you're talking like Tcaud Phaedrus... please stop.
you're talking like Tcaud Phaedrus... please stop.
You're so full of shit it hurts my inner sense of justice, faith in logic, and hope for the greater good of human kind to read your posts.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
So we have a paradox? Its not very surprising at all, since our entire existence is based upon them.Rocky wrote:
So what's "true" is relative.
Incorrect conclusion (which if true would contradict the premises and therefore be logically inconsistent.)
The point about being childlike is not important, but all the other points are, and they are all true -- which you would realize if you read some socionic LII and ILI type descriptions. If you disagree with what I say there, you disagree with official Socionics.Originally Posted by hitta
Why? Don't you like Tcaud?Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
O YA TOTALLY AGREE 100% MATEOriginally Posted by Phaedrus
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
um.... Ti is a slow developing function. An INTj actually needs time to think. Te is more of a reactive function. The only official socionics you are referring to is according to you.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
That's interesting. If you disagree with what I say in my posts, you don't understand the types, so you could learn something by reading them. But if it makes you feel ill, perhaps you should stop reading them anyway. Tough choice ...Originally Posted by Gilly
I have finally found god.... Phaedrus.
I don't agree with that, and the quote is false. Idiotic behaviour. Why do you want to mislead people by lying?Originally Posted by Gilly
Of course, Phaedrus. You're a regular fucking Galileo, aren't you? You see it all, and you've got it down perfectly, but the rest of us just won't listen! Boo-fucking-hoo!
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Because this is essentially what you are saying by directing people to type descriptions instead of trying to help them actually understand Socionics, which you, coincidentally enough, clearly do not.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Please read a bunch of socionic type descriptions. You obviously haven't.Originally Posted by hitta
According to my INTj father's interpretation of Christianism, that is actually true. He reasons that since God shaped us in his own image, we are God(s) and should behave as such. I don't really buy that, since I believe that there is no God and that religion in general is immoral, evil, and a bunch of crap. But you might be enlightened if you listen to my Word, and it probably won't do you much harm if you belive in me.Originally Posted by hitta
I usually don't like to go to ad hominem attacks anymore, but the thing is, we already had a long discussion about this, in which you only proved your overall stupidity. So when I say, "Don't argue with me", it's because you already did in a different thread that lasted pages, and you embarrassed yourself, and I don't feeling like doing it again. I'm not going to argue with you, and I don't care about you, I'm just letting you know that what you think is "factual" or "true" is simply wrong. Oh and for the attack, I'll just say something that everyone else is probably thinking- SHUT THE FUCK UP.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Yup, I'm agnostic. All I can think about is dying and no longer existing.
Yeah, that is pretty much it.Originally Posted by Gilly
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
You have previously agreed that the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is the same as the difference between preferring or . Which is nothing new; it's one of the most straightforward dichotomies, easy to see in model A.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Are you saying that only "few people on this forum" are aware of that? That INTjs prefer and INTps prefer ?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
I don't care if I embarrass myself or not. And what you feel or don't feel like doing here is irrelevant. When you are wrong you should be corrected, and that's what I'm doing here.Originally Posted by Rocky
Of course. Exactly the same thing as I am doing.Originally Posted by Rocky
And the more you do it, the less likely it is going to happen. You should know that ILIs don't take orders -- especially not from idiots.Originally Posted by Rocky
Oh, now that you put it that way...Originally Posted by Phaedrus
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
You should consider taking a quoting course, Gilly.
I can't quite get the hang of this.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
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
No, it's "If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?"Originally Posted by Subterranean
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Stop quoting yourself!Originally Posted by Logos
You should consider taking a course in thinking.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
You've got issues...Originally Posted by Bionicgoat of the Past
lol this thread's been alphabetized
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Originally Posted by Logos
wtf?Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Originally Posted by Logos
genius.
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
yeah nice one Logos
Well, this post from you is pointless since you forgot that me, Gilly, and Expat are all smarter then you. You're not even just wrong. You're so far twisted it's painful.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
I wish that were true, because then there is hope for you. Then you might realize that I'm right some day.Originally Posted by Rocky
I'm sorry that you have to take all the pain, but I don't know what to do about that. I don't feel anything.Originally Posted by Rocky
Yes, so it seems. Either they don't understand the nature of and , or they don't understand what the implications are for our undestanding of the types INTj and INTp.Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
"Right"? Right about what? Do you even know what the word "right" means? If you really want to relive this, just read through this thread again.
*pets the kitty*
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Yeah ... Thanks for reminding me. That was fun!Originally Posted by Rocky
Well, if they don't, I think you have contributed to make complicated what should be simple.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
INTps and INTjs - like all quasi-identicals - have superficial similiarities, but what makes them tick differently is very clear and explained by socionics. By droning on and on and on about a supposed mess, sustained by relying on MBTI descriptions, which muddle the issue rather than make it clear, you have called attention to a problem that only exists to those who don't understand socionics, as you don't.
As I have explained, it was precisely the superficial similarity between quasi-identicals - but with very real inner differences, as demonstrated by the relationships - that led Augusta to even think about types. What you've been trying to do is to unnecessarily re-invent the wheel.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied