Type Me

[mu4]

Irrelevant stuff

Where to start....

I'm not asking you to explain why you think Model A is flawed or not, it's simply that your representation of Model A was flawed. I know you're data collecting, but your representation of Model A was flawed and you based your conclusions on a understanding of Model A that isn't really rooted in the fundamentals. This is at least what I gathered from your posts.

No great offenses against socionics and Model A but to me that seems a bit ridiculous at some level. In other words I am not convinced that this is the way that "people work". Being a Ti Rational doesn't mean you are only capable of processing Ti and Fi is like fitting a square peg into a circular one. I still think that being a Ti means I can process Fi information.

Hmm is this really what socionics is? Just taking the 8 psychological functions and using them to label information, then have each person a type with only specific compatable information they can digest.... it all seems a bit robotic and less ummm psychology.

Also what is the connection with the freudian terms and Model A, a lot of socionics sites I have seen promote that Model A is an induction based on three theories, one of which is the jungian functions, the other of which is the idea of freudian ego, super-ego, id etc... and the last being something concerning information metabolism.

What I quoted here simply shows me and others that have studied this a while that your understanding of Model A is incomplete. Basically... you haven't done your research or due diligence.

You do this again in this post by simply using a strawman representation of Model A. To be frank, it shows ignorance.

You say I'm making a assumption that you don't understand Model A. I don't think I am, because what you say do not coincide with how Model A is described.

My problem is I am simply not convinced of 8 functions being placed statically into different places each performing a different role and each of these roles connected together in various ways.

This is not Model A.

You also bring up more irrelevant stuff about Model A such as the mathematical numbers related to elements which is not really Model A either.

Model A describes a information metabolism that is within your brain, and how it interprets information in the world. Model A is derived from some basic axioms which are more core to socionics.

Does the carnot cycle describe a real heat engine/pump? Or the basic processes within a real engine/pump?

[mu4]

Yea but I mean I am a physics major, the whole point of physics is to build models that hold up as concrete, to explain the actual universe and not to invent some masturbatory metaphysical laws that you fool yourself into thinking are the ways the universe works.

Models aren't these detached entities that you play around with in your mind, they really should be useful mental constructs that represent reality, and with every model there should be an extra peice of information you take with it which is absolutely critical. The validity conditions of the model.

Skepticism of accepted models and structures is the only thing that will lead to evolution of those models, thats the very driving impetus behind the advancement of science, even social sciences.

Do you know what the laws of socionics are? They're certainly not Model A.

Also Model A isn't a accepted model, it's a experimental one, which one can use to design experiments. It's far from validated, but the laws which derive Model A are pretty good, which is why I find this topic interesting. As far as logically sound, there are no major inconsistencies in how Model A is derived. Simply, if the rules that make up Model A are unsound, then if one of the rules is falsified then the whole Model is likely bunk. Fortunately, the rules are pretty good, and nobody's going to be falsifying these rules for a while and a few are not falsifiable by existing measuring technology.

Now you should go find out the rules, and figure it out, because I don't think you've made this effort.

[mu4]

Alright I'll give you that your reasoning seems sensible pino

as for hkmr, I'd like to see what type you think I am and if you still think ethical, I've calmed down a bit, but I would like to say outside of typing me that I don't write my topics on model A out of being dumb and needing help, I write them to poll the community on what they think, which is different, I am "data collecting". But regardless of this point, I'll leave you the room and freedom to develop your own theories on my type.

IEE or IEI if you're ethical.

What labcoat said about your type is good, you skip around the point a lot.

[Creepy-male]

K well hkkmr, you think I am an ethical type, I disagree that is clear... I would like you to post a short summary of your evidence to this conclusion.

Second you think I misunderstand model A, I disagree that is clear.... I would like you to post a short summary of your understanding of model A and how it differs from my understanding.

Lets cut through all this excess of words and just address these two issues in a straightforward manner, you begin.

[mu4]

K well hkkmr, you think I am an ethical type, I disagree that is clear... I would like you to post a short summary of your evidence to this conclusion.

Second you think I misunderstand model A, I disagree that is clear.... I would like you to post a short summary of your understanding of model A and how it differs from my understanding.

Lets cut through all this excess of words and just address these two issues in a straightforward manner, you begin.

No. Why don't you compare your knowledge to the existing repository of knowledge that is available out there. You think you're a researcher? Do your your own research.

I'm not the only person who think you're ethical, so good luck with figuring out your type. I'm not here to handhold you, especially since you're so confident in your understanding of things.

[Creepy-male]

No. Why don't you compare your knowledge to the existing repository of knowledge that is available out there. You think you're a researcher? Do your your own research.

I'm not the only person who think you're ethical, so good luck with figuring out your type. I'm not here to handhold you, especially since you're so confident in your understanding of things.

Lol, of course, you seem like your trying to win a competition here and teach me a lesson... the only reason you'de refuse such a direct question concerning your "case" is if you wanted to hide your agenda.

I'd find it hard that a Ti type wouldn't simply know their agenda, you probably know your agenda, you are just hiding it because you know not explicitly expressing your "case" gives you more room to pick me apart and criticize me, while if I ask you, it turns the table and opens you up for criticisism... aka you're playing games here, and I don't waste my time playing games, all I ask from people that I interact with is to be reasonable, and in return I'll give them the same favor.... I really don't know what to do with you, you're trying to play games with me, so that tells me we are done here.

I know your opinion, I disagree, and even if you were right, fundamentally whatever you choose to call me doesn't change my inner nature, so really who the hell cares?

[Erk]

I have had similar thoughts about socionics and the functions as you have. And I agree, he is playing games because he does not have an actual well thought out concrete response, just a hazy idea that does not match up with yours, and now wants to make it an ego war.

[mu4]

Lol, of course, you seem like your trying to win a competition here and teach me a lesson... the only reason you'de refuse such a direct question concerning your "case" is if you wanted to hide your agenda.

The only agenda I have is that I don't think you're logical and what you say about Model A shows me that you haven't understood certain parts of it.

I'd find it hard that a Ti type wouldn't simply know their agenda, you probably know your agenda, you are just hiding it because you know not explicitly expressing your "case" gives you more room to pick me apart and criticize me, while if I ask you, it turns the table and opens you up for criticisism... aka you're playing games here, and I don't waste my time playing games, all I ask from people that I interact with is to be reasonable, and in return I'll give them the same favor.... I really don't know what to do with you, you're trying to play games with me, so that tells me we are done here.

Just from the little things say, I don't think you're ILE at least, and probably not LII. And probably not Alpha. Why are you asking people to be reasonable... When you can just ask them for the what they think is true.

Reasonable eh? I've made a request to you to research Model A some more. I'm willing to be more reasonable when you research Model A some more.

I've been very clear with you about what I think of what you've said about Model A. I've also been very clear about what I think of your type.

If you want to know what I'm doing with you. I'm quite consciously giving you certain forms of information, while withholding other forms of information to see what form of information you're receptive to. This is what a experimenter does... no more, no less. But I have told you what I think, I've just not explained myself. Good luck finding your type.

If you're looking for a intimate discussion on your type or something like that, there are other people for that. I want to see what makes you tick.

[mu4]

I have had similar thoughts about socionics and the functions as you have. And I agree, he is playing games because he does not have an actual well thought out concrete response, just a hazy idea that does not match up with yours, and now wants to make it an ego war.

Why not? It will at least show us... what ego functions will be used... then we will know type won't we...

The goal of typing is to know your ego functions... so bring it!

All ILE's do is play games of one sort or another, thought games, puzzles, video games... so let's have some fun.

[Erk]

Looks like you have just been stating opinion stating reasons, but then not explaining them. There are people who will not just accept what you say because you are confident, they would like an explanation of how you arrived at that. All in the details, but details seem to be sparse in these parts.

[mu4]

Looks like you have just been stating opinion stating reasons, but then not explaining them. There are people who will not just accept what you say because you are confident, they would like an explanation of how you arrived at that. All in the details, but details seem to be sparse in these parts.

He wanted alternative ideas and "impressions"... this is what he's getting...

You can't really help but use your ego... since he didn't post a description(not that I would trust this), it's not that important that he didnt...

However, he seems to be ethical for a few things I've noted and summarized.

If I post a line by line exposition it's likely he will discount or excuse himself via some rationalization on why something doesn't mean what I think it means or any number of things that leads him to believe he's logical.


Anyways, he does tend to lose his cool a bit when his understanding of stuff is questioned...

Take this post...
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post613173

Or earlier when he had to calm down. We didn't really need to know this... but good for him telling us..

...l, I've calmed down a bit, ....

And he request productivity in the discussions...

and I'd appreciate in the future if you expressed your knowledge in a more productive way rather than this "I AM GOING TO SHIT ALL OVER YOU AND CONSUME YOU, I AM THE EATER OF WORLDS!!!!! I AM SMARTER THAN YOU, YOU ARE TRASH!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A CHARLATAN WHICHS KNOWS NOTHING, I LAUGH IN YOUR FACE SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" attitude.

Which he does in this thread as well...

I just find it a bit futile to debate people on an internet forum to that degree, I mean even in the rare chance I manage to convince someone of my point, it changes absolutely nothing about the world and does nothing productive rather than merely supplicating ones ego and making them feel intelligent.

His response to intellectual disagreement is... "Change your attitude, be productive or reasonable or something..."

I've noted this in this post already, and he seeming it does it repeatedly. This just doesn't fit ILE or LII very well, perhaps ILI.

I think I said this before...

This is really the reason why I don't think you're Alpha NT or a T of any sort, because in a sense this is all T types do. One-up for intellectual superiority, they have different methods in how to achieve this sort of superiority, money, breakthrough changes, organization, etc, but it's fulfilling to make the arguments.

Hm... it's easily dismissible, I mean, it's only a perception so it's not necessarily true or proven. But one sees what one sees and cannot unsee it. Whether the perception matches the evaluation, we need more testing.

[Erk]

Well this post actually explains your perspective. Also, for clarification, I am not questioning anyone typing of anyone in this thread. I will chime in with my opinion though, I think ILI is a probable choice.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request