What´s Airborne´s type?

[Airman]

I didn´t expect a 'quadra conflagration' to happen in this thread.

[Absurd]

I didn´t expect a 'quadra conflagration' to happen in this thread.

I wonder how you were born.

Keep that Dalai Lama master on a leash and everything will be normal again. People will throw types at you and you will repeat that you're open-minded. They give, you receive. Simple.

[Quote Unquote]

I'm sure you consider a morally twisted IEIs like Truman Capote more altruistic than me, who by the way was an authentic example of the artistic inferiority of victim types, since your art, my good IEI, is only focused on materialistic equivalence of mundane symbols. IEIs' art is form without content, expression without meaning, futile emotions that have no authentic significance to the human reality and never convey any kind of higher wisdom, world especulation, of any glance and insight into ultimate truth. Cheap art for the masses with no intellectual value.

Look at this:

To be or not to be– that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And, by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep
No more – and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to – ‘tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th’ oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.—Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remembered.

This is most surely one of the most famous pieces of artistic shallow infatuation of betas. The significance and intellectual equivalence of these words are vain, prosaic and mediocre. Shakespeare will never be a Dostoievsky. A vain artist who contributed nothing to the expansion of human consciousness. The human mind would remain the same with or without Beta artists. The only thing they can do is to carry lesser spirits into their realm of darkness. The day will come when all these superfluous idols of clay will be destroyed and replaced by the only token of divine sapience.

thePirate, I am surely as egoistical as other ILEs, who also had Fi as their PoLR. I'm like Socrates who sacrificed himself for the sake Truth, Moral, Order and Righteousness. I am as egoistical as the prophets in the bible, who dared to tell the bitter truth in days of total ignorance and vice (an identical landscape of this one we live today).

[Absurd]

...

You, actually, whined that your thread is going nowhere calling mommy for help and shit like that, and here you are fueling the hate. Fucking drama queen.

If I was ever to type you, I would type you as a cross between Maritsa and mercutio. A dumbo.

EDIT:

[Suz]

LOL @how this sucks.

The raving lady who hates me (WorkaholicsAnon) even said I was Hermius.

This Emmius Herminius is who was formerly Claudius Almagest, he´s my friend, but we´re definitely not the same person LOL.

He is not the LII I´m into either - she´s a she.

This proves how much Workaholics projects on me her own tricks and evil. Stop projecting shit on me just leave me alone I do not want to be bothered by you, go to hell, fuck off, Workaholics. I know you´re ESTP but would you ever admit that? Better project it on me. Fuck you, you´re going on ignore.

Oh OOOPS! did i mess up your trolling??




As far as many here can see, YOU are the one who is raving and full of trickery/evil.

Funny how the projector is saying others are projecting onto him.


Its also weird how you keep pointing me out as a "woman" whenever you lash out at me, as if i'm not allowed to speak up or argue against you if i'm not a man.


Please do put me on ignore, psycho. I had you on it for a while as well and may put you back on likewise.

[Creepy-cinq]

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm mistaken again, the always present beta altruism will most surely be assistent and present in my quest for wisdom, since I'm so poorly furnished of it, I'm devoid from truth, you know, my good friend. An IEI, a Ni + Fe, knows much more about reality than me , a Ne + Ti! ...

Hmm, the irony. I'd have guessed IEI, not ILE for you.

[Gilly]

Most hated-on quadra ever.

fixed

[UDP]

this thread should be edited for gayness

[Absurd]

this thread should be edited for gayness

You should be edited for being a cunt, you thread/post generating whore and I am the man who's going to do it.

[Airman]

You, actually, whined that your thread is going nowhere calling mommy for help and shit like that, and here you are fueling the hate. Fucking drama queen.

If I was ever to type you, I would type you as a cross between Maritsa and mercutio. A dumbo.

EDIT:

YouTube- Baby Mine-Dumbo & His Mommy

You´re also going to my ignore list, fucked up idiot. Bye.

[Airman]

Now my screen looks much better.

[Absurd]

You´re also going to my ignore list, fucked up idiot. Bye.

Great, I'm going to slit my throat now.

[Airman]

Ammonius,

I think you are generalizing too much and trying to create a system of 'good' against 'evil' in socionics based on Quadras. Of course this is part of a common Ti line of reasoning who wants to make logical deductions from cases and build systems; it is also capable of doing the reverse, i.e., once a system is analyzed, it can track the pieces which are part of the system and separate them from those which are not (in your system this would be for example, 'this guy is ENFJ = this guy is beta = this guy is evil.)

This type of Ti reasoning fails so often because there is no room for exceptions. I think there is something wrong with in that it was not built to take exceptions into account, it just wants to generalize and make general principles and logical rules. You end up sacrificing precision for the sake of having a logical system.

Betas, being innately , are of course driven to control and power. But they can use it either wisely or like idiots. It´s a double-edged sword. Like in all other quadras, there is a primary dominating function which is the Quadra´s own 'hidden agenda' to use this term.

Deltas can mess up a lot with and , just look at how controlled is the population of Europe is nowadays, how brainwashed and media-manipulated, and being literally depleted of existence. This was Delta, as Europe was. And now Europe is turning to an idiotic gay apocalypse, becoming Alpha. EDIT: Deltas in fact mess up using Te and Fi primarily, mostly Te.

I don´t see how you can blame Gammas in Europe their countries are not Gamma in general and also not Beta in general.

Look at Holland, a Delta country, and you have the situation of a severely damaged country, because of humanitarian collectivist dreams, like 'gay marriage', 'legalization of drugs', etc. Now the youth is being destroyed by heroin and immigrants don´t stop arriving because that was how they thought it´d be better for everyone, it´d be more humane and altruistic to let everyone live together and smoke grass and inject drugs.

What I´m saying is that like Ashton said, it´s impossible to know what is best for society. It is only possible to IMPOSE A NEW CERTAIN SOCIETAL REGIME IN THE HOPE THAT IT IS GOING TO BE BETTER THAN THE OLD ONE. This ****** and Stalin did, and both failed.

[silverchris9]

This is most surely one of the most famous pieces of artistic shallow infatuation of betas. The significance and intellectual equivalence of these words are vain, prosaic and mediocre. Shakespeare will never be a Dostoievsky. A vain artist who contributed nothing to the expansion of human consciousness. The human mind would remain the same with or without Beta artists. The only thing they can do is to carry lesser spirits into their realm of darkness. The day will come when all these superfluous idols of clay will be destroyed and replaced by the only token of divine sapience.

Motherfuck, he dissed Shakespeare. a.k.a. my favorite non-divine deity. People who prefer Dostoevsky to Shakespeare are fucking cracked in the head. Srsly.

thePirate, I am surely as egoistical as other ILEs, who also had Fi as their PoLR. I'm like Socrates who sacrificed himself for the sake Truth, Moral, Order and Righteousness. I am as egoistical as the prophets in the bible, who dared to tell the bitter truth in days of total ignorance and vice (an identical landscape of this one we live today).

rofl. Socrates was probably IEI.

Jung was one of you silly.

I was referring to the quote he posted from Jung, mostly. But yeah, clearly Ni-leading.

Also, this guy's posts are actually the basic quadra philosophy of this forum taken to the opposite extreme, i.e., betas are edgy and vaguely amoral; deltas are repressive and concerned with everybody.

[Absurd]

How many maristans have you visited before joining the forum, Obersturmführer ? 10-20 ?

[Suz]

Great, I'm going to slit my throat now.

LOL!

[Airman]

Unread Today, 05:54 PM
Remove user from ignore list
Absurd
This message is hidden because Absurd is on your ignore list.

View Post Unread Today, 06:06 PM
Remove user from ignore list
WorkaholicsAnon
This message is hidden because WorkaholicsAnon is on your ignore list.

LOLOLOLOL

[UDP]

You should be edited for being a cunt, you thread/post generating whore and I am the homosexual man who's going to do it.

[Quote Unquote]

I really shouldn't be debating with you, but I'm procrastinating and this is an easy way to kill time.



Actually if you want to be technical about what Socionics tells us, then and should be considered the most 'objective' functions.

You're mixing up two different things here, Objectivity and Sensory information have nothing to do with each other. Thus Se is ruled out. Look, Sensory information is restricted to the singleness of the body. Empiricism is inherently incoherent philosophy. What is objective is only the abstract information. If two people see a green apple, it's not the experience of having your eyes excited by green light that is going to be the objective information, since it is restricted to the body and the biology of someone. What will be universal and attained by everyone is the concept of greenness. It's a fallacy that man are able to perceive empirical information, the only things that exist in our minds is the abstract conceptualization. No human being on this planet knows what green is, the only thing that exists is greenness and is the only information conveyed in communication. The particular and specific always remains unknown because it doesn't even exist. Specificity can not be understood not even embodied in an abstract insight, because it's a fallacy. Objectivity is perception not informational carving, it can't be any kind of rational function, it has to be then.

Most aren't that bad and the self-typings tend to be correct on average by a significant margin.

I don't think so, I've seen here many good typings, but most people here are full of doubts regarding their own types. And they definitely don't know how to conjugate enneagram with socionics.

As for the ennea/sociotype pairings—IEI 6 is probably uncommon, ILE 8 is a major stretch (lol jimbean), and LIE 3 would be rare.

IEI 6 is not uncommon... it's impossible! 6's are people of the mind and intellectual center, the nervous and fear nucleus of enneagram. Incompatible with IEIs... IEIs are always, and absolutely always 4s. Anybody who types himself differently doesn't know much about enneagram.

ILEs are never 8s because they don't have the instinctive nucleus as their essential personal definition.

LIEs are never 3s because 3s are always Fe lead, so to say, ESE and EIE.

Interestingly, Nietzsche was likely INFp himself.

No way, he was an EIE. He had a mild Beneficiary friendship with Wagner (C-ILE), who accepted him as a son or as a pupil for sometime. Wagner's second wife was an LII (his first wife was surely an SEI), he married Cosima Wagner as his second wife maybe mostly because she was from a really important musical family at time, she was the illegitimate daughter of Ferencz "Franz" Liszt with a French Countess. Cosima supposedly was attractive to Nietzsche, but with time and by no really clear reasons, Nietzsche grew in strong disaffection against Wagner. Wagner used to say that Nietzsche was mentally disabled due to too much wanking.

The universal fight against the Appolonian and the Dyonisiac principles a distinction that wasn't not originally created (not even named) by him. The application of these two principles in history of philosophy and art was too futile, he claimed that Pre-Socratic Philosophy was marked by an effort for conciliating these two principles. This can easily be proved wrong when you summon before yourself the whole spirit and significance of Eleatic School and all the philosophy that came after it. After Parmenides, every single Philosopher in Ancient Greece was a denier of subjectivity - the exception are the Sophists, who affirmed that only subjectivity existed... It's not a simple coincidence that they were do despised and proved wrong by Socrates and Plato, who abhorred them. Nietzsche was also vehemently affirmed the superiority of Subjectivity of Objectivity. "The Übermensch, the sense of earth", as he used to say. Unfortunately, for Nietzsche he couldn't prove neither demonstrate any of his ideas, and by the very opposite, contradicted himself all the time (weak but valuing Ti). He always stated himself as an irrationalist, and denier of the Socratic divine principles of Truth, Reason and Supreme Goodness. He used to say: "Truths are useless fictions". About Nietzsche it was once stated: "Nietzsche said everything and the opposite". really weak Philosophy, totally fragile system, due to weak Ne and Ti.

Not that I'm defending thePirate here—I'm in no position to since I don't know what he believes nor have I seen him state as much nor am I going to guess for him—but suffice to say, you'd have a difficult time arguing any types to be inherently inferior/superior in correctly assessing reality, even if it were true that some types are better equipped IE-wise for its objective apprehension.

It's not going to be difficult, I only have to be sure your're gonna hear and really ponder on it. I've done this many times before.

Haha. The idea that anybody can know what society's "needs" are is pretty riduculous. Given that 'society' is only an abstract, a name referring to the aggregate portrait of activity rendered by individuals and their actions in some given locale.

Wrong, not every single aggregate of people is society, you don't understand anything of socionics, neither of sociology of philosophy (by the way, I notice you have a really weak basis on both these disciplines). A society is always defined by interconnection and cooperation. If there isn't any kind of cooperation, we can't call this so called aggregate of people a society. Ants form societies because of cooperation, bees for the same reason. The degree of evolution and strength of a social corpus is defined by the level of cooperation what necessarily means sacrifice of egos, thus altruism. Powerful social organizations have their members readily to sacrifice anything for the conjunct. This happens among bees and ants (suicide is really common among them). The biological superiority of the power of survival of these animals can be easily attested by their omnipresence around the globe. In case of humans, altruism and self-sacrifice are not only a matter of survival, but also a matter of health. Altruism engenders psychological stability by every possible way - since all psychological deviances are related to the instability of the ego, if you annihilate your ego (this is an ideal, but what I mean is psychological direction toward this), you won't fear about yourself. The social necessity of human soul is blatant, in case of men, it's twice more a matter of survival, since if you are not altruistic, your social group succumbs; and if you are not altruistic, you psychological stability is imploded. Have you ever read the famous sociologist Emile Durkheim? In his book called "The suicide" he describes that the causes of suicides in Europe were due to psychological instability and feebleness due to lack of social input within people's psyche, and he immediately concludes that the rampant increase of individualism in western society in his period (second half of 19th century) - through capitalism, protestantism, political liberalism - was provoking an equivalent increase in the suicide rates throughout Europe. The data speaks for itself.

It's a non-entity, not a global body, not some coherent organism with actual needs.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You need to strengthen your philosophical, psychological and sociological basis. That's why your knowledge and application of socionics is so shallow - you are an american, right? As I said before, there is no society without cooperation, and the degree of civilizational development and psychosocial health of a group of people is determined by the degree of cooperation and self-sacrifice within the social tissue. A group of people can never be characterized as a society if they don't cooperate with each other, it can't even be called a real group. Secret societies, athletic societies, political societies, neonazi groups, religious sects, all this would never be characterized as societies if their members didn't cooperate with each other. Your vision is dumb and really unstructured. IF there is cooperation, necessarily there are bounds of altruism that connect people. What I criticize is the rampant escalate of the degree in the weakening of these altruistic bounds that needly form cooperation, thus society, because we are heading to a future of deep psychological and social infirmity.

Your weak power of abstraction is blatant. How can you describe a group as bunch of people with no connection with each other. This is a laughable contradiction! Every group is inherently non-individualistic (a group of pens is not a single pen; a group of camels is not a single camel; etc) thus ideal bounds exist between the members. Nothing can be named a group if individualism prevails in it. Since groups are real, because societies are real, only because cooperation is real, since altruism is real, thus, you have to conclude that I'm right. All these bounds are real, what happens is that some people are more aware and learned about this fact, and others delight themselves in ignorance of this flawed strategy called individualism. Under the State (this is a major source of confusion for you, you don't know the difference between State, society and nation) many people are forced to live as a society, I mean, many people are forced to cooperate with each other, from the most evolved spirits to the most subterraneans of all. And this is what I criticize, current world is headed by subterranean people and for subterranean people... The consequences are already being awakened. And as I said, individualism is both a psychological and a social disease.

Even if it were, bounds on human rationality would prevent knowledge of what its supposed needs are.

What the fuck!! This is totally nonsensical. "Bounds of human rationality would prevent knowledge of what its supposed needs are." Let me point the many incoherences and logical flaws in this. Bounds are only formed through conscience, through reason and awareness. There are no bounds formed by animal instinct since they are all egoistical and concerned with self-survival and affirmation (Doesn't it ring a bell. Beta, beta, beta). There would be no bounds if they weren't, by the most essential definition, a knowledge the other. There would be no bound if there was no awareness regarding the others, their needing and their inner reality. The wise men will always try to live according to the principles that will engender goodness to the whole society, because this, and only this will bring happiness and completion to people. To delight in selfishness and subjectivity will only provoke pain and suffering to everyone.

It can't tell you, there are no means to measure them, nor even approximate them in any positive sense.

Oh yeah, there are. Socialism (I'm not talking about marxism) will needly create civilization, civility, moral, order, principles and happiness.

All you could do is flail blindly making up your own normative declarations about what you personally believe society "needs"

No, society needs to deny materialism and live up to rationalism. Since society is abstract, thus, the only thing that's real. Abstraction is the real thing, we only know and live of abstraction, we are abstraction. Abstraction, society, cooperation live close to the soul. Cooperation is abstract and a product of abstractionism. If you cooperate, you believe in a higher goodness to where you are heading. Cooperation is to worry about the wholeness, the universal, there isn't anythign like cooperation oriented to the individual.

Ashton, if you think I'm wrong, I'm sure you are a weak cooperator.

—aka you could engage in emotional analysis and shallow subjective worldviews based on a selfish ideal of selflessness.

I'll tell you again, I don't take people's feelings and subjective-egoistical inclinations for making a social project. This would necessarily be a contradiction, this is obvious to me. And my approach - emotionless, rationalist, moralistic and objective - is the only one that is real. Read Plato, and think again.

Which is what every social idealist does with their rhetoric of "making a better society."

It's true since it's evident that worse societies exist, better societies also can be made. But as I say, not now, people need suffer more for mastering the lessons of civility.

And my greatest wish is that they'd fuck off and kill themselves, so that the rest of us could be left alone for a change.

Oh my, you are so ignorant, you are a Christ killer, a prophet murderer, an assassin of philosophers. Look isn't it a contradiction to wish to goodness for all, as you say, "the rest", and at same time boast individualism? You'll all lacerate each other, and you won't be able to do anything to, as I said, death is not a taboo, you can't get rid of people like me, if you kill me now I will resurrect, and much stronger, and more and more people will join, and the natural tendency of your movement is to mingle and run out of members. More people like me will come. People who know the truth and who don't committ contradictions. Get real, the only people who kill themselves in every word, in every action, in every thought and feeling are betas and gammas. We are life affirming.

To get on with the business of living our own lives in peace and self-determination as we see fit,

This is in other words the apology of hate, desorder, conflict, and self-destruction. You believe your are going to passify the world by getting rid of people like me??? hahahahahaha, you are only going to create dissidence and enhance opposition among people in every possible sphere of existence. To affirm your own individual needs is necessarily to be at war with everyone. Try to read Thomas Hobbes. Your reasoning is an obvious demostration of you what I said before, that objectivism is related to , you, as a victim, can't think in clear and profound terms, your analysis is shallow and subjective.

without being harassed by assholes dictating ideological bullshit and politics and imposing controls on how we should live.

The only people who are suitable to freedom are those who are masters of themselves. Those who are not will only be able to hurt themselves and the whole humanity. What clearly means that not everyone is apt to the burden of having no external orientation, but only that one that comes from reason. Let's do a mental experiment. If you let yourself be totally devoid of tokens of direction, morals, and abstract principles for guiding you (as if it was possible), you would immediately ache for the lost of these principles, since every single action and expression of movement needs formulaic guides for giving a north. A social group that tries to demolish strong tokens of direction and principle, like ours and especially yours, Ashton, is clearly trying to commit collective suicide.

All you said here is wrong, wrong and wrong. You need to strengthen your philosophical, psychological and sociological basis. That's why your knowledge and application of socionics is so shallow - you are an american, right?

Lol@"axioms and postulates of Socionics." Sounds like somebody's mistaking deductive validity for truth.

What is truth Ashton? What is it definition? truth is reality, truth is the proper description of the facts. Look, is science the search for truth? If you agree that it is, you should really know what science is. What is the definition of science, is it empiricism? Is it an empiricist discipline? Empiricism is about the "sensory components of reality", but look, is science about the "sensory reality". It actually is not. Science, as everything that is human, is inherently metaphysical, abstract, rationalistic, etc. Science can be summarized in a single concept: causality. Cause and Consequence. Causality is like truth, society and moral, it's 100% abstract and rationalistic. Rationalism comes from the word reason, and reasons are causes. Rationalism has always triumphed over Empiricism. Empricism is a walking contradiction and a lot of people don't notice that. As I said before, the phenomena remains always unreachable, we don't have any access to the empirical world. The only thing we have in mind are general significances and representations, abstract essences that makes everything understandable. One proof of this, is that our language is incapable of expressing anything particular of specific, absolutely everything we say and understand is general. Inherently. So, I just want to clarify that people should live up according to their universalistic nature, that is the only one that is real, the only one that is human. We can measure how distanced from the animal kingdom and evolved a human being is by his degree of universalism, abstraction, conceptualization and altruism. If you take a close look at my discourse, since the beginning, you'll see that there isn't even a single contradiction, it's all cohesive and single, because I have real knowledge of what I am talking about.

I'm more wary of altruists with rabid visions of utopia.

Keep thinking this way, you're just expressing that you care only about yourself and don't give a fuck about other people. I think you admit this since the beginning, since you oppose myself so vehemently in my societal philosophy. I'll tell you something, I'm not the first to think this way, I'm sure you know that. My social philosophy, of altruism and feelings denial, is exactly what is sponsored on the bible, by Jesus including (I would like to challenge anyone here who could show me any part of the gospel where Jesus talks from an emotional and subjective perspective, Jesus was an stone cold figure on the gospel, with no emotions, showing only episodes of NERVOUS intensity, and only because of this, he was so good and altruistic), by Bhagavad Gita, by the Hinduism, by the Buddhism, by the Norse, Greek, Egyptian, Canaanite, Babylonian, Sumerian, Chinese and Japanese Mythology, by Brahmanism, by National Socialism (Marxism cannot be included on this list for many reasons), by Socrates, by Plato and by almost the totality of Greek Philosophical tradition. I mean, don't you think you are opposing yourself against a too strong armies? Don't you think that it's a little dumb that you believe more in yourself (and I'm sure you have proved to yourself, in the privacy of your conscience, that you are no way wise) than in all the valid wise men in history? Essentially, there is nothing wrong to be against the massive unanimity, only if you are honest enough to know that you have wisdom. How can a man who is partially sure of his ignorance and partially flattered by the prospect of being wise before the masses can remain coherent in his activism against the Brahmins?

Oh boy. Sublimated family issues eh?

Hahahahaha, you really think that the only aggressors I know are my two relatives? Do you think that in the country I live they are the only Gamma SF around? Weak Ne and Ti, my friend.

Depends on what capabilities you speak of and how their performance is being assessed. Generally I don't think making such attributions to sociotypes is very meaningful because not enough is known about them yet.

This is the problem of people here in this forum, people here live on mild descriptions that are silent in many obvious implications of Socionics functions. If it wasn't me, but Gulenko who was saying all this discourse I'm saying now, would you give him more credit (I'm sure you are going to answer this with sarcasm and scape from the real point)? The Socionics studies and descriptions we have here are utilitarian, and I find it funny that you all limit yourself inside this so immediate and superficial semantic field. You guys don't know anything and never conclude anything beyond the literal texts you have access to. You never transcend the mild literalism of your text interpretations. The level of comprehension here is is that one of the most immediate of a shallow semi-materialistic interpretation of Socionics and Enneagram. You delight in the most vulgar propositions of these systems, what necessarily is also a corruption of the purposefulness of both.

As I said to Pinocchio, the interest here is the same that ******s have on astrology... For finding a date. Egoistical and materialistic use of two absolutely essential and abstract systems. Socionics has absolutely no expression in material world, and you corrupt it by using it for these womanish means.

Essential nature is immutable, but it remains an open question as to what Socionics really tells us about a person's nature.

If it remains a question, it remais a question for you, due to those same reasons I said before, the nature of socionics interpretation of usage that you have here... simply idiotic.

A sound idea, but we don't know the details of how it plays out in reality.

Is it me, or you are contradicting yourself?........ again

Socionics doesn't so much tell us who will be clearer/more objective thinkers.

The function descriptions and implications tell a different story.

There are all kinds of types on this board with shitty reasoning skills and none in any greater relative abundance.

I want to make it clear, that in my analysis, I mostly don't like to base myself on life experience. I don't analyze particular people, but the quality of the thinking process that every type has, it has nothing to do with pragmatical efficiency and reality correspondence. I've NEVER said that ALL infantiles ALWAYS express themselves truthfully and in a factually verifiable way. What I analyze are potentials hidden in every ARCHETYPE, I talk about archetypes, not about particular expression of these archetypes on people, like relying on shitty subjective life experience. "oh, I met Carl, the LII, and he said a lot of crap, thus truthfulness and clear thought is not LII related". This is a blatant fallacy. The inefficient reasoning was experienced in a particular personal representative of LII archetype NOT in the archetype itself. The intellectual inefficiency was perceived on CARL, not on the LII archetype. Lack of intellectual efficiency is a common thing that happens among lesser representatives of NT types. But you'll notice that all LIIs are clear and structured in their thinking, no matter of how intelligent they are, this has nothing to do with the intellectual efficiency of their final conclusion, it's connected to the character and nature of their reasoning. Saying wise things is not something that is always present in the world expressions of a certain type, but wisdom is exclusive for certain types (infantiles) and expresses itself in a spectrum of gradation within the experience of these types representatives.

Socionics probably tells us more about the kinds of malreasoning different types are prone to and how this undermines their acuity. Most of which will be found rooted in a lack of education, experience, intelligence, motivation, or combination thereof.

If socionics tells about malreasoning, it needly also tells about people's good reasonings, you imply that socionics only shows the bad side of everything, as if this distinction was possible in a exclusively egoical perspective. The functions you have represent what you are, and in a purely personal approach, like you do here and like you can see in the functional profile of each type, you cannot draw a distinction of inefficiency and efficiency through their functions. Efficiency and inefficiency are relational parameters of good and bad interaction. Thus good and bad reasoning are not inherent of functions, but happen in the interaction with the world and when we deal with other functions in other people. Certainly, every type is blind toward some layers of the world mechanics, but being efficient or not, is determined by the type of interaction you have with the world.

There are many wrong points here:

Just because something is subjective doesn't necessarily mean it isn't useful or that it couldn't inform us of something about reality. Only that no means exist to objectively verify it. Subjective experience, while obviously unacceptable as a scientific standard, sometimes corresponds to truths which only later become objective fact.

Can you give an example of this? it's obviously a contradiction, since subjectivity can never become objective, thus never becoming universal and abstract, thus never becoming truth. If something is true, it has never been subjective before. What kind of madness is this that tells you that objective-subjective metamorphosis is possible, this implies the possibility of lies becoming truth and truth becoming lies.

Well-developed subjective understanding is also necessary for true objective understanding—else one will be naive to and incapable of recognizing their own implicit biases

.

No way objectivity and subjectivity are not a continuous spectrum of a same practical principle. Biases are derivatives of subjectivism affecting objectivism. It's impossible to be at same time subjectivily and objectivily realized. If it was possible, we would be able to talk about Subjective objectivism and Objective subjectivism and remain logic.

How many people in these fields have you typed? If not a significant number, then you can't reasonably say.

What's the point in typing many people if all people you type, Ashton, inside and outside the scientific scene are mistyped?

Granted, I do mostly come across NTs in typing scientists/mathematicians. Feynman and Faraday come to mind as EIE physicists.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..........

Michael Faraday an EIE?!?!?!?!?! I really really laughed at this. You mean, Michael Faraday like... a Freddy Mercury, or like a Gilly... You made my day, I mean, my night! A Beta NF physicist... I'll tell you something Ashton, drop the idea of becoming a socionicst, do it please, I'm telling this for your own welfare, if you proceed with this idea, you'll do an immense disfavor for you and for everyone else. I mean, am I talking to Ahston??? The same guy who types Brian as an ILE?

Look, Michael Faraday could never be an EIE and be a good physicist at same time. A so important figure for Electro-magnetic studies being someone with really weak Ti, Ne and Te? You're not talking to someone who is ignorant on socionics. Michael Faraday was, probably, an alpha NT (I've never studied his life, but if you really want I can do some research). About Feynman, he was a 7, this is totally evident. 7s are never EIEs, 7s repress the emotional center and are from the mental nucleus of enneagram. Now, tell me, how can you reasonably explain he being both a 7 and an EIE... sounds inherently incongruent.

I do think Faraday's notebooks reveal interesting properties of information metabolism utilized outside of its conventional context of emotive mechanics.

Nice, we can study it together someday, but I'm sure that this impossible, an EIE never uses so moderately Fe to the extent that this function would only be remotely implied in his notebooks.

Either way, most NTs obviously do not end up as scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, etc.

Of course not, my friend, there is an intratype hierarchy of illumination, soconics doesn't deal with it well. But Enneagram does deal with it, it's called integration. The very integrated ones will answer "The Calling".

We should be glad. For most of them are normal people with normal professions who give fuckall about arcane matters of analytic logic, methodological rationalism, scientific epistemology, einstein vs. bohr, free will vs. determinism, nature vs. nurture, capitalism vs. socialism, abstract theorems of blah blah, grandiose pursuit of 'truth', and other such lame shit intellectuals masturbate over (yeah I'm guilty too shut up).

Oh wow, OK. But don't expect I'll give you any credit in your arguments and socionics typings after this passionate confession of irrational tendencies. How do you expect from anyone any kind of credit if you patently despises all the most pure exercises of rationality? Your whole credibility becomes a Paradox.

Actually, many F types tend to be more genuinely rational than many mere ostensibly rational T types, especially NTs. The latter can be oblivious to how their own stunted personal feelings infect and corrupt their thinking with bias. Whereas F types can often have better awareness in keeping both spheres separate.

Well, we cannot call rational someone who listen to their emotions. As I said, emotions are the sworn enemies of reason. From where reason comes, there are bodies for afflicting if with emotions. Look, reason and perception come from outside the body, not from inside. Thus they are dissociated from emotions, that come from inside the body. Reason is Generalist and comes from outside to inside, like illumination, like an epiphany. Emotions come from inside to outside and contaminate and tarnish your whole apprehension of the external reality, since in stead of letting the outside truth on your soul, it insanely impose your own ego on reality, your own misconception and internal lies on the facts that occur outside yourself. Emotions are necessarily knowledge destroyers.

Nah, ESI is usually 6 or 1.

One more demonstration of Ashtonian brilliancy. Please Ashton, I think you should revise your enneagram books. ESIs as 6s... they are not 1s either, but it's much closer typing. Ask Maritsa if she sees herself as 6 or a 1. @s are like ESIs, 2s repress the mental center (Ne PoLR), have as their main nucleus the emotional one (Fi based) and have the instinctive center as their auxiliary center (Se as creative function). Read the description of 2s, it's totally Fi based.

And I'm glad isn't altruism, else I might seriously have to consider migrating to an quadra.

Yeah, it's not Fi that makes you project an image of sympathy and similitude upon other people's soul, it's .

All internal functions (Nx and Fx) generally have a hand in that.

No way, but I'll explain that later.

This almost sounds pornographic and I feel dirty reading it. Gonna leave it alone.

Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see

All wrong.

All right, if it's wrong, prove it.

Chaos <3

You are inherently contradicting your presumption of being learned and versed in anything by this kind of statement.

Hardly.

Oh really? Would make the favor of clarifying your misconceptions?

Altruism, universalism, and collective awareness all sounds pretty gross.

You have weak Ne, of course it sounds so.

Technically Japan wasn't a contiguous state until the 1600s when all the warring feudal kingdoms were united. And it wasn't until after a few centuries of isolationism that a Japanese empire came about in the latter 1800s. Which by my count, only took the Americans a grand total of ~3.5 years to completely demolish into unconditional surrender—near single-handedly routing the Japanese army and navy in most major battles and reducing their cities to dust with incendiary bombing, topped off with a few nukes. All while fighting a 2-front war. Lol.

You are mistaken and mislead here, you didn't manage to interpret my text properly. Why the fuck you are talking about state? I was talking about nation and these are not equivalent terms. I've also studied Japanese history, and even your speculation on this so called disintegration of the state is wrong, you ignore periods like the Nara Period, and Japan is the oldest empire on earth, the administrative state was partially decentralized, but NEVER the NATIONAL STATE. You have to know the difference between national and administrative state. The national state of Germany existed since the beginning of middle ages, but administrative state of Germany only appeared in 1871. The national state of Japan has a really looooooooooooog history dating back from immemorial times. Even during Sengoku period it was there. Look, during Sengoku period, that is considered the period of most decentralization of power, Japan managed to engage external wars of invasion mobilized as a WHOLE nation against the Kingdom of Joseon and the Ming states, this was an effort made under the auspices of the National State. Why would I praise the administrative state of Japan since it is inherently an transitory utilitarian institution that exsisted only for serving the interest of the National State, thus inferior to it? My object of appraisal was the old Japanese nation, source of all altruism, civilization and grandeur. An already deceased nation (they died in 1945). If you think that altruistic nations are all about always winning, you are wrong, they are about "always surviving and remaining", and exactly when Japan denied its altruistic nature, their decline and destruction became an unstoppable prospect.

Haha, okay. I'll give you that one. If only because "Beta=Mordor" is lol.

Think again about it. Tolkien was vehemently anti-democratic and for absolute monarchies.

Uh, because its the only way one actually can care for others? You can't 'care' about people you don't know, that you've never had any kind of contact with or exposure to or knowledge of. Even worse, you can't 'care' for a figment of your imagination called 'humanity', some appeal to an abstract amalgamated mass of hypothetical someones whose existences you're unaware of, that you've never spoken to, listened to, affected or been affected by, understood or been understood by. It's a free-floating idea disconnected from the reality of any actual person. There's no empathy in that; it's an interpersonal null. In the final analysis, it's the most depraved selfishness there is.

Oh no, you again with shallow and materialistic interpretation of reality. I do care for humanity, because it's the only thing that's real, egos don't exist, only the universal consciousness (a concept that exists in every single Indian religion and also in the Bible and in Plato) is the truth. Humanity is myself, I am humanity, it's the only part of myself that is truthful, it's also yourself Ashton, the only problem is that you are not really aware of it (One day you'll be like me, in future incarnations). You think that to care about everyone is to provide semi-physical or physical assistance to all the people (what also includes emotional), what is necessarily insane. The only thing I care is humanity, because it is the platform on which all my life comprehension and all my personal action is based on, it's my base of direction and consideration in life, the solid foundation of my philosophy... Humankind. There isn't any kind of wisdom and knowledge distanced from it, distant from real love. You just proved by confession that everything I've been saying since the beginning is true. You are loveless person, in the same way most people on this forum are.

What virtue exists in someone who doesn't recognize his own limitations when he so clearly faces them? These same ignorant people will always insist in teaching the Sages and in trying to sit on the Throne of Odin. Most certainly, when comes the day when these gentiles are let to do so, it's the most clear token of general degeneration.

[Absurd]

...

Yea, I know you're all about pie and fruit.

[crazedrat]

Look what is in the right side, beside the emotional center of the enneagram. Look who is in the left side, protecting the mental nucleus of the enneagram. Draw your own conclusions taking into account that nothing is made by chance, everything has a meaning and interconnects with higher truths. God does not play dice, my friend.

You are a fraud, a charlatan, and a poseur. Your ploys of righteousness are nothing more than deceptive attempts to gain access to power. You are an emotional poison, your words are trickery, and you are not entitled to any form of recognition.

What do you think about rationalizing about the fallacy of universal equality and equivalence?

The dualistic relationship between subject & object is the most basic principle in all of philosophy. It permeates throughout every aspect of philosophical inquiry. A fundamentalist, mechanical view of reality like yours breaks down in the face of relativism.

Universal equivalence : relativism :: your post : fundamentalism

Any honest attempt at finding truth must try to reconcile both perspectives. That is inescapable.

Funny, you don't understand the nature of the subjectivity/objectivity dichotomy.

Ironic..

[Skeptic]

rofl. Socrates was probably IEI.

ergh explain

Also, I agree that Nietzsche is EIE>IEI.

...

It's subtle, but I think you're criticizing certain quadras for being unskilled in certain things. It may be imagined, but I think you may be a little biased/racist...

Anywho, keep in mind that subjective and personal experience are a part of the objective whole; one cannot make observations about things without actually having learned and experienced them himself. For example, one may know all about the blueprints/reasoning/systems behind running, say, an oil rig, but it's a necessity that they've actually been on an oil rig and participated in its running before he can claim to be an expert on subject.
That is to say that you have no right to claim you are an expert on Asian culture if you haven't phsyically visited the parts of Asia in question. Elsewise you're basing your analysis on potentially inaccurate or inconsistent things like reading material/research/etc

[xerx]

A world without Betas and Gammas is not only desirable but the ultimate objective of humanity, the total annihilation of the members of decisive quadras is an essential agenda engraved on the soul of every single human being. The extinction of these weak and feeble men is the only direction that our spirits take in our journey. This high command is imprinted in the very psyche of Betas and Gammas themselves, self-destruction is what they actually claim deep inside, it's the hidden agenda of these both quadras that don't know the meaning of the word sacrifice. It's the ironical secret of these people: inferior, faint, spiritless and fundamentally defective.

This forum doesn't need any more quasi-racist crap strewn about. Most of the information is wrong if you just read a bit about socionics quadras, and more to the point, this is exactly the kind of thing that turns people off the theory.

This is your only warning.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Quote Unquote]

A STUDY ON FALLACIES:

This forum doesn't need any more quasi-racist crap strewn about.

Inverse ad hominem

An inverse ad hominem argument praises a source in order to add support for that source's argument or claim.[citation needed] A fallacious inverse ad hominem argument may go something like this:

"That man was smartly-dressed and charming, so I'll accept his argument that I should vote for him"

As with regular ad hominem arguments, not all cases of inverse ad hominem are fallacious. Consider the following:

"Elizabeth has never told a lie in her entire life, and she says she saw him take the bag. She must be telling the truth."

Here the arguer is not suggesting we accept Elizabeth's argument, but her testimony. She being an honest person is relevant to the truth of the conclusion (that he took the bag), just as she having bad eyesight (a regular case of ad hominem) would give reason not to believe her. However, the last part of the argument is false even if the premise is true, since having never told a lie before does not mean she isn't now.

Appeal to authority is a type of inverse ad hominem argument.

Most of the information is wrong if you just read a bit about socionics quadras, and more to the point, this is exactly the kind of thing that turns people off the theory.

Argumentum Ad Populum

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

This is your only warning.

Argumentum Ad Baculum

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.

A fallacious logical argument based on argumentum ad baculum generally has the following argument form:

If x accepts P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.

This form of argument is an informal fallacy, because the attack Q may not necessarily reveal anything about the truth value of the premise P. This fallacy has been identified since the Middle Ages by many philosophers. This is a special case of argumentum ad consequentiam, or "appeal to consequences".

[Skeptic]

It's sad to see that some lunatic obsessed with old books and an intro to philosophy class can resolve that genocide is justifiable through socionics.

Rick's site reviewed a Russian article talking about this very thing. This person is a good example of how socionics can escalate to dangerous prejudice if let into the hands of the masses.

[crazedrat]

Not every conversation is a formal debate. Not every conversation needs to be explored logically.
I have seen a schizophrenic use philosophy to help compartmentalize murderous impulses, like this person is doing, in this same manner.

[silverchris9]

ergh explain

Also, I agree that Nietzsche is EIE>IEI.

Well, I think it's almost certain that he's an Ni-ego: he has all the classic signs of being very introverted, spacey, stopping in the middle of a walk to stare into space. When he's satisfied with a definition, as in the Meno, it's always an esoteric, weird one. And while he's a philosopher, if you read the dialogues, it's almost certain that he's an ethical type, with his loved by everybody, Socrates is always great at a party thing. And it's in how he interacts with people, super curteous but then cutting them with a slight, this very subtle mocking that he does. In the Symposium, when he wants to explain his theory of love, he doesn't set forth with an explanation like everybody else, he tells an allegorical story. Now, Symposium is Socrates the literary character, not Socrates the man, but we don't know what Socrates the man was like, so, yeah. I can try to come up with better individual examples later/in a different thread.

[Airman]

Just one thing here, Ammonius was not being RACIST, because Betas and Gammas are not RACES, they are QUADRAS.

To say that Ammonius was racist or quasi-racist is obviously wrong since he was not referring to annihilation of some race [as in 'let´s kill all blacks'] but the annihilation of two of the Socion´s Quadras.

I do not support this view of his, but this has absolutely nothing to do with racism.

[xerx]

If you can only conceptualize mass-murder as wrong if it's done to a race, you have serious problems. This and racism have almost the same effect and overall connotation as far as I'm concerned.

[xerx]

Appeal to authority

lol. As opposed to whose authority, yours?

Argumentum Ad Populum

Saying you've misunderstood socionics quadras is not an appeal to the masses.

Argumentum Ad Baculum

This is the smartest thing you've said so far. Keep it in mind.

[Suz]

If you can only conceptualize mass-murder as wrong if it's done to a race, you have serious problems. This and racism have almost the same effect and overall connotation as far as I'm concerned.

well spoken, jxrtes.

[tire iron]

I skipped over 96 percent of your posts, Ammonius. Too airy for me.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

IEI 6 is not uncommon... it's impossible! 6's are people of the mind and intellectual center, the nervous and fear nucleus of enneagram. Incompatible with IEIs... IEIs are always, and absolutely always 4s. Anybody who types himself differently doesn't know much about enneagram.

I'm not a 4. When people try to tell you who they are, why not believe them? You just want to debate for the sake of debating. If you actually were right, I wouldn't mind. But you're not and I'm tired of it. Why are so many Americans this way? 'Ooh I punched somebody just to do it.' It's like there's no meaning or point behind anything they do they're just running around like hyperscared chickens with their heads cut off.

Take a fucking CHILL PILL dude. Deep down, what's really going on here is you just enjoy riling people up because you live a pathetic middle class existance with no meaning. I'm sorry, but stop bugging people.

[Absurd]

This guy isn't dead yet ? Make me king for a day, jxrtes. You can always say it was by accident.

[Airman]

If you can only conceptualize mass-murder as wrong if it's done to a race, you have serious problems. This and racism have almost the same effect and overall connotation as far as I'm concerned.

No dude! Who would respond, on the streets, to an appeal to 'annihilate all betas and gammas' from some guy? Nobody even knows what betas and gammas are! Only people who know socionics - which are few compared to general population. So you would never have any serious response to this thing unless this guy could somehow create a mafia of 'killing socionerds' - you probably agree with me that most people who know socionics wouldn´t be able to kill an insect so nerdy they are, now talk about killing real people... impossible... this guy´s theme is totally impossible, if he wants to 'annihilate all betas and gammas' it´s just LOLOLOLOL because WHO THE FUCK KNOWS WHAT BETAS AND GAMMAS ARE IN THE REAL WORLD, TO BEGIN WITH... IF SOCIONICS BECAME VERY POPULAR LIKE THE CONCEPT OF RACES, IF THE CONCEPT OF QUADRAS BECAME WELL-KNOWN AND POPULARIZED AMONG THE MASSES, THEN YOU COULD TALK ABOUT LOTS OF SIMILARITIES AND SAME EFFECTS.

The most he´d get is like 5 nerd guys who never fucked a woman trying to make bombs to kill some betas somewhere and they´d probably be so unskilled they´d be arrested before they could do anything because they never managed to fuck a woman in the first place.

[Absurd]

So you would never have any serious response to this thing unless this guy could somehow create a mafia of 'killing socionerds'

Or a Delta Nazi Mafia fighting betas and gammas on the streets.

[ashlesha]

So you would never have any serious response to this thing unless this guy could somehow create a mafia of 'killing socionerds'

[crazedrat]

No dude! Who would respond, on the streets, to an appeal to 'annihilate all betas and gammas' from some guy? Nobody even knows what betas and gammas are! Only people who know socionics - which are few compared to general population. So you would never have any serious response to this thing unless this guy could somehow create a mafia of 'killing socionerds' - you probably agree with me that most people who know socionics wouldn´t be able to kill an insect so nerdy they are, now talk about killing real people... impossible... this guy´s theme is totally impossible, if he wants to 'annihilate all betas and gammas' it´s just LOLOLOLOL because WHO THE FUCK KNOWS WHAT BETAS AND GAMMAS ARE IN THE REAL WORLD, TO BEGIN WITH... IF SOCIONICS BECAME VERY POPULAR LIKE THE CONCEPT OF RACES, IF THE CONCEPT OF QUADRAS BECAME WELL-KNOWN AND POPULARIZED AMONG THE MASSES, THEN YOU COULD TALK ABOUT LOTS OF SIMILARITIES AND SAME EFFECTS.

The most he´d get is like 5 nerd guys who never fucked a woman trying to make bombs to kill some betas somewhere and they´d probably be so unskilled they´d be arrested before they could do anything because they never managed to fuck a woman in the first place.

Completely irrelevant. No one believes he is going to actually kill people, and that isn't the issue. His shitty ideas are the issue.