ATTN INTjs LIIs do you identify with this description?

[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.

[JRiddy]

I can't believe I'm doing this, because it is a fruitless endeavor, but I guess I feel I have to.

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?

The four dichotomies are merely semantically identical. The way they are both described and defined is very different. You are confusing "objective truth" with semantic equivalence. This is a logical fallacy called "equivocation", and you should have learned about it in your study of formal logic.

It has been stated consistently that MBTI and Socionics have important theoretical differences that extend far beyond a different abbreviation convention for types. Socionics is defined in terms of Information Metabolism, which is integrated with Jungian theory. MBTI is another interpretation of Jungian theory, with more emphasis on traits and behaviors.

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 ).

I fail to see why Socionics or MBTI or Enneagram or any of this is "objective truth". You clearly do not understand the real meaning of the phrase, and substitute your own meaning of "what Phaedrus believes," and declare that anyone who dares to argue against you is illogical and ignorant of basic facts. Let's define objective truth: truth that exists as such independent of observation. Your versions of "objective truth" are completely dependent on your own understandings and observations.

And the most hilarious thing of all about this is that these are theories. These aren't even theories that have a strong, broad-base support among the experts in the fields. They are speculations as to the nature of the human psyche. Which is all well and good, except when you treat it like it's something that has always existed and is a perfect description of reality. I actually feel sorry for you that you are seemingly incapable of comprehending the distinction between what you believe and what is true.

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?

Again you are assuming that your understanding of the temperaments and types is perfect. There is sufficient reason to doubt this because your ability to distinguish between fact and opinion is already suspect.

Mistypings, delusions, misunderstandings ...

Why are your "understandings" any better than anyone else's? You've studied more? So? Though studying is a wonderful thing, more time spent studying something does not necessarily mean you understand it better than someone else. Your temperament and general demeanor make me think that you haven't actually experienced very much in the way of actual social contact, at least not successful contact, and you are likely the one who is deluded in thinking that you have any real grasp of this stuff.

Phaedrus, I know you're a smart guy, but if you continue posting these pedantic atrocities, no one will ever take you seriously. You live in a fantasy world where you can know and understand every little thing that comes your way, and you are so defensive about it that any thing that could possibly penetrate your delusional fortress is so quickly shot down or ignored that you will never learn what any of this really means.

[Phaedrus]

The four dichotomies are merely semantically identical. The way they are both described and defined is very different.

You are a total idiot, are you? No brain capacity at all, is that it? I will consider every person who claims that the four dichotomies are not referring to the exact same empirical phenomenon an idiot.

You are confusing "objective truth" with semantic equivalence. This is a logical fallacy called "equivocation", and you should have learned about it in your study of formal logic.

You are absurdly ignorant and unable to think logically correct. I have explained this mistake of yours and others countless of times on this forum by now, and I certainly don't feel like doing it again. You are the one of us two who is confusing the semantic content with empirical reality. The definitions themselves are irrelevant here -- how many fucking times to I have to tell you morons that simple truth? The four dichotomies -- the labels -- refer to the same object, the same phenomenon. Is that logical distinction impossible for people to grasp? The only type that seems capable of grasping it is the ILI, because almost every ILI here seems to agree with what I say, but very few people of other types do it, with a few intelligent exceptions.

It has been stated consistently that MBTI and Socionics have important theoretical differences that extend far beyond a different abbreviation convention for types. Socionics is defined in terms of Information Metabolism, which is integrated with Jungian theory. MBTI is another interpretation of Jungian theory, with more emphasis on traits and behaviors.

Irrelevant.

I fail to see why Socionics or MBTI or Enneagram or any of this is "objective truth".

Yes, you are right about that one. You certainly fail to see the truth.

You clearly do not understand the real meaning of the phrase, and substitute your own meaning of "what Phaedrus believes," and declare that anyone who dares to argue against you is illogical and ignorant of basic facts. Let's define objective truth: truth that exists as such independent of observation. Your versions of "objective truth" are completely dependent on your own understandings and observations.

You would benefit from studying some philosophy of science.

And the most hilarious thing of all about this is that these are theories.

Yes, and every theory is either true or false. But the real types are independent of the theories -- another objective truth that you are unable to grasp.

These aren't even theories that have a strong, broad-base support among the experts in the fields. They are speculations as to the nature of the human psyche. Which is all well and good, except when you treat it like it's something that has always existed and is a perfect description of reality. I actually feel sorry for you that you are seemingly incapable of comprehending the distinction between what you believe and what is true.

Irrelevant. Every belief, whether mine, yours, or somebody else's is either true or false and nothing else. That we doesn't always know that what we are convinced is true really is true is another matter, a matter that doesn't change one bit the truth value of our beliefs.

Again you are assuming that your understanding of the temperaments and types is perfect.

Close to it, yes.

There is sufficient reason to doubt this because your ability to distinguish between fact and opinion is already suspect.

I am one of very few people on this forum who really understands that distionction perfectly. Most people here don't.

Why are your "understandings" any better than anyone else's?

Because they are more correct and because my beliefs are true.

You've studied more?

Yes.

So? Though studying is a wonderful thing, more time spent studying something does not necessarily mean you understand it better than someone else.

Here you deliver a totally irrelevant comment again. Do you find it funny and amusing to focus on irrelevancies? I don't. Of course more time spent studying something doesn't necessarily mean that you understand it better than some one else, but it doesn't necessarly mean that you understand it worse than someone else either.

Your temperament and general demeanor make me think that you haven't actually experienced very much in the way of actual social contact, at least not successful contact, and you are likely the one who is deluded in thinking that you have any real grasp of this stuff.

Now you are focusing on irrelevant aspects again. Social contacts, or a lack of them, have almost nothing to do with your competence as a socionist. My views don't become less true becuase I lack in social competence.

Phaedrus, I know you're a smart guy, but if you continue posting these pedantic atrocities, no one will ever take you seriously.

And I have already tried to explain countless of times that I don't care about that. Of course I am aware of the fact that my way of expressing my views diminishes the chances that people will take the truth seriously. But that only proves that people are idiots, because they should care more about the truth than they should care about my person.

You live in a fantasy world where you can know and understand every little thing that comes your way, and you are so defensive about it that any thing that could possibly penetrate your delusional fortress is so quickly shot down or ignored that you will never learn what any of this really means.

I really can't understand why people are so interested in "helping" me. Why can't you stop caring about my mental helth and focus on the relavant issues instead? Why do you refuse to understand the conclusive arguments? Why do you refuse to study the relevant material? Why do you insist on being ignorant fools? Why do you insist on sticking to your prejudices? Why, why, why?