ATTN INTjs LIIs do you identify with this description?

[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.

[Phaedrus]

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.

The conclusive arguments are the same as they have always been. The four dichotomies/dimensions are identical in the two models, which means that if not every correctly typed LII is an INTJ and every correctly typed ILI is an INTP, then we have a logical contradiction. It is obvious that Paul James, who has written that INTP profile, is himself an ILI. Do you disagree with that?

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

I never blindly accept anyone's word for anything. I only accept the objective truth. And you haven't commented on any of my very strong arguments for the claim that what is being portrayed in that profile is indeed the ILI type (with a perhaps too strong emphasis on ).

Why is it that LIIs may identify with the profile, in your words, but they "should" not?

No LII should identify with IP temperament, I hope we can agree on that. And every LII should be able to accept the basic differences in attitudes and behaviours between LIIs and ILIs. But that means that a LII should recognize the obvious parts in that profile that are incompatible with LII. Why do you ignore them?

What is the risk of identifying with it?

Mistypings, delusions, misunderstandings ...

Do you believe such may lead one away from socionics in blind adherence to the authoritative academic regimes of the past?

I don't follow your thought processes here. I don't know what your point is.

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

What do you mean? Take this seriously by arguing -- for or against -- the relevant theses here. Don't hide in the dark.