Possible phitypes for each IM type

[Nexus]

You are taking this way too far I guess I am being a little hypocritical by telling you to not tell people what to do, but unless you really derive some strange pleasure out of telling people what to do and think about, I don't really see how I'm actually making the problem worse.

I think you are making the problem worse by not contributing anything relevant to the subject matter and acting as a reactionary force...which is how you derive pleasure...so I guess you are S+N+D+ - S+ for being satisfied with a lame theory, hypocrisy, and reversing your own opinion; N+ for being easily troubled by little things like objective criticism to both the theory and your hypocritical assertions; D+ for wanting to engage in repetitive behaviors that make no sense like being hypocritical and supporting the theory.

[Gilly]

I can't decide whether you're being serious or not.

If you are, I'd ask you what you think the problem is.

[Nexus]

I can't decide whether you're being serious or not.

If you are, I'd ask you what you think the problem is.

You are not offering anything to support or refute the theory yourself, but you are trying to keep others from doing it...it's not as if objective criticism was inappropriate for an internet forum...

[FDG]

Hiutz stop being so preachy and don't fucking bother people with everything they say, okay? You have very good insights but you're also annoying when you do this. Let people be.

[Gilly]

You are not offering anything to support or refute the theory yourself, but you are trying to keep others from doing it...it's not as if objective criticism was inappropriate for an internet forum...

If it were objective criticism that were assisting in developing the theory then I wouldn't have spoken up. However it seems more directed at repressing "stupid ideas" than refining them, which I think is unnecessary especially considering people are going to go on talking about it anyways; there's nothing productive going on. All that's happening is a few people are discussing something that's going on and another person is saying "what you're talking about is stupid oversimplification." If your focus is productivity, which is generally what the "objective criticism" that you argue on behalf of is meant to promote, then this kind of attempt at refutation is not anything that you should be interested in seeing anyways.

Take my example of the guy walking down the street who hears people talking about something he thinks is pointless. If he suggests possible improvements, then sure, there is nothing wrong with his behavior. But if he just says "You know what you're talking about is pointless, right?" then not only is he killing the mood, but also quashing any conversational momentum the people may have had and decreasing any odds that they will arrive at some kind of useful conclusion.

I see where you're coming from, but I think you're jumping the gun on insinuating that crazedrat's input was actually productive or useful to the conversation in some way.

[Nexus]

Hiutz stop being so preachy and don't fucking bother people with everything they say, okay? You have very good insights but you're also annoying when you do this. Let people be.

Stop trying to teach us lessons, thanks. What RSV3 said in this topic is already common knowledge and has already been studied in detail, this is why the responses are not particularly numerous.

THATZ CUZ UR TOO STUPID AND U SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY THE MIGHTY JEW

Hey dude, you have chased me down almost every thread on which I've posted...including my close friend RSV3's erotic subtype thread and my very own metaphysical inference poll, so why don't you let me be, and shut your goddamn ears if you don't like what I have to say? Got it? Stop fucking stalking me with your irrelevant complaints and self-righteous ignorance.

If it were objective criticism that were assisting in developing the theory then I wouldn't have spoken up. However it seems more directed at repressing "stupid ideas" than refining them, which I think is unnecessary especially considering people are going to go on talking about it anyways; there's nothing productive going on. All that's happening is a few people are discussing something that's going on and another person is saying "what you're talking about is stupid oversimplification." If your focus is productivity, which is generally what the "objective criticism" that you argue on behalf of is meant to promote, then this kind of attempt at refutation is not anything that you should be interested in seeing anyways.

You obviously misunderstood. Crazedrat brought up several important and productive points to help the progress of science in general (and not just one lame theory):

okay, so why not instead of
"I'm S-", say... "I'm kinda sluggish".
Or instead of saying "I'm N+" just say "I'm a bit anxious"..
Whats with the wording?
It's like taking an idea, and assigning it a symbol... but by doing this, you remove the possibility for further elaboration on the idea. This is pointless.
More then this, the particular symbol being used in this case suggests causation which is unfounded (mach has no idea about the brain chemistry involved in what is being described). So why make this a brain chemistry issue at all?

He is right in asserting that the more limitations you put on a category, the less free it is to be associated with other concepts or developed on its own, thereby pointing out that it is actually the system under scrutiny that is inherently unproductive. The other thing he mentioned is known as nomothetic fallacy, 'which is the belief that naming a problem effectively solves it'. And his last stand agrees with what I myself have demonstrated, that the neurotransmitter correlation is weak at best, and only serves to confuse people with scientific standards for information. As much as you like to speculate and play stupid games, (classical) socionics is a science...