ATTN INTjs LIIs do you identify with this description?

[Ezra]

Ignoring the title, and actually reading the content, do you identify this description?

[tcaudilllg]

Completely, though I disagree with some of the function attributions. (for example, memorizing a sequence of events is Ni, not Si). But given a four function model, you work with what you've got.

[Expat]

Interesting.

So Phaedrus identifies with that description.

Elro (so I understood) identifies with it.

And now tcaudilllg.

Now we have a few possibilities:

1) That description is very good, and all of the above are of the same type
2) That description is very good, and one or more of the above were hasty in identifying with it
3) That description sucks, so lots of people of different types could relate to it.

I'm inclined to go for (3).

[Logos]

Now we have a few possibilities:

1) That description is very good, and all of the above are of the same type
2) That description is very good, and one or more of the above were hasty in identifying with it
3) That description sucks, so lots of people of different types could relate to it.

I'm inclined to go for (3).

Bingo. It is a description that just about NT would be able to resonate with while reading. But MBTI sucks like that anyway.

[Ms. Kensington]

yes i remember when i first read that i was like zomg

[Search]

I am right on the line of the J/P functions.
I am far more P in my relationships....or under stress.
When I am freaking out over something important, I have come to realize I have my P on and am going to over analyze the heck out of things. It can be a curse sometimes, though generally I appreciate the 'pause' it creates in my decision making.

[Expat]

Bingo. It is a description that just about NT would be able to resonate with while reading.

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 than , but in such a way that might also resonate with quadra intuitive types (such as LIIs).

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.

[Phaedrus]

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 than ...

Correct.

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.

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 describes a person who's "afraid of emotions out of control", whatever that means,

It means the exact same phenomenon that is described in the ILI profiles.

but who's also an "emotional chameleon" who's somehow skilled in using emotions to "take the measure" of other persons.

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).

It describes a person who's supposedly detached

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)!

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.

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.

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.

Your general understanding of the ILI type is simply flawed. You misunderstand us. Correct your false views, please.

[Logos]

When you get too verbose with something, especially a type description, it's gets more likely to start sounding appealing...

And it either goes in two directions: too narrow or too broad.

[Expat]

And it either goes in two directions: too narrow or too broad.

To me that description manages to go in both directions.

It's too narrow in that it actually writes at length, in a tiresome way, about how the functions are supposed to manifest themselves; but it does so by saying the same things over and over. And it's too broad in that it goes for the thing about preferences in music and the like.

[Ezra]

The reason I posted this was because Phaedrus said that no LII could possibly identify with this description.

[Expat]

Hey cool, that description explains some things.

From the 2nd paragraph of the "Extraverted Intuition" 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.

And from the 6th paragraph of the same section:

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.

What a relief, so Phaedrus doesn't really mean it when he argues so strongly for some points. That's the case, isn't it, since Paul James's description perfectly describes Phaedrus, doesn't it?

[Phaedrus]

Completely, though I disagree with some of the function attributions. (for example, memorizing a sequence of events is Ni, not Si). But given a four function model, you work with what you've got.

I'm sorry tcaudilllg, but you simply cannot identify completely with that type description. You probably haven't studied it enough. It does not describe a person with an IJ temperament, which you must have if you are a LII. It describes a person with an IP temperament and an Objectivist world outlook -- not the Subjectivist outlook that a LII necessarily must have. In the Fe section of that profile we see the behaviour of a person with PoLR being described, etc.

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. Neither do LIIs seek the truth above else, and they don't believe that knowledge is the key to everything. Instead the LIIs tend to criticize the very notions of objective knowledge and and objective truth and focus more on meaning. LIIs are not lazy, and they do not believe that doing is of lower necessity than knowing, as is described in that profile.

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.

[JRiddy]

C'mon Expat, why'd you have to drag Phaedrus into our section of the forum?

[tcaudilllg]

I'm sorry tcaudilllg, but you simply cannot identify completely with that type description. You probably haven't studied it enough. It does not describe a person with an IJ temperament, which you must have if you are a LII. It describes a person with an IP temperament and an Objectivist world outlook -- not the Subjectivist outlook that a LII necessarily must have. In the Fe section of that profile we see the behaviour of a person with PoLR being described, etc.

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. Neither do LIIs seek the truth above else, and they don't believe that knowledge is the key to everything. Instead the LIIs tend to criticize the very notions of objective knowledge and and objective truth and focus more on meaning. LIIs are not lazy, and they do not believe that doing is of lower necessity than knowing, as is described in that profile.

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.

The problem with your assertion, Phaedrus, is that only INTjs use words "like swords". That's 7th function -Te at work, and I do it all the time.

The bottom line is, does Model-B not imply everything in that passage as true for LIIs? The answer is yes, it does.

Another description:
http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/PUMintp.html

[Phaedrus]

The problem with your assertion, Phaedrus, is that only INTjs use words "like swords". That's 7th function -Te at work, and I do it all the time.

That is just a detail, and in order to see which type is being portrayed in that type description we simply have to look at the overall picture while at the same time comparing details between INTJ and INTP type profiles in MBTT. If I would have read only INTJ type descriptions and was not aware of the existence of INTP type descriptions, my reaction would be very similar to some people's here. They INTJ and INTP type profiles are much more similar to each other than they are different, and that's exactly why tyou have to scrutinize them in depth in order to see which type they are referring to. I spent at least a couple of months before I came to a definite conclusion about the nature and differences beteen INTPs and INTJs. I'm pretty sure that no one else on this forum has studied type profiles as much as I have.

The bottom line is, does Model-B not imply everything in that passage as true for LIIs? The answer is yes, it does.

Irrelevant.

Another description:
http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/PUMintp.html

In that particular type description we see a clear Objectivist world outlook, and a clearly accentuated IP temperament. It is not a description of an INTj.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Ignoring the title, and actually reading the content, do you identify this description?

Too many problems in that description. I think it should be thrown away and started over.

[Phaedrus]

Too many problems in that description. I think it should be thrown away and started over.

Can you specify some of the problems you see in that description? Rather than throwing the whole description away, I think we should try to understand the exact resons why different types identify with it. I am sure we can learn something important about Socionics from it. And it is still a fact that James is an ILI and that that description fits the ILI type better than any other type, so how can so many other types incorrectly identify with it?

[Mariano Rajoy]

Can you specify some of the problems you see in that description? Rather than throwing the whole description away, I think we should try to understand the exact resons why different types identify with it. I am sure we can learn something important about Socionics from it. And it is still a fact that James is an ILI and that that description fits the ILI type better than any other type, so how can so many other types incorrectly identify with it?

Is James an ILI?

[Phaedrus]

Is James an ILI?

Yes, that is what I claim that he is. He wouldn't have written it in the way he did if he wasn't an ILI, and I can see clearly that he is the same type as I am myself. So, he simply must be an ILI.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Yes, that is what I claim that he is. He wouldn't have written it in the way he did if he wasn't an ILI, and I can see clearly that he is the same type as I am myself. So, he simply must be an ILI.

What way did he write it? How is it ILI?

[crazedrat]

parts of it seem ILI and parts of it seem LII ...

[Phaedrus]

parts of it seem ILI and parts of it seem LII ...

Which parts do you identify with as an ILI? Which parts do you think describe an LII better?

[tcaudilllg]

I see in that description a lot of LII traits.

Consider this passage:

Independence, derived primarily from strongly introverted Thinking, leads to perhaps the most difficult aspect (for others) of the INTP, namely stubbornness. If an INTP is pushed into doing something he will automatically resist. The reason for the resistance is simply that any action must first be filtered by the Ti, guided by the Ne. He must be given the chance to reach an independent decision, approving or rejecting the action. Hence, he must withdraw to allow the analysis process to work. If withdrawal is not allowed then stubborn resistance is the inevitable result. However, others may not always find the INTP excessively stubborn, since the decision-making process can sometimes be rapidly accelerated when intuition takes the upper hand. The best way to get an INTP to do something is to suggest the idea as an option and let him sleep on it. Ultimately, the INTP must always believe that it is his decision. Once he is satisfied that the decision was independently reached, then he is content.

This seems to me very reminescent of +Se vulnerable. In particular, the "pushing" is -Se, which prompts the LII to assert their independence. James' reasoning doesn't seem consistent with socionics... he argues that Ti makes the final call. It would seem to me that the MBTT way of thinking about type is to imagine each function as a personality in-and-of itself. Socionics doesn't do this, I don't think. Jung asserted that the dominant function "calls the shots", and I think socionists just leave it at that. This goes into the dual roles of the functions as both information processors and internal agents. Socionics concentrates on their roles as IM processors, MBTT on their roles as agents.

It is clear that James is stretching to make INTPs seem like slow decision makers. In reality, we only make slow decisions when we suspect -Se to be involved, in which case making the right decision is absolutely vital.

But, what discerned that the decision was vital? Who drew that conclusion, and how?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@tcaudliiig, the passage you quote-introverted thinking refers to socionic creative Te. I have already explained in 'what, Phaedrus type' thread how the creative Te function 'functions' - while it is switched on it is producing not accepting, this- by no means a small part, gives the air of stubborness to the INTp. It is producing the information, while it is doing this it is not so much assimilating new information at same time-like the accepting Te would do. This also explains and would also contribute to the INTp having to take time out to consider new informations-the 'in action' creative Te does far more producing than accepting.

I think it is important though to look at things one stage at a time. I think I've already explained the quoted part by Expat-that it is applicable to INTp

(I'm not saying your quoted part would not be somewhat similar to INTj-of course as quasi-identicals there will be some superficial similarities between the two, but my short summary here fits perfectly with what the paragraph is saying, and also that it's fits ILI far more accurately)

Overall, I don't see what the big deal is over James' article being ILI, except maybe somehow to catch Phaedrus out? However- hopefully we can all learn something here and see that it is indeed a decent ILI description, and at least not such a decent LII description, as per the points I for one have put down (and they are valid and knowledgable points- I think )

[tcaudilllg]

@tcaudliiig, the passage you quote-introverted thinking refers to socionic creative Te. I have already explained in 'what, Phaedrus type' thread how the creative Te function 'functions' - while it is switched on it is producing not accepting, this- by no means a small part, gives the air of stubborness to the INTp. It is producing the information, while it is doing this it is not so much assimilating new information at same time-like the accepting Te would do. This also explains and would also contribute to the INTp having to take time out to consider new informations-the 'in action' creative Te does far more producing than accepting.

I think it is important though to look at things one stage at a time. I think I've already explained the quoted part by Expat-that it is applicable to INTp

(I'm not saying your quoted part would not be somewhat similar to INTj-of course as quasi-identicals there will be some superficial similarities between the two, but my short summary here fits perfectly with what the paragraph is saying, and also that it's fits ILI far more accurately)

Overall, I don't see what the big deal is over James' article being ILI, except maybe somehow to catch Phaedrus out? However- hopefully we can all learn something here and see that it is indeed a decent ILI description, and at least not such a decent LII description, as per the points I for one have put down (and they are valid and knowledgable points- I think )

No I think it's a decent LII description. LIIs are absolutely determined to discern truth... they do this by setting test experiments into motion (+Ni) and from that they deduce the truth or falsity of a hypothesis conceived of with -Ti+Ne. LIIs only use subjective truth as a defensive measure, particularly to defend a theory they cannot yet prove.

On the issue of criticism, ILIs tend not to be harsh about it, or even if they are it tends not to stick because in that case they have invoked their own sense of idealism which is going to lead them into making controversial statements. LIIs, on the other hand, can get into trouble for using particularly biting, hurtful language. LIIs can usually see through people easily, right into their emotional weaknesses. When they want to hurt someone, they expose that person's own weaknesses to them. The point of the exposure is to either right the errant character of the attacker by exposing their own flaws, or to cause them to emotionally implode and crumple right on the spot. Either way the LII emotionally disarms their attacker, thus robbing them of much of their will to fight.

...It's an unfortunate truth that laws are emerging making it difficult for LIIs to expose internal weaknesses for purposes of forcing self-critique. This is making it difficult for LIIs to feel safe, because other forms of aggression are going unrecognized or unpunished.

[Expat]

I think it is important though to look at things one stage at a time. I think I've already explained the quoted part by Expat-that it is applicable to INTp

---

Overall, I don't see what the big deal is over James' article being ILI, except maybe somehow to catch Phaedrus out?

I think that bit I quoted (and quote in my signature) is applicable to ILIs; however, it's not applicable to Phaedrus, in fact, people who indeed behave like that quote describes - a good example is Joy (and no, I'm not saying she's ILI or even that she otherwise corresponds to that description), that is, people who sometimes raise an issue for the sake of bringing it to debate, but are not sure themselves that they really agree to the points they making - such people, as I say, actually annoy Phaedrus a lot.

That quote has nothing to do with being stubborn or aggressive -- it has to do with

"[making] 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.

And that is not Phaedrus at all - in fact, he loathes people who behave like that. And the meaning of that quote is clear if you read the whole description - I am not quoting it out of context.

[krieger]

Thank you Expat... THAT is also what has always bothered me about the whole Pheadrus = INTP thing. Those paragraphs about speculation and uncertainty are in direct conflict with his predominant mode of behavior. And yes, he litterally loathes people who do behave that way.

[Phaedrus]

Thank you Expat... THAT is also what has always bothered me about the whole Pheadrus = INTP thing. Those paragraphs about speculation and uncertainty are in direct conflict with his predominant mode of behavior. And yes, he litterally loathes people who do behave that way.

Like Expat, you simply misunderstand what kind of behaviour and attitude that quote of James actually refer to. You don't understand the context, which is given in the profile before that passage.

And besides, why do you incorrectly assume that you can determine the strength of my convictions by the strength by which I express them?

[Jonathan]

Thank you Expat... THAT is also what has always bothered me about the whole Pheadrus = INTP thing. Those paragraphs about speculation and uncertainty are in direct conflict with his predominant mode of behavior. And yes, he litterally loathes people who do behave that way.

Really? I don't see that in Phaedrus, although admittedly I don't follow a lot of these threads in which people might be observing that behavior.

I certainly say a lot of things that are either speculations or critiques of what other people say, which do not reflect any sort of "definite" opinion on my part, but are more intended to see what can be learned from the ongoing debate. Sometimes these posts are misinterpreted by other people either as me going "off the deep end" or as taking a strong stance for or against some point of view. But I don't recall that this behavior of mine has ever bothered Phaedrus much.

In fact, I used to think that the reason Phaedrus so vociferously defends his point of view was precisely because he was "testing" a point of view and wanted others to debate him. (That may still be true, but, again, I haven't followed these discussions much, as I haven't really had the time to be on this website much. I can certainly see now why some might have a hard time seeing it that way, though....so I'm not saying that this is actually what he is doing.)

It seems that what bothers him most (in my observation) is people who bring up old arguments that he's already rejected, rather than people who are speculative. In fact, he tends to take a rather neutral stance towards people who bring up speculative or controversial theories, and is more inclined to evaluate them based on whether their conclusions match his own views of reality, rather than judging them for whether they're speculative; for example, I remember one post where he was defending hitta because some of hitta's descriptions agreed with his own views.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think that bit I quoted (and quote in my signature) is applicable to ILIs; however, it's not applicable to Phaedrus, in fact, people who indeed behave like that quote describes - a good example is Joy (and no, I'm not saying she's ILI or even that she otherwise corresponds to that description), that is, people who sometimes raise an issue for the sake of bringing it to debate, but are not sure themselves that they really agree to the points they making - such people, as I say, actually annoy Phaedrus a lot.

That quote has nothing to do with being stubborn or aggressive -- it has to do with

"[making] 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.

And that is not Phaedrus at all - in fact, he loathes people who behave like that. And the meaning of that quote is clear if you read the whole description - I am not quoting it out of context.

These are good points Expat. I think that the quoted part of your signature-someone could interpret that as being aggressive, and in turn even further misinterpret this to some sort of cre-Se function (Phaedrus being a possible example of this)

But on the subject of Phaedrus, from what he says he has spent countless hours studying the subjects that he talks about on this forum-socionics, philosophy (definitely philosophy) so I wonder if he feels in a position to be more sure of himself than maybe he used to be on these subjects, so his critical aspect (and his own knowledge is) is more... self-assured?

At the same time, i'm concious of the element of speculation here (probably on both our parts.)

I do think though that he often shows his Ni (there's something in particular, i've been considering starting a thread over, so to discuss Ni in action.)

[Hitta]

Phaedrus is just assuming things, and he is holding these assumptions very firm. We believe we exist because we are brought up to believe that we do exist. Phaedrus just wants everyone to assume that we exist, or assume that he is right when nothing he says can be backed up by logic. His argument that we should just assume that we exist holds no water, it is a stereotype. Phaedrus is a stereotyper, an assumer. He is not looking at the big picture.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus is just assuming things, and he is holding these assumptions very firm.

No, it's the other way around. The things that I am holding most firm are the things that cannot be doubted.

We believe we exist because we are brought up to believe that we do exist.

No. The fact that we exist is much more certain than the assumption that we believe that we exist becuse with are brought up to believe that wie do exist. It is not an assumption that we exist. It is a given fact. We do exist. Period.

Phaedrus just wants everyone to assume that we exist, or assume that he is right when nothing he says can be backed up by logic.

No, I don't want you to assume anything. I can see that you take for granted that you exist. There exists no doubt here, not for anyone of us.

His argument that we should just assume that we exist holds no water, it is a stereotype.

That is definitely not my argument. I am not arguing for the fact that we exist. We just exist. It would be ridiculous to try to argue for it.

Phaedrus is a stereotyper, an assumer. He is not looking at the big picture.

You are a dogmatic skeptic, because you have an uncritical stance toward your own skepticism. I am a critical skeptic, because I am critical towards unwarranted uncritical criticism. Some of your doubts are sheer nonsense.

[Elro]

I am critical towards unwarranted uncritical criticism.

Gotta admit, I'm critical towards uncritical criticism too.

[Hitta]

No, it's the other way around. The things that I am holding most firm are the things that cannot be doubted.


No. The fact that we exist is much more certain than the assumption that we believe that we exist becuse with are brought up to believe that wie do exist. It is not an assumption that we exist. It is a given fact. We do exist. Period.


No, I don't want you to assume anything. I can see that you take for granted that you exist. There exists no doubt here, not for anyone of us.


That is definitely not my argument. I am not arguing for the fact that we exist. We just exist. It would be ridiculous to try to argue for it.


You are a dogmatic skeptic, because you have an uncritical stance toward your own skepticism. I am a critical skeptic, because I am critical towards unwarranted uncritical criticism. Some of your doubts are sheer nonsense.

What you say is debatable because I say it is. The fact that someone can doubt it makes it debatable.

[Phaedrus]

What you say is debatable because I say it is. The fact that someone can doubt it makes it debatable.

If it is a fact that someone can doubt it, then the proposition "Someone can doubt it" is objectivly true. But that contradicts what you say about truth, that there is no objective truth. Therefore your position is logically incoherent. If what you say is true, then what you say is false, and therefore I dismiss what you say as nonsense. What I say is not debatable, and the fact that you are uttering some meaningless words doesn't change that fact one bit.

[Hitta]

If it is a fact that someone can doubt it, then the proposition "Someone can doubt it" is objectivly true. But that contradicts what you say about truth, that there is no objective truth. Therefore your position is logically incoherent. If what you say is true, then what you say is false, and therefore I dismiss what you say as nonsense. What I say is not debatable, and the fact that you are uttering some meaningless words doesn't change that fact one bit.

Thats because thought in general is "logically incoherent". Theres nothing you can say that isn't debatable. Thought is an assumption. Existence in general is nothing but a stereotype.