorted distribution yet. A true LII who actually believes that Paul James is describing an LII in that INTP profile of his is clearly somewhat deluded. It is totally obvious that it is not a typical LII that is being portrayed.
A Subjectivist wouldn't consider an Objectivist objective. To say anything else wouldn't be objective.
That is highly questionable. You don't seem to talk about objectivity in the colloquial sense of the word. What exactly do you mean by "objectivity"?
I don't necessarily deny it, but the words "subjectivity" and "objectivity" become almost totally useless to us if we use them in that way, which is too vague and not well-defined.
To debate the correct use of the word "detached" is of course mostly a waste of time here, since we seem to agree on what we mean. It is much more of a problem that you see INTjs as objective, because they are definitely not objective according to the correct use of the word "objective".
A person with an objective attitude must accept some sort of correspondence theory of truth, and the person must also accept the existence of a mind-independent external reality. And the passage from Thomson clearly contradicts that.
Bullshit. People who use the word in that sense have no idea what it actually stands for. And you and I should definitely use it in that sense here. The attitude that is described by Thomson is absolutely not the attitude of an objective person.
So you get to define them and decide to whom they are applied?I don't necessarily deny it, but the words "subjectivity" and "objectivity" become almost totally useless to us if we use them in that way, which is too vague and not well-defined.
Why not?To debate the correct use of the word "detached" is of course mostly a waste of time here, since we seem to agree on what we mean. It is much more of a problem that you see INTjs as objective, because they are definitely not objective according to the correct use of the word "objective".
And how is this necessarily incompatible with the LII?A person with an objective attitude must accept some sort of correspondence theory of truth, and the person must also accept the existence of a mind-independent external reality. And the passage from Thomson clearly contradicts that.
Is your worldview really so dependent upon this objective/subjective divide that it would come crashing down were you to admit that LIIs can be objective?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Do you find any clear indication in that LII profile that LIIs would be interested in objective truth and objective knowledge? No, because there is none. One of the clear differences between LIIs and ILIs is that LIIs are much more interested in, and focused on, political agendas. The typical fictional book of an LII has a political message, whereas the typical fictional book of an ILI is more in the spirit of "l'art pour l'art", less focused on wordly demands and more focused on imaginary worlds, etc.
The essence of the LII type is a focus on implementing the LII's system(s), to impose a personal, subjective agenda onto the world, an agenda that is rooted in the LII'ssystem. Such an attitude has almost no direct relation to the focus on finding the objective truths about the world that is so typical of many ILIs. LIIs are focused on meaning, ILIs are focused on knowledge. And there is a very important difference between these two attitudes.
Good that we agree on that subset of LIIs. But if there is another kind of LII that is clearly different from those in that subset, how would you characterize that sort of LII? Exactly in what way and how much do they differ in your opinion?
Hitta's relativistic ideas can of course be seen as some sort of charicature of the Subjectivist attitude, but they are so blatantly self-refuting in a non-sophisticated and "blunt" way that I think is actually not very characteristic of LIIs. Hitta's views have this "primitive" character, especially when he insists that there are definitely no objective truths, that it is impossible to know anything, etc., that you have to start to wonder if such thinking is really natural for him. He comes across as a complete moron when he proclaims those logically contradictory statements as if they were universal truths. An LII with a minimum of IQ would not make such a fool of himself, and it is actually easier for me to see hitta as a deluded ILI than as a LII.
Besides those considerations, hitta clearly describes his own beahvior in a way that is inconsistent with the IJ temperament, and he does not look like a LII on V.I. His body type is also clearly different from a typical LII's.
And at least when it comes to described temperament, the same thing can be said about MysticSonic.
That is a possible explanation, but we could actually ask pretty much the same question regarding the types LII and ILI in Socionics, because it is sure as hell that some famous persons are mistyped by socionists. And I still claim that it is totally obvious that Paul James himself is not a LII but an ILI. And besides, what shall we think about David Keirsey, who also describes the INTP Architecht in a way that, in some respects, can be associated with
Which ones?That is a possible explanation, but we could actually ask pretty much the same question regarding the types LII and ILI in Socionics, because it is sure as hell that some famous persons are mistyped by socionists. And I still claim that it is totally obvious that Paul James himself is not a LII but an ILI. And besides, what shall we think about David Keirsey, who also describes the INTP Architecht in a way that, in some respects, can be associated with
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I use them in the way they are commonly used in every philosophical discussion, which is also perfectly consistent with how Reinin himself uses them in the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy. My use of these terms is the correct one.
I'm not sure that it is necessarily incompatible with the LII, but LIIs tend not to think that way, and the Subjectivist attitude in the Reinin dichotomies is at least almost incompatible with it.
No, but so far I have seen no exception to the objective/subjective divide, and you haven't yet provided one single example of an LII with an attitude that is objective in mine and Reinin's sense. And I still claim that INTPs in MBTT and Keirsey, including that INTP profile of Paul James, are Objectivists in Reinin's sense.
Really? I do not care how they are commonly used, but how they are correctly used. Being slaves to the mores of commonality is just to be a slave to subjectivism; the objective truth must have higher priority than the "common" truth.
Tendencies are not laws written in stone. If it is not necessarily incompatible with the LII, but yet the Subjectivist attitude in the Reinin dichotomies are at least almost incompatible here, then we have a problem here then don't we? How legitimate or empirically based then is the Objectivist/Subjectivist Reinin dichotomy? It doesn't seem very objective at all, so why you are defending such a subjective system is beyond me.I'm not sure that it is necessarily incompatible with the LII, but LIIs tend not to think that way, and the Subjectivist attitude in the Reinin dichotomies is at least almost incompatible with it.
If labcoat or I were to say that we were, would that qualify? Or would you just then question whether or not we are LII? If you were to deny that we are objective despite our own objective self-knowledge of our objectivity, then should we not begin to objectively question your own objectivity in the matter in favor of a more probable subjective worldview for you?No, but so far I have seen no exception to the objective/subjective divide, and you haven't yet provided one single example of an LII with an attitude that is objective in mine and Reinin's sense. And I still claim that INTPs in MBTT and Keirsey, including that INTP profile of Paul James, are Objectivists in Reinin's sense.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
You can compare any socionic sites you want, and you will find many disagreements on the types of many famous people. Is Stephen Spielberg an ENFp as Ganin believes, or an ENTp as Rick believes? Is Edward Norton INTp (Ganin) or ENTp (Rick)? What is Jung's correct type? Is it really INTp as most socionists seem to believe? Just maybe, but there are strong arguments against that hypotheses.
If Honoré de Balzac was an INTp, which is the unanimous verdict of every socionist I know of, then he is certainly not the most typical INTp -- a fact that is totally obvious if you take the time to study what he was like in real life instead of repeating the view of others. I am not an expert on Balzac by any means, but I have read a comprehensive and detailed study in two volumes of his life and works that put serious doubts on the correctness of the typing of him as an ILI. In the Enneagram he comes across as a 3 or a 7, which in itself is a strong indication that he might have been an extraverted type of some sort. And even if we forget about the Enneagram, Balzac exhibits many typical signs of extraversion and either an EP or an EJ temperament. Objectively speaking, he does not fit very well into the common ILI type descriptions.
There simply is no clear consensus on too many famous persons. We have many different opinions, and we have no guarantee that the type descriptions are not polluded by misconceptions and mistypings in the same way that might be the case in MBTT. In fact, the situation is probably slightly better in MBTT, because despite the obvious shortcomings of their model, their type descriptions are based on a much larger amount of statistical data on the types as a result of millions of test results from the same type of test (MBTI).
As I have already clearly stated, I use the words "subjectivity" and "objectivity" in the way they should be used, that is, I use them in the only correct way.
Only if LIIs are different from how I say that they are. And my view on LIIs seem to be the correct one, and if so there is no problem.
Because the Objectivist/Subjectivist dichotomy seems to be perfectly consistent with how LIIs and ILIs really are. I didn't start with the Reinin dichotomies, I only discovered that what he said coincided almost perfectly with what I already knew about the types LII and ILI. My empirical observations came first, and I don't need the Reinin dichotomies to type people correctly. I know how to spot LIIs by V.I., and I know how to tell them apart from ILIs when I meet them face to face in real life.
That depends on whether you can convince me that you are LIIs with an objective perspective (as I use that term) or not. If you are LIIs, you must at least identify not only with some LII type descriptions but also with the IJ temperament and the rationality (j) dichotomy (which of course means that you must tend to get the test result INTJ on MBTI tests and INTj on socionic tests, such as for example Ganin's Turbo test, etc. You must also have a body type and a V.I. look that is consistent with being a LII. You probably don't need to post photos of yourselves, but you are not allowed to say that you look too different from a typical LII look.
The short answer is: no.
Comedic Gold.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
parts of it seem ILI and parts of it seem LII ...
I know it won't help at all in this discussion, but if anyone is interested -- Grigori Reinin did not carry out any vast empirical study for his dichotomies. This is clear from what he says in the interview with Lytov. He deduced mathematically which dichotomies (based on combinations of the 4 dichotomies) could or even "should" exist, in terms of "NJ + SP vs NP + SJ" (etc etc), and he and Augusta tried to see what made sense and which traits could be attributed to each theoretical Reinin dichotomy. But apart from Reinin's and Augusta's own experience with the types, there was no systematic empirical validation, and Reinin himself admitted that more work should be done on that, and that he expected some of his proposed dichotomies to be dismissed.
My point is that the available evidence suggests that Reinin himself would oppose some of the use that has been made of his dichotomies.
Beneath all objectivity there is a subjective component, because man is by nature a subjective being.
That which humans call "objective" is often only the idea of men who have superior will, whether they are right or not. You fail to appreciate that for something to be objective, it must be consistent whatever the situation.
In socionics, we measure LII by the work of Aushra Augusta. In MBTI, the intuitive correspondence of traits with experience is measured. (however, MBTI remains a non-Jungian compatible system, and of course Jung himself frequently did not measure type in attitudes, but in functions; he considered attitudes seperate from functions).
Is there a way to contact Reinin to see what he thinks? If there is, and he cares about it, then sticking to his "original" ideas would make the most sense. If there isn't, though, and if he doesn't care, then it's up to us to figure out what to think of his ideas - what to think and how to apply them. In which case, original intent wouldn't matter as much.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Then what is the correct way and why do you think that LIIs are incapable or not as likely as ILIs to be as objective?
But what you say they are does not determine the correct view. Saying that your view seems to be the correct one does not make it the correct view. In fact, saying that your view seems to be the correct view instead of knowing that your views are the correct views seems to be a subjectivist take.Only if LIIs are different from how I say that they are. And my view on LIIs seem to be the correct one, and if so there is no problem.
Consistency does not matter. What does matter is that the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy seems perfectly un-empirical as to the true nature of the ILI and LII.Because the Objectivist/Subjectivist dichotomy seems to be perfectly consistent with how LIIs and ILIs really are.
Where you start does not matter, only the empirical truth or external validity matters. In this case, your knowledge of the LII and ILI types is misinformed from a subjective bias.I didn't start with the Reinin dichotomies, I only discovered that what he said coincided almost perfectly with what I already knew about the types LII and ILI.
And yet you insist on them? Why?My empirical observations came first, and I don't need the Reinin dichotomies to type people correctly.
Irrelevant.I know how to spot LIIs by V.I., and I know how to tell them apart from ILIs when I meet them face to face in real life.
Then Mr. Process, how shall we proceed with that?That depends on whether you can convince me that you are LIIs with an objective perspective (as I use that term) or not.
Yes.If you are LIIs, you must at least identify not only with some LII type descriptions
Yes. Yes. Yes. I came to Socionics with an INTJ MBTI type from repeated tests throughout my high school and college life, but I am still also able to identify with the INTP type. I also identify with the INTj type of Socionics. But there has been nothing in either type descriptions, function descriptions, or empirical observations which have indicated that the LIIs are somehow not or cannot be objective in the philosophical understanding of the term.but also with the IJ temperament and the rationality (j) dichotomy (which of course means that you must tend to get the test result INTJ on MBTI tests and INTj on socionic tests, such as for example Ganin's Turbo test, etc.
You seem to forget that LIIs have strong
V.I. is irrelevant and largely un-empirical. V.I. is unable to consistently perform as a typing tool and the variance between typists is too wide to be of any efficient use.You must also have a body type and a V.I. look that is consistent with being a LII.
And what is an LII look? Do you have an Audubon Guide to LII Spotting? What does the spring plumage of the LII look like?You probably don't need to post photos of yourselves, but you are not allowed to say that you look too different from a typical LII look.
Of course we should. Your objectivity in this matter is being called into question by your equally subjective bias. You are trying to maintain a system that is now being shown to be empirically unfounded!The short answer is: no.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Which parts do you identify with as an ILI? Which parts do you think describe an LII better?
Hmmm...I knew they had a base in math, but I didn't think they were purely theoretical. Thanks for the info, Expat. Methinks the semantics of the dichotomies are also a bit suspect, especially considering the wide range of meanings attributed to words like "tatical" and "serious". Any chance you can post what you know about Reinin's process and history of evaluating these things on the Wiki?
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Look here, folks! Tcaudilllg's comment here is a clear and typical example that expresses a Subjectivist's perspective.
And this is another very clear example of the Subjectivist stance. Do I really need to explain why these two statements of tcaudilllg are so typically Subjective? This should be common knowledge to everyone. You only have to learn the differences between Subjectivists and Objectivists in the Reinin dichotomies.
We can see here that tcaudilllg has the typical political perspective on things instead of the search-for-truth perspective that is typical of ILIs.
Most LIIs are probably incapable of being objective in the sense I am talking about. The burden of proof is upon you to provide a clear example of an objective LII. So far I haven't met one, even though the Swedish writer and medical doctor P. C Jersild comes pretty close.
This is interesting, because here you reveal that you don't understand the difference between a subjectivist and an objectivist view. Saying that my view seems to be the correct view presupposes a logical distinction between what seems to be the correct view and what really is the correct view, and that is the Objectivist stance. A Subjectivist tend not to make a clear distinction between appearance and objective reality, and if they do they don't see it as very important. To an Objectivist that distinction is of crucial importance.
Why? How can you both identify with the attitudes and behaviours of P and the attitudes and behaviours of J at the same time? Don't you know what you are like? Are you confused?
That's because you don't understand the meaning of the term "objective" correctly.
Bullshit. V.I. is totally empirical, and it is one of the most reliable typing methods there are. Just because you don't understand it and are unable to use it, gives you no right to dimiss it. I can use it, and I know that it works, so cut the crap, will you.
Not all LIIs look exactly alike of course, but here is an easily spotted variant that is fairly typical:
P. C. Jersild, Swedish writer and medical doctor
David Carradine, American film actor
Knowing that both these persons are LIIs, my primary guess of Ed Harris's type would be that he is most likely also a LII, but since I know almost nothing of Ed Harris except from what he looks like, I can't guarantee that he really is a LII. V.I. is not a full-proof typing method, but it can take us quite far along the road to a correct typing.
Ed Harris, American actor
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
