ATTN INTjs LIIs do you identify with this description?

[Logos]

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.

No. I just know how to spend my time efficiently, and arguing with you is not one of them.

[Phaedrus]

No. I just know how to spend my time efficiently, and arguing with you is not one of them.

Another irrelevant comment ... and no argument.

[Logos]

Another irrelevant comment ... and no argument.

Good point. I have no argument. I am an ILI now. Deal with it.

[marooned]

Good point. I have no argument. I am an ILI now. Deal with it.

Ooh, valuing! How exciting!

[Logos]

Ooh, valuing! How exciting!

This is the new and improved ILI Logos you are seeing here.

[Phaedrus]

Good point. I have no argument. I am an ILI now. Deal with it.

Okay. You are an idiot then. An idiot without arguments.

[Logos]

Okay. You are an idiot then. An idiot without arguments.

Dear me! I've become Phaedrus!

[JRiddy]

Dear me! I've become Phaedrus!

Hahahaha. No you haven't. You don't value "objective truth" enough. "Objective truth" is what it is because Phaedrus says it, remember?

[tcaudilllg]

Phaedrus, you appear to be in a truly tragic situation. On the one hand you desire the unity of MBTI with Socionics, and on the other you will not allow yourself to interpret the information necessary to that same unity.

Phaedrus if you will not accept my word for it whose word will you accept?

Why is it that LIIs may identify with the profile, in your words, but they "should" not? What is the risk of identifying with it? Do you believe such may lead one away from socionics in blind adherence to the authoritative academic regimes of the past?

Phaedrus, please discuss with us who has influenced you in your beliefs.

[Expat]

No. I just know how to spend my time efficiently, and arguing with [Phaedrus] is not one of them.

Indeed, look how ridiculous the discussion gets. Phaedrus makes no better case for James's description being one that only ILIs should correctly identify with than that he, Phaedrus, identifies with it. That's his very convenient, and easy, "argument". And we're supposed to prove that he's wrong.

I think that description is contradictory, and a lot of what it says is a lot of -- nothing. It's easy to get lost in it. However, why bother?