ATTN INTjs LIIs do you identify with this description?

[Expat]

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?

I didn't say or mean that they were purely theoretical, some of them stem directly from quadra values, and others were based on Reinin and Augusta's experience of the types, so they have some empirical validation. But the idea that there should be a trait dichotomy based on, say, ET + IF vs IT + EF etc is theoretical.

I don't know anything besides what is already posted in, and referred to by, the wiki and Lytov's interview (which may or may be not still available in his former website).

[JRiddy]

I didn't say or mean that they were purely theoretical, some of them stem directly from quadra values, and others were based on Reinin and Augusta's experience of the types, so they have some empirical validation. But the idea that there should be a trait dichotomy based on, say, ET + IF vs IT + EF etc is theoretical.

I don't know anything besides what is already posted in, and referred to by, the wiki and Lytov's interview (which may or may be not still available in his former website).

I was exaggerating about the "purely" theoretical part. They seem useful to some, but I'm concerned that they are poorly understood (with this thread being a great example of that).

[Rubicon]

!!!! Ed Harris looks like my LII mother!

[Phaedrus]

!!!! Ed Harris looks like my LII mother!

Well, why not? If your mother really is a LII that is not surprising at all. I often see clear V.I similarities between males and females of the same type. How sure are you that your mother is LII?

[Rubicon]

Well, why not? If your mother really is a LII that is not surprising at all. I often see clear V.I similarities between males and females of the same type. How sure are you that your mother is LII?

Very sure.

[Phaedrus]

Very sure.

Based on what? How did you type her?

[Rubicon]

Based on what? How did you type her?

based purely on my feelings

[Phaedrus]

based purely on my feelings

You know that I don't like that answer. Even if you are joking about your mother's type, Ed Harris still looks like a likely LII, and I think people should try to learn at least some basics of V.I. in order to avoid making obvious typing mistakes that are only possible to make if you are unfamiliar with V.I.

[Logos]

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.

You say that the burden of proof is on me, which I am well aware of, but I am asking you how I am supposed to establish that I am. What would I need to do to show you that I am?

So far I haven't met one, even though the Swedish writer and medical doctor P. C Jersild comes pretty close.

You have not met one? I have not seen a live Atlantic halibut, but I know that they exist. You are speaking to me and I am an objectivist.

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.

This is interesting, because here you reveal that you are talking out of your ass. You claim that Kant is a subjectivist, but Kant does exactly what you suppose which is the creation of a distinction between appearance and objective reality. Why do you bend over backwards to maintain your identity as an objectivist when you clearly are not?

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?

Because the P/J distinction in MBTI is so incredibly arbitrary, and that still leaves three other letters with which I can identify with in the description. The distinction that MBTI wants to make in the J/P dichotomy is a superficial one. Why are you unable to understand that?

That's because you don't understand the meaning of the term "objective" correctly.

That's because you have yet to enlighten anyone what that terms means. Show us the objectivist in the ILI description! Show us the subjectivist in the LII description!

Bullshit. V.I. is totally empirical, and it is one of the most reliable typing methods there are.

And yet there are these discrepancies in typing that you mentioned? Should that not make the empirical quality of V.I suspect?

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.

Sounds like shitty arguments for the existence of a god or even other superstitious nonsense. "Just because you don't understand it like I do, doesn't mean that you should dismiss it." Just because you fail to understand that LIIs can be objective in the correct meaning of the term does not mean that LIIs are not objective.

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

And how do you know that they are? I am not arguing a subjectivist POV here, but I am curious about how you decided? Was it strictly based upon V.I. or were other methods used? You have still yet to show how V.I. is based off of empirical evidence.

[Rubicon]

You know that I don't like that answer. Even if you are joking about your mother's type, Ed Harris still looks like a likely LII, and I think people should try to learn at least some basics of V.I. in order to avoid making obvious typing mistakes that are only possible to make if you are unfamiliar with V.I.

Look, I'm about 100 percent sure that my mother is LII. I typed her based on my knowledge of socionics - what else could I use? She's typed herself as LII as well, and everyone in my family accepts the typing as indisputable. That's all I can say.

And the descriptions of relations btwn all our types fit perfectly.

[tcaudilllg]

Harris looks EII to me. He's got that "don't hit me" look.

Phaedrus:
What kind of truth do you mean? There is a difference between empirical fact, which ILI favors, and identifying internal constants, which is LII's forte. Either is a kind of "truth".

ILIs tend not to analyze, that's the role of LII. In the INTp description, much is made of the way LIIs analyze information.

...Phaedrus, what exactly do you intend to accomplish by establishing that socionics LII = MBTI INTJ? What is it that you think knowledge of such will make us capable of?

[Phaedrus]

You say that the burden of proof is on me, which I am well aware of, but I am asking you how I am supposed to establish that I am. What would I need to do to show you that I am?

That you are what? An objective LII? Well, I have asked you to define what you mean by "objective", but instead of providing a clear and distinct answer you have countered with questions or provided a very vague and almost useless "definition" based on how the word might be used in ordinary language. I have also stated that an objectivist must adhere to some version of the correspondence theory of truth and believe in the existence of a mind-independent external reality.

If you want to sho me that you are an example of an objective LII, then you should state clearly what your position is in relation to these things. What exactly do you mean by "truth"? What exactly do you mean by "objectivity"? Do you have the same views on this as some of the persons I have mentioned (Popper, Machan, etc), or do you have a different view? You must provide me with factual information on your philosophical position(s) here, so that I can see where you are coming from.

You have not met one? I have not seen a live Atlantic halibut, but I know that they exist. You are speaking to me and I am an objectivist.

Then try to convince me by answering my questions.

This is interesting, because here you reveal that you are talking out of your ass. You claim that Kant is a subjectivist, but Kant does exactly what you suppose which is the creation of a distinction between appearance and objective reality. Why do you bend over backwards to maintain your identity as an objectivist when you clearly are not?

Here you reveal that you don't understand Kant at a deeper level. Kant is a clear example of a subjectivist in the sense I am talking about. There are fundamental differences between Kant and the objective thinkers I am talking about here, and it is important to understand these differences. We have discussed these problems in the past, haven't we? Kant is clearly focused on the limitations of human knowledge. His perspective is from the inside and out, from the subject's perspective. (This is not a proof or a full explanation, only a hint on what aspects to focus on if you want to understand Kant's subjectivism).

Because the P/J distinction in MBTI is so incredibly arbitrary, and that still leaves three other letters with which I can identify with in the description. The distinction that MBTI wants to make in the J/P dichotomy is a superficial one. Why are you unable to understand that?

You want to blur and depreciate the importance of the J/P distinction, because you don't really understand it, and becuase it presents you with a problem since you identify more with P than with J.

The J/P dichotomy is definitely not arbitrary. It is quite easily observable as an empirical phenomenon, and it is perhaps the most important of the four dichotomies to understand correctly. And the J/P dichotomy in MBTT refers to the exact same divide as the rationality/irrationality dichotomy in Socionics.

That's because you have yet to enlighten anyone what that terms means. Show us the objectivist in the ILI description! Show us the subjectivist in the LII description!

That I have already done in length in some posts in the past.

And yet there are these discrepancies in typing that you mentioned? Should that not make the empirical quality of V.I suspect?

No. You can see the obvious V.I. patterns yourself, if you just would open your eyes and take a fresh look at reality. Observe people around you. How do they look? What are their body types and their facial structures?

Sounds like shitty arguments for the existence of a god or even other superstitious nonsense. "Just because you don't understand it like I do, doesn't mean that you should dismiss it." Just because you fail to understand that LIIs can be objective in the correct meaning of the term does not mean that LIIs are not objective.

You continue to doubt, but you present no arguments. Explain in what sense LIIs can be objective. Explain your take on this. And stop being uncritically (dogmatically) critical.

And how do you know that they are? I am not arguing a subjectivist POV here, but I am curious about how you decided? Was it strictly based upon V.I. or were other methods used? You have still yet to show how V.I. is based off of empirical evidence.

David Carradine has a very typical LII look. The exact same look I have seen in a LII that I personally know in real life, and whom I have typed according to correct procedure. Carradine is also found in at least one Russian type gallery in the group of LIIs. Besides that, Carradine really looks exactly like a LII is supposed to look according to how that type's look is described in type descriptions.

P. C Jersild I have met and talked to in real life on several occasions. I have also read some of his books and articles, and I can safely say that he fits the LII themes and descriptions in every respect. Jersild is very similar in look to my father, who is also a clear example of a LII in every respect. My father has also spontaneously, and without me influencing him, mentioned Jersild as the Swedish author he feels most similar to and can identify with most.

And you can see that Carradine and Jersild are most likely the same type, based on V.I. considerations only, can't you?

[Phaedrus]

Look, I'm about 100 percent sure that my mother is LII. I typed her based on my knowledge of socionics - what else could I use? She's typed herself as LII as well, and everyone in my family accepts the typing as indisputable. That's all I can say.

And the descriptions of relations btwn all our types fit perfectly.

Good. It strengthens our case that you think that Ed Harris looks very similar to your mother.

[Phaedrus]

Harris looks EII to me. He's got that "don't hit me" look.

That is also in line with my argument, because EIIs and LIIs are very similar in some V.I. aspects. LIIs and EIIs share an almost identical body type, and they are the two most clearly leptosomic of all the 16 types. It still think that LII is probably more likely than EII, but the latter would be my second choice.

Phaedrus:
What kind of truth do you mean? There is a difference between empirical fact, which ILI favors, and identifying internal constants, which is LII's forte. Either is a kind of "truth".

I am talking about truth as correspondence with reality, whether that reality is empirical or logical. It is an objective fact (but not an empirical fact) that 2+2=4, and that fact is totally independent of the language in which we express it. It is arbitrary that we use the labels "2", "+", "=", and "4" to state the fact that 2+2=4.

A proposition "p" is true if, and only if, p.

...Phaedrus, what exactly do you intend to accomplish by establishing that socionics LII = MBTI INTJ? What is it that you think knowledge of such will make us capable of?

From an ILI's perspective that question is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the question whether it is true or false that LII = INTJ. I, as an ILI, focus on objective truth and knowledge, as described in Paul James's INTP description, whereas you, as a LII, seem to focus more on what can be done with the insights. Your focus is not on truth itself but on how it effects us as agents, on what relevance it has to us as human beings. Your focus is on meaning, not knowledge. That is what the subjective perspective is about, and that is what is typical of the INTJ's perspective as it is described in MBTT.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Now, try to explain why you are not convinced that it is an ILI description,

I never asserted that it was not an ILI description.

[Mariano Rajoy]

It is arbitrary that we use the labels "2", "+", "=", and "4" to state the fact that 2+2=4.

What makes/why does two plus two equal four?

[Phaedrus]

What makes/why does two plus two equal four?

The fact that two plus two equal four.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What makes/why does two plus two equal four?

If you've got 2 sweets, and I give you another 2 sweets, you've now got 4 sweets, if you didn't eat any while I gave you the other ones.

[Creepy-bg]

The fact that two plus two equal four.

not if your using a base 2 or 3 number system

[Phaedrus]

not if your using a base 2 or 3 number system

Here you reveal that you don't understand what I am talking about. You cannot grasp the logical distinction between meaning and reference. That two plus two equal four is true in every possible universe, and that fact has nothing at all to do with what kind of number system you choose to use.

[Creepy-bg]

Here you reveal that you don't understand what I am talking about. You cannot grasp the logical distinction between meaning and reference. That two plus two equal four is true in every possible universe, and that fact has nothing at all to do with what kind of number system you choose to use.

the symbol 4 does not exist in a base 2 or 3 number system. you are lying again.

[Rubicon]

Here you reveal that you don't understand what I am talking about. You cannot grasp the logical distinction between meaning and reference. That two plus two equal four is true in every possible universe, and that fact has nothing at all to do with what kind of number system you choose to use.

looks like we're getting back to basics here

[Mariano Rajoy]

The fact that two plus two equal four.

What is a fact?

[Phaedrus]

the symbol 4 does not exist in a base 2 or 3 number system.

Irrelevant. I am not talking about the symbols, I am talking about what the symbols refer to. The truth of the proposition "2+2=4" is of course not dependent on the symbols by which you express it.

[Creepy-bg]

Irrelevant. I am not talking about the symbols, I am talking about what the symbols refer to. The truth of the proposition "2+2=4" is of course not dependent on the symbols by which you express it.

Fuck you, I'm an anteater.

[Phaedrus]

What is a fact?

That which is the case.

[Logos]

That you are what? An objective LII? Well, I have asked you to define what you mean by "objective", but instead of providing a clear and distinct answer you have countered with questions or provided a very vague and almost useless "definition" based on how the word might be used in ordinary language. I have also stated that an objectivist must adhere to some version of the correspondence theory of truth and believe in the existence of a mind-independent external reality.

Of course a mind-independent external reality exists, but our interactions with this external reality are partially defined by mind (or rather biological)-dependent perceptions. We are biological organisms who are not transcendent to the world in which we live, but are an organic part of it. We cannot fully separate ourselves from it and thus are made limited by our evolutionary biological natures. Honestly I find both subjectivism and objectivism to be incredibly idealistic and unrealistic views. As paradoxically impossible it may sound, I happen to believe that there must be a serious recognition of the validity of both views as tools in discovering reality.

If you want to sho me that you are an example of an objective LII, then you should state clearly what your position is in relation to these things. What exactly do you mean by "truth"? What exactly do you mean by "objectivity"?

I believe that things exist independently of our ability to perceive them. Even if there are limitations to reality based upon our perceptions, it can be irrelevant since we may not be able to overcome these limitations, then our focus should be on what we are able to achieve within the realm of knowledge, truth, and meaning.

Do you have the same views on this as some of the persons I have mentioned (Popper, Machan, etc), or do you have a different view?

I do not define my views or my type through the views of philosophers, merely truth. You rely too much on philosophers to do your Socionics for you. Your sense of objectivity has become clouded by this reliance on identifying yourself and your perceived functions with philosophers. You cannot see how attached you have become to them and how it weakens your arguments.

You must provide me with factual information on your philosophical position(s) here, so that I can see where you are coming from.

Is there any particular area in which you are interested in hearing about? Otherwise, your question is too vague to be of any practical significance.

Then try to convince me by answering my questions.

You have not provided any real substantive questions to answer.

Here you reveal that you don't understand Kant at a deeper level. Kant is a clear example of a subjectivist in the sense I am talking about. There are fundamental differences between Kant and the objective thinkers I am talking about here, and it is important to understand these differences. We have discussed these problems in the past, haven't we?

We have discussed this yes, but it has never been a fruitful discussion. Just mutual calls of idiocy.

Kant is clearly focused on the limitations of human knowledge. His perspective is from the inside and out, from the subject's perspective. (This is not a proof or a full explanation, only a hint on what aspects to focus on if you want to understand Kant's subjectivism).

Do you believe that there are not limitations to human knowledge? Do you recognize the affect of your perceptions on your experiences and how you accumulate and discover knowledge?

You want to blur and depreciate the importance of the J/P distinction, because you don't really understand it, and becuase it presents you with a problem since you identify more with P than with J.

You want to create a establish a larger difference between J/P, because you want to make a it a bigger deal than it really is. I did not say that I identified more with P, but merely that I am able to identify with both the INTP and INTJ descriptions. If you are too narrowminded to be able to understand why that may validly be the case, then I cannot help you.

The J/P dichotomy is definitely not arbitrary. It is quite easily observable as an empirical phenomenon, and it is perhaps the most important of the four dichotomies to understand correctly. And the J/P dichotomy in MBTT refers to the exact same divide as the rationality/irrationality dichotomy in Socionics.

Stop bullshitting the non-existence of empiricism in this matter.

That I have already done in length in some posts in the past.

But not here and not now.

No. You can see the obvious V.I. patterns yourself, if you just would open your eyes and take a fresh look at reality. Observe people around you. How do they look? What are their body types and their facial structures?

You continue to doubt, but you present no arguments. Explain in what sense LIIs can be objective. Explain your take on this. And stop being uncritically (dogmatically) critical.

David Carradine has a very typical LII look. The exact same look I have seen in a LII that I personally know in real life, and whom I have typed according to correct procedure. Carradine is also found in at least one Russian type gallery in the group of LIIs. Besides that, Carradine really looks exactly like a LII is supposed to look according to how that type's look is described in type descriptions.

P. C Jersild I have met and talked to in real life on several occasions. I have also read some of his books and articles, and I can safely say that he fits the LII themes and descriptions in every respect. Jersild is very similar in look to my father, who is also a clear example of a LII in every respect. My father has also spontaneously, and without me influencing him, mentioned Jersild as the Swedish author he feels most similar to and can identify with most.

And you can see that Carradine and Jersild are most likely the same type, based on V.I. considerations only, can't you?

I told you already! There is too much discrepancy between Socionics typists using V.I. for it to be of any real empirical value. There is no real method or tool for measurement. It is un-empirical approximation by vague intuitions!

[Phaedrus]

Of course a mind-independent external reality exists, but our interactions with this external reality are partially defined by mind (or rather biological)-dependent perceptions. We are biological organisms who are not transcendent to the world in which we live, but are an organic part of it. We cannot fully separate ourselves from it and thus are made limited by our evolutionary biological natures. Honestly I find both subjectivism and objectivism to be incredibly idealistic and unrealistic views. As paradoxically impossible it may sound, I happen to believe that there must be a serious recognition of the validity of both views as tools in discovering reality.

An indication that you might belong to the group of dialectical-algorithmic thinkers perhaps? Not really seriously suggesting it, but maybe something to ponder about ...

I do not define my views or my type through the views of philosophers, merely truth.

The only reason why I ask whether you identify with some philosopher(s) is because it's a faster way to determine which exact philosophical views you actually have. I doubt that you are able to list them correctly as they are, because you have probably not thought them through, but if you can that would of course work just as fine. But every single one of your views has already been held by at least one thinker before you in history. It's impossible for you to invent a unique philosophical view from scratch.

You rely too much on philosophers to do your Socionics for you. Your sense of objectivity has become clouded by this reliance on identifying yourself and your perceived functions with philosophers. You cannot see how attached you have become to them and how it weakens your arguments.

You are so clueless that it is almost embarrassing. I only mention the names of philosophers to make it more easy for you and others to understand what I am trying to say. I don't rely on any philosopher in my understanding on things. I am only loyal to the truth itself. But, as I have already said, there are no new thoughts under the sun.

Is there any particular area in which you are interested in hearing about? Otherwise, your question is too vague to be of any practical significance.

I am interested in knowing your philosophical positions on everything -- your view on free will, your view on truth, your view on knowledge, your view on the body-mind problem, your views in the philosophy of science, your view on language and its relation to thinking, your view on humans, which ethical theory you want to defend, you political views, your views in esthetics, etc -- any specific view that you know that you have in any branch of science or philosophy.

You have not provided any real substantive questions to answer.

1. How do you define the concept "truth"?
2. How do you define the concept "objective"?

Do you believe that there are not limitations to human knowledge?

I believe that there are limitations to human knowledge, but my focus of interest is not on those limitations in the same way that they are in focus for a Subjectivist like Kant.

Do you recognize the affect of your perceptions on your experiences and how you accumulate and discover knowledge?

Yes, but that is a problem of very limited relevance to an Objectivist. It's the wrong focus, because it's rather trivial.

You want to create a establish a larger difference between J/P, because you want to make a it a bigger deal than it really is. I did not say that I identified more with P, but merely that I am able to identify with both the INTP and INTJ descriptions. If you are too narrowminded to be able to understand why that may validly be the case, then I cannot help you.

You ignore the real problem here. The real problem is that you cannot identify with both rational and irrational behaviour as they are described in Socionics. Forget about the INTP and INTJ descriptions and focus on the problem whether you are an irrational or a rational type according to the socionic criteria for that dimension. You can use for example Rick's listing on his site and tell me which one is you. If you can't answer that question, you don't know what you are talking about, so please answer it now.

I told you already! There is too much discrepancy between Socionics typists using V.I. for it to be of any real empirical value. There is no real method or tool for measurement. It is un-empirical approximation by vague intuitions!

Nonsense. V.I. works, and I can use it. If you can't use it, you are free to use any other method that you find easier to handle -- as long as we both arrive at the same typing result. Of course every V.I. typing can be confirmed by the use of other methods, and vice versa.

[Mariano Rajoy]

That which is the case.

Inadequate definition of fact. Try again. What is a fact?

[Phaedrus]

Inadequate definition of fact. Try again. What is a fact?

That with which a true proposition corresponds.

[Mariano Rajoy]

That with which a true proposition corresponds.

Is a fact a true proposition in itself?

[Phaedrus]

Is a fact a true proposition in itself?

No.

A proposition "p" is true if, and only if, p.

In this example, if the proposition "p" is true, then p is the fact that "p" corresponds with. A proposition is not on the same logical level as a fact.

[Logos]

An indication that you might belong to the group of dialectical-algorithmic thinkers perhaps? Not really seriously suggesting it, but maybe something to ponder about ...

I will consider it.

The only reason why I ask whether you identify with some philosopher(s) is because it's a faster way to determine which exact philosophical views you actually have.

Because my views do not necessarily equate completely with specific philosophers, but rather, they (including those with whom I disagree) leave influential impressions into my thought patterns and views.

I doubt that you are able to list them correctly as they are, because you have probably not thought them through, but if you can that would of course work just as fine.

Why do you lack confidence in my ability to do so? But it is not because I have not thought it through, but quite the converse: I have thought it through and I recognize that there is more complexity in the question than you give credit. If you would like, I can provide you with a list of philosophers, thinkers, subjects, and other ideas that have influenced my personal philosophy.

- Immanuel Kant
- Baruch Spinoza
- Ludwig Feuerbach
- Karl Marx
- John Rawls
- Charles Darwin
- Albert Einstein
- David Hume
- John Locke
- Jean Jacques Rousseau
- Machiavelli
- Friedrich Nietzsche
- Thomas Hobbes
- Friedrich Schleiermacher
- Philo of Alexandria
- Valentinus
- Stoicism
- Lao Tzu

But every single one of your views has already been held by at least one thinker before you in history. It's impossible for you to invent a unique philosophical view from scratch.

No it's not and yes. If past philosophers were able to generate unique ideas, then why should we not expect modern philosophers to be able to do so as well with the accumulation of knowledge of our surrounding world? But yes, because it is impossible to create any new system from scratch as people do not exist in cultural vacuums, but are influenced in thought by their unique experiences and Sitz im Leben.

You are so clueless that it is almost embarrassing.

Hello Mr. Pot, I'd like you to meet Mr. Kettle.

I only mention the names of philosophers to make it more easy for you and others to understand what I am trying to say.

For future reference, it sometimes has the reverse effect, and not necessarily from an unfamiliarity with the philosophers.

I don't rely on any philosopher in my understanding on things. I am only loyal to the truth itself. But, as I have already said, there are no new thoughts under the sun.

While I have great appreciation for your Qohelethian view, I still disagree about there not being new thoughts under the sun. The thoughts themselves are always new, though the ideas themselves may largely be unoriginal or hardly unique, but even then I still believe that your statement in that regards is untrue. History and fact proves otherwise.

I am interested in knowing your philosophical positions on everything --

Sure.

your view on free will,

Nonexistent, illusionary, and a trivial matter that has no real impact on our lives.

your view on truth,

To quote Babylon 5, "Understanding is a three-edged sword. There is your side, their side, and the truth." There is both a subjective and objective element to truth. Both exist, and both are required for understanding.

your view on knowledge,

There is a certain extent in which I think that knowledge of the universe is transcendent as Frank Herbert says in Dune (and was my signature on this forum for a long time): "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic." Knowledge only brings awareness that there is more knowledge to accumulate and other problems in need of being solved. So knowledge itself becomes akin to Zeno's Paradox.

your view on the body-mind problem,

What problem? The mind is an abstract concept. There is no difference between mind and body, or rather, the mind is merely a subset function of the body produced by the brain and a sense of self-awareness. Even the ancient Hebrews mostly thought of the mind/personality (nephesh) as being a connected concept with the body. It was not until later with the Hellenistic age that dualism of the mind and body became a philosophical powerhouse.

your views in the philosophy of science,

I have not delved enough in this philosophic subject to be able to provide a confident sense of my views.

your view on language and its relation to thinking,

Language affects the way we think in not only the meaning of words but also their grammatical structure. I think that it is ignorant to think otherwise.

your view on humans,

Animals with clothes who drive cars. Humans are "objects" of the physical world, but that does not mean that they should necessarily be treated as such. There is philosophic room for humans to be objects of the world and agents amongst each other.

which ethical theory you want to defend,

Ethics largely bore me, so I do not read much about it.

you political views,

Democratic socialist with some green leanings, but still like to keep an open-mind to liberal/libertarian perspectives. I am somewhat politically apathetic due to a rather cynic nature about politics. I am much more interested in the actual political science of behavior, theory, and public opinion.

your views in esthetics,

Much like the philosophy of science, I have not read enough to give you a fair or representative view.

etc -- any specific view that you know that you have in any branch of science or philosophy.

I'll save my efforts here and will add if the above does not satisfy you.

1. How do you define the concept "truth"?
2. How do you define the concept "objective"?

Because of time, I'll have to come back to this later.

You ignore the real problem here. The real problem is that you cannot identify with both rational and irrational behaviour as they are described in Socionics. Forget about the INTP and INTJ descriptions and focus on the problem whether you are an irrational or a rational type according to the socionic criteria for that dimension. You can use for example Rick's listing on his site and tell me which one is you. If you can't answer that question, you don't know what you are talking about, so please answer it now.

In Socionics I am a rational type, but my Se PoLR identifies itself well with the way that P can often be described in MBTI. You are welcome to equate MBTI J/P with Socionics' (ir)rationality, but there seems to be too many empirical counterexamples to disprove this attempt to reconcile the two theories.

Nonsense. V.I. works, and I can use it. If you can't use it, you are free to use any other method that you find easier to handle -- as long as we both arrive at the same typing result. Of course every V.I. typing can be confirmed by the use of other methods, and vice versa.

I don't care if you can use; I just care if it's factually based, and I do not see any real indications that it should be relied upon heavily. Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear war, so V.I. can be close, but it's still no cigar.

[Phaedrus]

Why do you lack confidence in my ability to do so? But it is not because I have not thought it through, but quite the converse: I have thought it through and I recognize that there is more complexity in the question than you give credit. If you would like, I can provide you with a list of philosophers, thinkers, subjects, and other ideas that have influenced my personal philosophy.

- Immanuel Kant
- Baruch Spinoza
- Ludwig Feuerbach
- Karl Marx
- John Rawls
- Charles Darwin
- Albert Einstein
- David Hume
- John Locke
- Jean Jacques Rousseau
- Machiavelli
- Friedrich Nietzsche
- Thomas Hobbes
- Friedrich Schleiermacher
- Philo of Alexandria
- Valentinus
- Stoicism
- Lao Tzu

I meant your specific philosophical views. Maybe I didn't phrase it clearly enough, but there are commonly accepted names for almost every possible philosophical position, for every possible view you can have on any specific philosophical subject. It would be much more illuminating if you could list some of your philosophical beliefs/views.

For example, in ethics, are you a utilitarian of some sort or do you defend some sort of rights theory? Are you a determinist or a non-determinist? Do you consider yourself to be a realist or an anti-realist (as those terms are commonly understood by philsophers)? Etc.

No it's not and yes. If past philosophers were able to generate unique ideas, then why should we not expect modern philosophers to be able to do so as well with the accumulation of knowledge of our surrounding world? But yes, because it is impossible to create any new system from scratch as people do not exist in cultural vacuums, but are influenced in thought by their unique experiences and Sitz im Leben.

You have still not specified any philosophical views of yours.

For future reference, it sometimes has the reverse effect, and not necessarily from an unfamiliarity with the philosophers.

It would make it much easier for me personally if you did it, because you seem to refuse to explain your philosophical views in your own words. But if you can do the latter, it would work too. So what exactly are you philosophical views?

While I have great appreciation for your Qohelethian view, I still disagree about there not being new thoughts under the sun. The thoughts themselves are always new, though the ideas themselves may largely be unoriginal or hardly unique, but even then I still believe that your statement in that regards is untrue. History and fact proves otherwise.

You are free to express a new philosophical thought under the sun, here and now, if you can. You claim that it is possible, I doubt it. The burden of proof is on you.

Nonexistent, illusionary, and a trivial matter that has no real impact on our lives.

Good. Then we could actually have almost the exact same view on free will. That's a start.

To quote Babylon 5, "Understanding is a three-edged sword. There is your side, their side, and the truth." There is both a subjective and objective element to truth. Both exist, and both are required for understanding.

But on this we seem to clearly differ. Your understanding of the concept "truth" seem to be incompatible with being an objectivist.

There is a certain extent in which I think that knowledge of the universe is transcendent as Frank Herbert says in Dune (and was my signature on this forum for a long time): "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic." Knowledge only brings awareness that there is more knowledge to accumulate and other problems in need of being solved. So knowledge itself becomes akin to Zeno's Paradox.

What you say here is another indication that you probably wouldn't accept an objectivist's (for example Tibor Machan's, Thomas Nagel's, or Karl Popper's) view on knowledge.

What problem? The mind is an abstract concept. There is no difference between mind and body, or rather, the mind is merely a subset function of the body produced by the brain and a sense of self-awareness. Even the ancient Hebrews mostly thought of the mind/personality (nephesh) as being a connected concept with the body. It was not until later with the Hellenistic age that dualism of the mind and body became a philosophical powerhouse.

Good. Then we have very similar views on this too.

Language affects the way we think in not only the meaning of words but also their grammatical structure. I think that it is ignorant to think otherwise.

But do you believe that language meaning is more fundamental than truth or not? Does the world have a structure in itself (and thus have properties) that is independent of our language and our constructed categories of meaning? What comes first, thought or language?

Animals with clothes who drive cars. Humans are "objects" of the physical world, but that does not mean that they should necessarily be treated as such. There is philosophic room for humans to be objects of the world and agents amongst each other.

Do you favour a humanistic psychology/psychoanalytic/nurture perspective in which there is an accentuated focus on humans as agents, or do you favour a neuropsychiatric/neurobiological/nature perspective in which there is an accentuated focus on humans as objects? Even though it might be theoretically possible to adhere to both of these perspectives in some way, you always have a natural inclination towards one or the other. Which is your natural inclination here?

Which label describes you better:
1) social constructionist or
2) sociobiologist?

Democratic socialist with some green leanings, but still like to keep an open-mind to liberal/libertarian perspectives. I am somewhat politically apathetic due to a rather cynic nature about politics. I am much more interested in the actual political science of behavior, theory, and public opinion.

Can you be a little more specific? Have you studied the public-choice theory, and what is your stance in that case?

In Socionics I am a rational type, but my Se PoLR identifies itself well with the way that P can often be described in MBTI.

Unless you can convince me of the contrary by explaining exactly, in some detail, what you mean by that, I will say that it is impossible and that you must have misunderstood at least some aspects of this dichotomy.

You are welcome to equate MBTI J/P with Socionics' (ir)rationality, but there seems to be too many empirical counterexamples to disprove this attempt to reconcile the two theories.

I don't know of any counterexamples. Can you please present some of them?

[Mariano Rajoy]

No.

A proposition "p" is true if, and only if, p.

In this example, if the proposition "p" is true, then p is the fact that "p" corresponds with. A proposition is not on the same logical level as a fact.

To determine truth, does your example imply an observation of p?

[Phaedrus]

To determine truth, does your example imply an observation of p?

No.

[Logos]

I meant your specific philosophical views. Maybe I didn't phrase it clearly enough, but there are commonly accepted names for almost every possible philosophical position, for every possible view you can have on any specific philosophical subject. It would be much more illuminating if you could list some of your philosophical beliefs/views.

For example, in ethics, are you a utilitarian of some sort or do you defend some sort of rights theory? Are you a determinist or a non-determinist? Do you consider yourself to be a realist or an anti-realist (as those terms are commonly understood by philsophers)? Etc.

And as I told you, my views do not sit in nice and neat categorical boxes; they are fluid and evolving. You love simply dichotomies, but the truthful reality is more complex than these philosophic dichotomies.

It would make it much easier for me personally if you did it, because you seem to refuse to explain your philosophical views in your own words.

Mr. Pot? Back so soon? But you have already met Mr. Kettle once before. I am not refusing here. I am seeking clarity before I commit myself to the task.

But if you can do the latter, it would work too. So what exactly are you philosophical views?

Again you must clarify as to what you want to hear about, because I do not like to ramble and speculate.

You are free to express a new philosophical thought under the sun, here and now, if you can. You claim that it is possible, I doubt it. The burden of proof is on you.

You are free to doubt, but new thoughts have to be generated at some point unless you claim that we humanity is born with pregenerated thoughts (and I am not talking about determinism). It is possible, but I never said that it is likely.

But on this we seem to clearly differ. Your understanding of the concept "truth" seem to be incompatible with being an objectivist.

How is it incompatible? I acknowledge the objectivist view and the subjectivist view, but recognize that truth is more complex than either view on its own.

What you say here is another indication that you probably wouldn't accept an objectivist's (for example Tibor Machan's, Thomas Nagel's, or Karl Popper's) view on knowledge.

Then enlighten me please. You seem to know what I would or would not agree with, and I would appreciate it if you were to stop and let just let me be the judge of my own capacity. I have read little of Popper and none of Machan or Nagel, so I could not tell you much about their worldview anyway. But until then you are unfairly not giving me the benefit of the doubt about what I would be willing to accept or otherwise. I do not need a patronizing filter for my beliefs, thank you very much.

But do you believe that language meaning is more fundamental than truth or not? Does the world have a structure in itself (and thus have properties) that is independent of our language and our constructed categories of meaning? What comes first, thought or language?

I hate trivial chicken and egg scenarios. The truth is that it doesn't matter in the long-term and that there are more productive uses of our time and efforts. Psycho-linguistics do not interest me much.

Do you favour a humanistic psychology/psychoanalytic/nurture perspective in which there is an accentuated focus on humans as agents, or do you favour a neuropsychiatric/neurobiological/nature perspective in which there is an accentuated focus on humans as objects? Even though it might be theoretically possible to adhere to both of these perspectives in some way, you always have a natural inclination towards one or the other. Which is your natural inclination here?

Which label describes you better:
1) social constructionist or
2) sociobiologist?

I do not like the way in which you framed the question in terms of either social versus physical sciences. But in the nature vs. nurture argument (however trite and stupid it may be), I lean more towards nature. Nurture should be a recognized product of nature, much like the mind/body issue. Despite that though, I am more interested in human agency, but as a product of human biological natures. My interest in zoology is much in the same line of thinking.

Can you be a little more specific? Have you studied the public-choice theory, and what is your stance in that case?

From what I have read and recall, I do mostly agree with it. It is essentially just economic theory applied to the political arena.

Unless you can convince me of the contrary by explaining exactly, in some detail, what you mean by that, I will say that it is impossible and that you must have misunderstood at least some aspects of this dichotomy.

I mean exactly what I said. The way in which P is described in MBTI makes it possible for those with Se-PoLRs to identify themselves with it. Our differences of view in this matter would take to long to resolve in this thread alone as it goes straight to the core of the dispute that exists between you and numerous others on the forum about the compatibility of Socionics and MBTI in describing the same objects.

I don't know of any counterexamples. Can you please present some of them?

People I know who have been typed in MBTI as J/P who find their rationality switched in Socionics, though the j/p switch is not always the only thing that switches.

I grow tired of this, as it is obvious this back-and-forth will not yield ripened fruit. So just go ahead and maintain your view that INTjs cannot be objective, because despite any counter evidence otherwise, you will continue to believe it by either denying my objective or INTj nature.

[Phaedrus]

And as I told you, my views do not sit in nice and neat categorical boxes; they are fluid and evolving.

You are wrong about that. Your views do sit in nice and neat in categorical boxes. It's just that you might not be familiar with those boxes. If you tell me what views you have, I might be able to tell you in which box(es) they belong.

You love simply dichotomies, but the truthful reality is more complex than these philosophic dichotomies.

We are not talking about reality here, we are talking about your views on reality.

Mr. Pot? Back so soon? But you have already met Mr. Kettle once before. I am not refusing here. I am seeking clarity before I commit myself to the task.

What exactly are you trying to clarify? What is unclear to you?

Again you must clarify as to what you want to hear about, because I do not like to ramble and speculate.

Are you unable to specify what philosophical views you have? Why is that? Maybe you haven't thought them through after all.

You are free to doubt, but new thoughts have to be generated at some point unless you claim that we humanity is born with pregenerated thoughts (and I am not talking about determinism). It is possible, but I never said that it is likely.

You still refuse to provide any philosophical view of yours. What are you afraid of?

How is it incompatible? I acknowledge the objectivist view and the subjectivist view, but recognize that truth is more complex than either view on its own.

Which means that you don't know what you are talking about. The objectivist view and the subjectivist view are logically incompatible. If you have a third view on truth that you think does not fit in either category, you are obliged to try to explain what it is.

Then enlighten me please. You seem to know what I would or would not agree with, and I would appreciate it if you were to stop and let just let me be the judge of my own capacity. I have read little of Popper and none of Machan or Nagel, so I could not tell you much about their worldview anyway. But until then you are unfairly not giving me the benefit of the doubt about what I would be willing to accept or otherwise. I do not need a patronizing filter for my beliefs, thank you very much.

You actally seem to need it. I am not going to let you be the judge of your own capacity. I am the judge of that, at least when it comes to philosophical matters. You claim to know what you are talking about, but there is not much to suggest that that claim of yours is true.

I hate trivial chicken and egg scenarios. The truth is that it doesn't matter in the long-term and that there are more productive uses of our time and efforts. Psycho-linguistics do not interest me much.

You are proving my point. You believe that you can invent the wheel again, but that is a delusion of yours. Whatever you happen to believe in philosophical matters someone else has thought before you in at least a very similar way. You just haven't studied much philosophy yet. You are still a beginner.

I do not like the way in which you framed the question in terms of either social versus physical sciences. But in the nature vs. nurture argument (however trite and stupid it may be), I lean more towards nature. Nurture should be a recognized product of nature, much like the mind/body issue. Despite that though, I am more interested in human agency, but as a product of human biological natures. My interest in zoology is much in the same line of thinking.

In what sense are you interested in human agency? From which perspective? What are your beliefs on the nature of human agency?

From what I have read and recall, I do mostly agree with it. It is essentially just economic theory applied to the political arena.

In a sense perhaps, but a natural consequence of the insights from that theory is that you should be a libertarian rather than a democratic socialist.

I mean exactly what I said. The way in which P is described in MBTI makes it possible for those with Se-PoLRs to identify themselves with it.

No. In that case you simply don't understand what is meant by being a P type in MBTT. The criteria for P an irrationality in Socionics are the same in every relevant respect. Again, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Please specify exactly the relevant (according to you) differences between P and irrationality that would have the consequence that you can identify with the former but not with the latter.

Our differences of view in this matter would take to long to resolve in this thread alone as it goes straight to the core of the dispute that exists between you and numerous others on the forum about the compatibility of Socionics and MBTI in describing the same objects.

Even more important to resolve it once and for all then, so that we don't have to have these endless debates. It is very important not to ignore this problem. We simply must get to the core of the problem and reach a consensus on how to understand this correctly. Beginners will continue to be confused and make typing errors if we don't.

People I know who have been typed in MBTI as J/P who find their rationality switched in Socionics, though the j/p switch is not always the only thing that switches.

Most people on this forum have not got their J/P switched in Socionics. How do you explain that phenomenon?

I grow tired of this, as it is obvious this back-and-forth will not yield ripened fruit. So just go ahead and maintain your view that INTjs cannot be objective, because despite any counter evidence otherwise, you will continue to believe it by either denying my objective or INTj nature.

That dependes entirely and solely on the strength of your arguments. But so far you haven't presented any arguments.

[Logos]

You are wrong about that. Your views do sit in nice and neat in categorical boxes. It's just that you might not be familiar with those boxes. If you tell me what views you have, I might be able to tell you in which box(es) they belong.

Okay, fine. I am a staunch deterministic Stoic, empirical idealist, realist. I am something of a relativistic ethicist who believes in utilitarian and Rawlsian views, but believe that ethics are largely biologically-based and that moral behavior does not come strictly from religions, though I do think that religions can provide descriptive moral systems (though only for given contexts and communities).

What exactly are you trying to clarify? What is unclear to you?

Are you unable to specify what philosophical views you have? Why is that? Maybe you haven't thought them through after all.

I just want to know which views of mine you want to know or talk about. You say you want my views on everything, but that is far too vague of a request. And often it is not a matter of thinking through my views, but my desire not to absolutely commit to views while recognizing that that my views are not statically set in stone, but are far more dynamic in nature.

You still refuse to provide any philosophical view of yours. What are you afraid of?

I am not refusing anything here. You read my motives incorrectly. Stop trying to read into what I say.

Which means that you don't know what you are talking about. The objectivist view and the subjectivist view are logically incompatible. If you have a third view on truth that you think does not fit in either category, you are obliged to try to explain what it is.

Which means that you are not reading or understanding what I am trying to say. There is a large degree to which the subjective sense of reality seems to be quite true in that we are products of our perceptions and experiences in how we deal with the world around us. The objective sense of reality is also true in that in many aspects the subjective reality is trivial and that it does not greatly alter the fact that we cannot change those subjective perspectives so we should just in some capacity ignore it and focus on defining and determining as much of that objective reality as we can. But still that subjective reality is the ambiguity and skepticism that lies between the objective reality. Subjectivism and objectivism act as a system of checks and balances on reality and how we view it. As such, both are necessary elements to keep in mind when dealing with any particular subject matter. So while we may communicate about an objective matter, we ultimately do so in something of a subjective manner that is paradoxically rooted in an objective biological predisposition. You said it yourself, the objective reality deals with an approximation of seems which is an ambiguity that the subjective reality feeds upon.

I believe in an objective truth that thrives in subjectivity. There is an objective truth, but it can become muddled in social politics, power plays, perceptions, and biological limitations. I believe in facts, but also recognize that what are called facts by a given age may change in the next with either a regression or progression of human knowledge.

You actally seem to need it. I am not going to let you be the judge of your own capacity. I am the judge of that, at least when it comes to philosophical matters.

I would prefer a more objective judge.

You claim to know what you are talking about, but there is not much to suggest that that claim of yours is true.

And that is because you are not asking the right questions. You do not say much of anything substantial yourself. We are more alike than perhaps you realize, though I am still quite the LII.

You are proving my point. You believe that you can invent the wheel again, but that is a delusion of yours. Whatever you happen to believe in philosophical matters someone else has thought before you in at least a very similar way. You just haven't studied much philosophy yet. You are still a beginner.

Why do you keep misunderstanding everything that I say? I am not claiming that the wheel can be invented again! But that at some point the wheel was invented and there is always room for further invention, though not necessarily of the wheel and that the invention of the wheel opens room for possible new inventions. And sometimes it does not matter whether the object itself is new in the invention but the context in which it exists as being an appropriate tool for problem-solving.

In what sense are you interested in human agency? From which perspective? What are your beliefs on the nature of human agency?

You see? I much prefer more direct questions like these. I am interested in human agency since it is the ambiguous product of biological factors. Human agency is the desire in humans to be free and to be held accountable for their actions and the actions of others. There is the appearance of freedom, but it is rather superficial. Like Spinoza, I believe that we are only free in the day-to-day illusion of choice and from an awareness of our lack of freedom in true human agency. So to this end, the pursuit of all aspects of knowledge (within ethical bounds and without using humans as means) allows for obtaining this freedom within a deterministic reality.

In a sense perhaps, but a natural consequence of the insights from that theory is that you should be a libertarian rather than a democratic socialist.

But I also happen to believe that libertarianism is idealistic (though democratic socialism is not much better), especially in terms of the assumption of rational choices of the individual than what empirical studies in political behavior have suggested otherwise. So while there are aspects with which I agree with public choice theory (generally more of the economic aspects of decision-making), it does not always hold up to reality. So it is a useful tool in political analysis, but by no means should it be the only or primary one. Libertarianism leads to greater socio-economic imbalance that does not let individuals achieve their fullest potential for the benefit of greater society.

No. In that case you simply don't understand what is meant by being a P type in MBTT. The criteria for P an irrationality in Socionics are the same in every relevant respect. Again, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Please specify exactly the relevant (according to you) differences between P and irrationality that would have the consequence that you can identify with the former but not with the latter.

I will answer this later, but I have other prior commitments of my time elsewhere.

Most people on this forum have not got their J/P switched in Socionics. How do you explain that phenomenon?

That dependes entirely and solely on the strength of your arguments. But so far you haven't presented any arguments.

As has been explained before, that MBTI is largely inexact and that there is an empirical overlapping discrepancy. Empirically, MBTI may be close in the J/P dichotomy, but that is still no cigar. It would still be unempirical to not leave the possibility open in studies to suggest that an individual who may be an ENFP could NOT be an ENFj in Socionics. These are cases in which empirical evidence suggests that one should not automatically assume that there cannot realistically be discrepancies between systems in such matters.

[Phaedrus]

Okay, fine. I am a staunch deterministic Stoic, empirical idealist, realist.

What do you mean by "empirical idealist, realist"?

I am something of a relativistic ethicist who believes in utilitarian and Rawlsian views, but believe that ethics are largely biologically-based and that moral behavior does not come strictly from religions, though I do think that religions can provide descriptive moral systems (though only for given contexts and communities).

Are you aware of the fact that utilitarianism is logically incompatible with Rawlsian ethics? Besides that, this gives us real insight into how you actually think, and that's a good start. Your views contradict Tibor Machan's, Karl Popper's, and Thomas Nagel's objectivist views on ethics, but at least you take an empiricist stance here, in contrast to tcaudilllg's more systematic perspective, which you can compare yourself to.

I just want to know which views of mine you want to know or talk about.

Anything that can help me determine whether there is a meaningful sense in which an LII can be an objectivist. A lot of "LIIs" here say that they idenitfy with Paul James's INTP description, despite the fact that the type he describes is an Objectivist in Reinin's sense. I want to understand why a LII can misidentify with that INTP description.

You say you want my views on everything, but that is far too vague of a request. And often it is not a matter of thinking through my views, but my desire not to absolutely commit to views while recognizing that that my views are not statically set in stone, but are far more dynamic in nature.

Don't you have any principles that you wholehartedly adhere to? Aren't there any of your views that are so strong that you would at least be prepared to bet very much on the prediction that you will never change them?

I am not refusing anything here. You read my motives incorrectly. Stop trying to read into what I say.

I am not reading your motives. I don't understand them, and you are not helping me to understand them. And that irritates me.

Which means that you are not reading or understanding what I am trying to say.

You are not trying to be clear about this. Try to explain what you mean more clearly.

There is a large degree to which the subjective sense of reality seems to be quite true in that we are products of our perceptions and experiences in how we deal with the world around us.

Yes, but that's just the way it is. It's a fact of nature. It is largely irrelevant to questions about truth and knowledge. (But try to avoid this misuse of language, please. A sense of reality cannot be true or false, only propositions can be true or false.)

The objective sense of reality is also true in that in many aspects the subjective reality is trivial and that it does not greatly alter the fact that we cannot change those subjective perspectives so we should just in some capacity ignore it and focus on defining and determining as much of that objective reality as we can.

Correct. Now you're getting it. That's what's important to focus on.

But still that subjective reality is the ambiguity and skepticism that lies between the objective reality.

And now you are at risk of losing it again. To think like you do here is not to think like an objectivist, it is a turning back to Kantian subjectivism.

Subjectivism and objectivism act as a system of checks and balances on reality and how we view it.

No, not in any strict sense. Maybe as some sort of metaphor, but your thinking is not clear here.

As such, both are necessary elements to keep in mind when dealing with any particular subject matter.

Muddled thinking.

So while we may communicate about an objective matter, we ultimately do so in something of a subjective manner that is paradoxically rooted in an objective biological predisposition. You said it yourself, the objective reality deals with an approximation of seems which is an ambiguity that the subjective reality feeds upon.

Irrelevant.

I believe in an objective truth that thrives in subjectivity.

A nonsensical metaphor. You are confusing things with more muddled thinking, I'm afraid.

There is an objective truth, but it can become muddled in social politics, power plays, perceptions, and biological limitations.

Totally wrong. An objective truth can never become muddled in itself, only our perceptions of that objective truth can become muddled. Our beliefs can become distorted etc. But an objective truth is not the same thing as a belief.

I believe in facts, but also recognize that what are called facts by a given age may change in the next with either a regression or progression of human knowledge.

What people may call a fact is of course completely irrelevant to the facts themselves. A fact is not a fact because people call it a fact.

I would prefer a more objective judge.

You will probably not get one.

And that is because you are not asking the right questions. You do not say much of anything substantial yourself. We are more alike than perhaps you realize, though I am still quite the LII.

So why can't we try to specify those similarities as much as we can? That's exactly what I am trying to figure out: In which ways are we similar, and in which ways are we different?

Why do you keep misunderstanding everything that I say?

If we really are Quasi-Identicals, that's exactly what we should expect.

I am interested in human agency since it is the ambiguous product of biological factors. Human agency is the desire in humans to be free and to be held accountable for their actions and the actions of others.

That attitude I see as typical of LIIs in general. It is clearly accentuated in Kant's philosophy.

There is the appearance of freedom, but it is rather superficial. Like Spinoza, I believe that we are only free in the day-to-day illusion of choice and from an awareness of our lack of freedom in true human agency.

And this attitude is almost contrary to it. That's why I have reason to doubt that LII is the most likely type for Spinoza. It is typical of LIIs to believe that we, as humans, are essentially free agents, and this LII perspective is opposed to every kind of biological explanations of human nature. An LII would at least feel this tension between these two perspectives, and he would be inclined to prefer to view things from the human agent's perspective whenever possible. That's the nature of .

So to this end, the pursuit of all aspects of knowledge (within ethical bounds and without using humans as means) allows for obtaining this freedom within a deterministic reality.

And exactly what kind of freedom do you think is possible to obtain within a deterministic reality?

But I also happen to believe that libertarianism is idealistic (though democratic socialism is not much better), especially in terms of the assumption of rational choices of the individual than what empirical studies in political behavior have suggested otherwise. So while there are aspects with which I agree with public choice theory (generally more of the economic aspects of decision-making), it does not always hold up to reality. So it is a useful tool in political analysis, but by no means should it be the only or primary one. Libertarianism leads to greater socio-economic imbalance that does not let individuals achieve their fullest potential for the benefit of greater society.

You seem to think like a collectivist here, which of course you must do if you are a democratic socialist. And that's why you can't be a libertarian. There is a fundamental difference between collectivists and individualists, and democratic socialism is logically incompatible with individualism.

It would still be unempirical to not leave the possibility open in studies to suggest that an individual who may be an ENFP could NOT be an ENFj in Socionics. These are cases in which empirical evidence suggests that one should not automatically assume that there cannot realistically be discrepancies between systems in such matters.

It's incomprehensible that you don't understand simple logic. It is a logical contradiction to claim that an ENFP could be an ENFj in Socionics. It is a logical contradiction because both these two types are defined in terms of the four dichotomies, and the four dichotomies -- however those are are described in exact words -- refer to the same empirical phenomenon, and that phenomenon is the biological difference between a rational type and an irrational type, which no theory has any influence over whatsoever. The ENFP is an irrational type, and the ENFj is a rational type. Therefore an ENFP can never be an ENFj under any circumstances, because an irrational type is -- by definition -- not a rational type.