The reason I posted this was because Phaedrus said that no LII could possibly identify with this description.
Yes
No
I am not LII (I am a retard - I don't even know why I'm answering this poll to be honest)
The reason I posted this was because Phaedrus said that no LII could possibly identify with this description.
Phaedrus is a liar. Of course he's going to attempt to cover up his lies by saying that those LIIs who identify with the description are obviously mistyped. He is an idiot.Originally Posted by Ezra
They are not necessarily mistyped. But they are necessarily misidentifying it as a description of the LII type in Socionics. It is totally obvious that Paul James is himself an ILI, and that his INTP profile is a description of the ILI type to a much greater extent than it is a description of the LII type. And everyone must recognize that fact.
+1,000
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
That description is a bit overwhelming.
How? So everyone agrees with me now, is that it? Otherwise you have to show why you can't see James's description as ILI.
You're a loony.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
And still neither you nor anyone else have presented any counter arguments, so I guess I am right as usual. James is an ILI, and his description does not fit the correctly typed LIIs on this forum, even though some of them incorrectly think so.
This discription could definitely describe me, and I'm pretty certain I'm not an INTp.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
But it doesn't describe your type if you are not an INTp. So you seem to be a poor reader of type descriptions. You don't understand them correctly. Which means that what you say here is of no use to the discussion.
I haven't said that no LII could possibly identify with it. I have said that no LII should identify with it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote