Is this an example of vs ?Originally Posted by RockyI know you were mocking me, but it was pretty damn accurate, lol.Originally Posted by wym123You didn't direct me to a quote, an image, or a short article. I have no trouble reading things myself given those items. What you directed me to is an entire chapter of a complex book and from the looks of it, it appears that I won't be able to even get the definition I wanted (using the reasoning in my previous post). You think I would actually waste a whole night reading it (it's 56 pages!!) for something that probably isn't there when the burden of the proof rests on you? Right... You obviously have a very poor idea of what a debate is.Originally Posted by RockyOriginally Posted by wym123How would I know whether I am considering the line from which you are drawing your definition. You should just tell me. (N type thinking) I get this feeling that you don't even know what you are talking about and are just throwing the dictionary in an effort to confuse me because your claim that Jung can construct a completely definitions of "facts" is almost nonsensical. "Look it's here, if you can't see it you are blind! What? What? Where? Here!! Are you blind!!!" Anyway you better cough up the exact definition or just admit that my definition were sufficient.Originally Posted by Rockyhttp://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htmOriginally Posted by wym123Which is??? Please give me a precisely stated definition. If I don't even understand how I am using your words, how can you be certain that I am even answer your questions correctly?Originally Posted by RockyTalking about facts in the way that Jung described them in Psychological types.Originally Posted by wym123How do you define fact? A statement that is true or statement that is advocated to be true? The former easily persuades me but the latter requires a bit more, especially given that this is the internet. My requirement is not extreme at all. A statement is of the former and will convince if there is absolutely nothing I can come up with that can dispute the validity of the statement.
This is exactly why I am and you are . It happens all the time.
This is also why and often have trouble communicating their thoughts to one-another.
Directing people to quotes, pictures, links, articles, etc... is what does (generally without fully explaining it first). In fact, the quote you made up isn't too far from -speak to be honest.
These are the kinds differences (barriers?) that some people like Pedro realize and as long as we except that in we can understand each other.
I'm sorry, but before we realize the different types of communication, it would be difficult to get the points across. We could go back and forth forever without getting anywhere if you don't realize this.
If that's your idea of a debate, I should have gotten a bunch of random books of Philosophy and tell you that you are wrong because the argument is in those books. Actually, there is research done on MBTI/Socionics and people have managed to link the theory together. The result is all over here: http://www.bartleby.com/130/. You can ignore the title though because that is just plain deceiving as to the actual content of the book.
As for the quote, I was mocking you.
Rocky: it's here, if you can't see it you are blind!
wym123: What? What? Where?
Rocky: Here!! Are you blind!!!
: it's here, if you can't see it you are blind!
: What? What? Where?
: Here!! Are you blind!!!