I'm Curious

[Exodus]

I am not the rigid, tradition following IJ. I have no set of rules with which to live by I just live and reflect day by day. I don't see a future for myself or even care to make one, I see it all happening inevitably and I take it as it comes. Subjective, I know, but I if there's one thing I'm certain about when it comes to typology, it's that I am IP. I don't have the will to motivate myself to do anything, even while being in a neutral position in life.

fwiw, I identify with this 100%.

[Jinxi]

fwiw, I identify with this 100%.

Yeah. That's an LII thing.

[Exodus]

Quoting the Bible i.e. referencing an outside source to see what is acceptable ethical practice would be the work of extraverted ethics actually - Fe. Introverted ethics is formulating your own ethical stand point as it is a Ji funcion. This is what I meant to say that I have never seen a discussion where you would be defending your own individual ethical judgments as types would do. Taking on what is collectively considered to be ethical such, as what the Bible says, is expression of Fe.

This is absolute bullshit, and ridiculously biased.

[EyeSeeCold]

We haven't engaged much in argument yet, so I suppose we'll see if that holds true.

I forgot about our little political tango. The valuing of power dynamics should be clear in this post:

Well, this is an interwebz forum, not a political state, so I don't think the analogy is all that appropriate… but I suppose I'll comment on the philosophical issues you brought up.

True. But all the elements are there. All you need for politics is power and people. Except "death and injury" equate to "bans and butthurt".

There is no politics without power. Period. Even in democracies someone has actual physical power to destroy or cause harm. This is what causes people to seek peaceful and equal governments. The administrators' / owners' power lies in having the power to shut down the site. Though, they also have an indirect political responsibility to their state(the forum). The government has the final say in governmental matters, but the state is always free to revolt, if they do not agree. However, if the people of the state revolt against the government, they forfeit their rights provided by the government and the privilege of the state itself.

Lol@deeming the state a "privilege." Spoken like a good, submissive slave, believing in and defending the righteousness of your own enslavement. Bravo.

Can you point out the part where I am submissive?

The state is property of the government. If you don't agree with the government, you override the state and commit treason(the unified term is "revolution"). Note I'm not speaking about the land and space itself. I'm referring to citizenship, public services, government institutions, laws etc; the organization on top of it all.

That doesn't mean you can't argue and compel to state to change its ways - there is just a mutual agreement that overall, they hold the utmost political power. And if you don't like it, revolt. It is a matter of necessitation and compromise.

I think you fail to realize most Americans think this way, if not explicitly. We are still accepting the two-party system indicating Americans would rather submit to the Republicans/Democrats than vote in a revolution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident....That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Under artificial rule:
The government holds the ultimate political power
The people hold the ultimate volitional power

The government respects the wills of the people to keep political power.
The people respect the decisions of the government to keep their privileges.

The government should not accept the will of the people just because the people do not agree. The people must keep in mind that the state(forum) is a privilege, not a right. As long as people are willing to live inside the state, they are subject to its government. By accepting the will of the people unmoderated, the government surrenders its political power over the people. This is what the offending members have been doing, they have been pressuring the government to surrender its political power. With no political power, there is no government. With no government, there is anarchy - chaos.

Conventional 'wisdom' assumes that the absence of a state would lead to disorderly chaos and upheaval… but despite the popularity of such gospel, there isn't much in the historical record to bear it out. Further, for their part, States themselves have been the biggest perpetrators of mass instability and chaos. Along these lines, there's decent contemporary evidence suggesting that a stateless society can at least be better than a society with a malignant state, and that a central government isn't a prerequisite for societal organization.

Use your imagination and think more broadly. There are many, many different ways that people, firms, communities, and what not, can and do come together to coordinate and work collaboratively with one another—all without a state authority.

While I agree government is not innocent in the case of being violent and deadly itself, in the age of materialism, anarchy is largely impractical without the potential for a radical and concentrated accumulation of power and wealth. In my opinion, I see a definite trend towards another monarchy.

Bring your gestapo deathsquads.

I'll die before I let someone kill me.

They're not mine; you're the one sermonizing statolatrist dogma. I don't believe in that bullshit lol. Statism is just another form of religion in my eyes. People who believe in the necessity of government are on par IMO with people who believe in the existence of a big ill-tempered bearded man in the sky.

I'm not a fascist. As I pointed out earlier, it's a matter of necessitation and compromise. Yes, we shouldn't let government have so much lee way over citizens, even if the government controls the state. We should fight for rights. But the powers of a citizen are legally limited to campaigning. As a citizen, outright declaring the government comply with a political demand through volition is absurd, if you still wish to be a citizen of that state. You must do it through politics, or else you're advocating volitional power vs political power, which is a revolt, in essence. This is what members here were doing in the case of the recent banning.

Second, I never claimed the government was a necessity. I merely pointed out that the absence of one is "anarchy - chaos". Again, it may not be continuously violent, but at any moment the distribution of power could suddenly become concentrated and destructive(not unlike government), which is too unpredictable for any expectations of peaceful progress.

Third, that was just a contradictory joke.

[EyeSeeCold]

Of course not, because it isn't specifically type-related. Nor am I surprised that you in particular performed as poorly as you did. When a orientation becomes so immersed in itself and its own justifcations without regard to rest of the world, it makes sense that the person's logical abilities would be operationally subpar.

They are not even the same approach, how can you subject one to the other?

It's stupid and unnecessary. Use Model A, Reinin dichotomies, type profiles, IE semantics, or something like these.

Seriously, if the crux of your self-typing hinges on a flimsy supposition like 'accentuation', then you're probably mistypd.

As this may all be situational, accentuation is still a factor. I'm not proposing it as if it were the main focal point.

Sane people tend to facilitate some measure of responsible distance between themselves and their own beliefs. In order to keep themselves reasonably in check, such that they can evaluate the integrity of their beliefs and whether they are right/wrong, without falling victim to dogmatism and unrealistic POVs.

Right, but aren't beliefs taken for granted once they have consistently been demonstrated to be accurate?

It's a basic component of survival, you assume positions once they have been found consistent.

Oh lookie what I just found:

I understand partly as "Business" and "" partly as "Understanding".

In order for Cre "X" to work, Dem "Y" must be assumed.

In order to do "Business", or work with Socionics, I have to assume "that I'm ILI and that my understanding of Socionics is solid".

Pointless. This demonstrates nothing to me at all.

It demonstrates the probability that I'm actually still ILI. I see you've begun to become set in a bias.

I'm sure there's some correlations out there between types/IEs and certain professions, but I don't pretend anybody knows enough re: Socionics typology to have a truly realistic appraisal of what aptitudes are correlated. And the fact that one finds such a diverse variety of types in every vocational field, means that typing by skill sets or ability isn't a very meaningful indicator in general.

Evidence?

I don't think you have done enough tests to claim a "diverse variety", I realize that different types can be in the same field(but more likely for a different reason and with a different approach), but for all we know every subfield of some random area is probably consistently dominated by a few types.

[EyeSeeCold]

Remember this? Krig agreed and you agreed on Dialectical-Algorithmic.

Ni deals with the images and other snapshots of Se, attaching meaning to them; constructing mental models and playing around with them mentally. Through this you perceive developments by recreating scenarios. This is mainly an Ni dominant thing, but if everyone can use all functions, perhaps non Ni egos don't have enough dimensions.

Hmm. This actually sounds like it might be more related to the Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognitive Style. ILI and EIE would think in this manner, but LIE and IEI would use the more random and chaotic Vortical-Synergetic style.

Holographic types (LII, IEE, SLE, ESI) also build mental models, but of a different kind. In a way, you could say that Dialectical-Algorithmic types build dynamic mental models, while Holographic types build static mental models.

(BTW I made a quick reformat of that page into mediawiki, here).

I agree w/ these characterizations. And I'd say I don't really visualize mental 'models' per se. I do visualize objects/situations/events vividly w/ the look and feel of real-life (coincidentally, we did some interesting mental visualization experiments of sorts in the chatbox somewhat recently). But I find that whenever I visualize something, it tends to rapidly fluctuate automatically under its own momentum, expanding or spiraling off into different directions. It's not really something I have sufficient control over to actively model; within a few seconds it can easily be 4-5 steps from wherever it started. Which I think goes along with being a VS type.

[EyeSeeCold]

Your point?

I was describing the way I mentally reflect on information. Krig proposed DA, you agreed.

But now you are holding to Holographical-Panaromic.

I will recognize what you said about the descriptions being styles of thinking and not necessarily exclusive attributes, but if I was describing the way I usually mentally reflect, then I must be Dialectical-Algorithmic, if I take you two's agreements to be definitive judgments. Or else there is conflict of judgments. Were you right, then, or are you right, now? Which is it?

I heard that Minus elements are about "creating an excess" of IM elements

LII's and ILE's overwhelm others with - by excess of logic, overanalysing things

LIE's and ILI's overwhelm others with - by excess of activity, workaholism or trading-like behaviours

[on ILI's laziness and this proposed Te activity]

I mean "mechanical" and "mathematical" activity.

This too. I think my activity on this site can attest to that.

My post rate here is:
Oct 2010
Posts: 1,656

1656 posts/6 months = 276 posts per month

My post rate at INTPf is:
Aug 2010
Posts: 2,725

2,725 posts/8 months = 340.6 posts per month

Also:

91~ posts of mine are "non-socionics related spam"[at the time of this post]


Criteria:
Non-socionics+intentional spam

Notes:
Several intentional spam Socionics posts were included
Some unhelpful, non-spam posts were included
~1405 posts of mine are Socionics-related or are not spam
I am a 6%~ spammer
[at the time of this post]

Would an LII go through all this trouble to get the facts, even if the request wasnt serious? I knew user Ssmall was trolling, but I was interested, myself, in my own stats.

Don't LIIs ignore ? This information would be irrelevant to them.

[EyeSeeCold]

You aren't thinking clearly, are you?

You don't have a main focal point to propose beyond your child-like dependency of romanticizing yourself as ILI.

Yes I do, it is that what you are seeing is my demonstrative nature and not my Ego.

Nope. Anything I believe is open to testing and potential falsification at all times.

Very well.

You are one dense son of a bitch.

Stop citing yourself.

Citing myself may be fallacious but the conclusion of "ILIs assuming to work with " is not dependent on that.

-Argument from fallacy

No, that test is just a piece of shit.

Yes yes, but it still demonstrates the probability of ILI.

It's not as if I received ESE, SEI, SLE etc.

There's no way 'prove' either proposal, dumbass. It's pointless to argue about on evidentiary grounds.

Wasn't looking for proof, but rather acknowledgement.

Stop with your ad hominems. Or can't you argue like a mature adult?

More -Te
[quote]

Press any key to continue . . .

C:\INTP>eyeseecold>dir \communication

Directory of C:\communication

08/12/2010 01:13 PM____<DIR>______.
08/12/2010 01:13 PM____<DIR>______..
08/12/2010 01:14 PM__________30,501_intro.exe
08/12/2010 01:16 PM______________10_criticism.exe
08/12/2010 01:16 PM_______________1_laugh.bat
08/12/2010 01:16 PM__________72,059_witticism.exe
08/12/2010 01:17 PM______35,691,068_typology argument.exe
08/12/2010 01:19 PM _________56,829_philosophize.exe
08/12/2010 01:20 PM_______________1_smiley.bat
_______________7 File<s> 5850469 bytes
_______________2 dir<s> 1,073,741,766,034 bytes free


Press any key to continue . . .



C:\INTP>eyeseecold> start intro.exe


Hey, welcome to the forums. :)

[EyeSeeCold]

I was agreeing with Krig about something, not you. You just happened to be an incidental bystander.


You can assert that you're D-A all you want, but I'm not seeing it.

You agreed with Krig, Krig proposed I was Dialetical-Algorithmic.
Therefore you agree that I was Dialetical-Algorithmic.

Wtf does any of this have to do with anything…? Stupid weirdo.

It's evidence of my activity, it has to do with my creative .
:

LIE's and ILI's overwhelm others with - by excess of activity, workaholism or trading-like behaviours

Yes, as an LII you ignore it consistently.

This has not been proved as fact or relational fact yet, nor is there evidence of its accuracy beyond biased interpretations of my presentations.

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm not going to argue these silly games with you any further. You've made a great case for being LII.

Or rather you're giving up because you see the conflicting evidence that goes against your bias?

I've exhibited many of the traits of the semantics of the IM aspects and you've ignored them all.

Extraverted logic

THEMES SUB-THEMES

• exact knowledge - correlating names with phenomena
• - substantiating things
• - units of measurement (as units of information facilitating the accuracy of information transferral)
• - clarifying questions
• - paraphrasing in order to ensure exact transfer of information
• objective phenomena and laws
• objects' dynamics; controlled processes - production; technologies
• - evaluating quality; process indicators
• - objects' operational characteristics
• - the operational characteristics of people as objects

SPEECH PECULIARITIES

• listing and repeating
• complex sentences using words such as: "then..., then..., then...," "and then..., after which...," or "which"; strings of causes and effects
• "mechanical" similies and metaphors
• describing the interaction and reactions of people using technical terms and analogies
• indicative pronouns ("this," "that") always followed by the name of the object
• illustrating one's reasoning with examples

DOMINANT FIELDS OF ACTIVITY AND TOPICS OF CONVERSATION

• optimizing actions and processes
• correct actions in various situations
• clarifying information
• perfecting old and inventing new methods and forms of activity
• new constructive applications of objects in a concrete situation

Some of the bold parts refer to my Fighting Styles concept. Others are characteristics I've shown, especially in those mechanical quotes above about the statistics of my posting and my representation of the MS DOS Command Prompt.



It's cool.

I won't commit an argument from silence, my type is still in question.

[EyeSeeCold]

No, I got bored of you not defending your case and watching you dig yourself into an ever deeper hole of self-deception. And frankly, the more you reveal of yourself in these exchanges, the more I seem to find myself disgusted by you as a person, and I don't have the stomach for it.

Translation: Yes.

[EyeSeeCold]

The focus on one's hidden agenda (better known as the mobilizing function) is also manifested in a "patting yourself on the back" way, when you are reassuring others that you are actually good in doing something, but it's painfully obvious to others that you are above all reassuring yourself and not doing a good job at it - and by doing that, you end up behaving in a pathetic way.

: behavior aimed at showing how popular and liked by the crowd you are, but that is actually making you look like an ass.

: unshakeable and stubborn defense of ideas and beliefs against all opposition, with unwillingness to even discuss the possibility of their not being correct

: unshakeable and stubborn unwillingness to compromise on personal behavior and principles against all opposition in a social situation

: behavior aimed at showing how competent you are in handling practical and financial affairs, or in how much knowledge in a particular subject you have, but painfully focusing on non-essentials to the point made

: unshakeable belief that you know exactly what is going to happen in your life in a given situation, or precipitated action since you know that "now is the time to act", but ending up shooting your own foot in both cases

: behavior aimed at showing how successful, rich, or physically strong and brave and confrontational you are, when others can see you're none of them

: showing off how wiser you are than others in taking care of your health by good food and avoiding personal risks, but making you look like a paranoid pussy-wimp. Also, an essentially unphysical person trying to show off how they master daily details in administration, maintainance, housekeeping, etc

: behavior aiming at showing how original and creative you can be, but making too much out of obvious and trivial ideas.

So if you see someone behaving in a pathetic way, just remember -- on other occasions, it's you doing it.

[Simon Ssmall]

Hehe, seems more people already see it as pointless. Oh, and trust me ESC, it is not because of your "convincing" "evidence" .

[silke]

Ti and Fi in leading position produce same effect of defending own principles, reasoning and judgements. This is not jurisdiction of only HA. Only differences is that HA tends to be exercised crudely while in leading position it tends to make for a more compelling argument.

If IJ personality is high on introversion scale with weak creative function, such a person can be very stubborn in their convictions. It will be a case of a strong introvert who will often try to impose their inner world onto outer world and change this world to reflect what is acceptable to their inner framework of beliefs rather than adapting to the outside, absorbing new information, and readjusting their thinking.

[ashlesha]

i think i understand the nature of Ji a little better after reading this thread.

[EyeSeeCold]

Ti and Fi in leading position produce same effect of defending own principles, reasoning and judgements. This is not jurisdiction of only HA. Only differences is that HA tends to be exercised crudely while in leading position it tends to make for a more compelling argument.

I know, but HA defense is more implicit than Leading. I think this is a strong case, as you have said, leading position would have a "more compelling argument". I haven't convinced anyone of anything. Why? Because the only access to good judgment we have is in the nature of - by the classification of my behavior here. And it's extremely difficult for me to argue soundly when coming from the Self, especially when something such as my type(which I already solidified) in something ambiguous and elusive as Socionics typology. I've already pointed out that the perspective of the argument causes one to switch between and . The former where the principles or premises have been agreed on and the specific case is being argued; and the latter where the people involved in the argument must present their perspective and explain their reasoning. I cannot produce such a compelling argument, when I am of the attitude that I am on the more accurate side of the disagreement, yet I arrived to the conclusion irrationally.

If IJ personality is high on introversion scale with weak creative function, such a person can be very stubborn in their convictions. It will be a case of a strong introvert who will often try to impose their inner world onto outer world and change this world to reflect what is acceptable to their inner framework of beliefs rather than adapting to the outside, absorbing new information, and readjusting their thinking.

I haven't tried to impose anything on anyone. I'm still laid back here, except that I still think ILI>LII.

i think i understand the nature of Ji a little better after reading this thread.

Glad I could help.

Hehe, seems more people already see it as pointless. Oh, and trust me ESC, it is not because of your "convincing" "evidence" .

Sure OK.

[Exodus]

: unshakeable and stubborn defense of ideas and beliefs against all opposition, with unwillingness to even discuss the possibility of their not being correct

WOW THAT'S NOT BIASED AT ALL!

[Crispy]

If you haven't noticed yet he was talking about hidden agendas (ie IXFps)

[ashlesha]

llol

[Exodus]

If you haven't noticed yet he was talking about hidden agendas (ie IXFps)

yeah, I remember that now. Even more inaccurate, IMO

[ashlesha]

bump

[Jinxi]

He'll just close the thread because he can't stand being labelled an LII.

[EyeSeeCold]

bump

Well, I agree, but that still doesn't prove anything.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Put it to a poll, my niggler.

[jughead]

Some people think you're TiNe because you're interested in mental masturbation. Exact same thing happened to Aiss. Both wrong.

ESC's "masturbation" is few and far between compared to LII's like labcoat and Tcaud. It's also usually not as well formed as a "perfect" ti model is more of a mechanism, similar to ashton vs ile's. Quasi-identity again i think.

[Aiss]

Okay, I've so far said I don't have much of an opinion on your type (except for the Architect dispute and your seeming identification with this character, but it's just a very weak clue and no real argument), but by the last page of this thread (read just now) I must say I'm fairly convinced of LII - from your own posts, not others' arguments, which are merely their own opinions, as you rightly pointed out. Sorry, but IMO Ashton is spot on in this case - the more you try to prove your supposed type, the more you show your real one. I don't have any more time at the moment to put all my thoughts about it into words (and I'm too lazy), but a part of it is how much your posts in this thread indicate characteristics of introverted thinking, as per Jung. Perhaps it's unrealistic to suggest it, but I think if you could try and distant yourself to what you said here, you'll see it as well.

Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486] disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate.

[EyeSeeCold]

Okay, I've so far said I don't have much of an opinion on your type (except for the Architect dispute and your seeming identification with this character, but it's just a very weak clue and no real argument), but by the last page of this thread (read just now) I must say I'm fairly convinced of LII - from your own posts, not others' arguments, which are merely their own opinions, as you rightly pointed out. Sorry, but IMO Ashton is spot on in this case - the more you try to prove your supposed type, the more you show your real one. I don't have any more time at the moment to put all my thoughts about it into words (and I'm too lazy), but a part of it is how much your posts in this thread indicate characteristics of introverted thinking, as per Jung. Perhaps it's unrealistic to suggest it, but I think if you could try and distant yourself to what you said here, you'll see it as well.

Alright. Let's analyze what you said: "the more you try to prove your supposed type, the more you show your real one."

Now I'd agree with this in a sort of "the real you comes out under pressure" type of thinking, except that we have, in Socionics, the idea of Ego, Super-Ego, Super-Id and Id. And instead of me showing my "true type", from my point of view, what is happening is me resorting to my Id because of compromising ways I have been approached. I mean it would make more sense that I'm an ILI resorting to the Id rather than an LII who seems "off" in his own Ego.

And yes I acknowledge some similarties to Introverted Thinking as per Jung, but the fact of the matter is - ILI carries Introverted Thinking just as much as LII. That's why they are called Quasi-Identicals, LII has 4D Ni and ILI has 4D Ti. It can be said that the excerpt is applicable to ILI under accentuation as it is a behaviorist approach.

[Lotus]

lol, I'm 19, but nah.

oh my god

[EyeSeeCold]

Perhaps it's unrealistic to suggest it, but I think if you could try and distant yourself to what you said here, you'll see it as well.

I'm not blind to myself, Aiss. And I'm not ignoring any presented information. I know how I come off.

[EyeSeeCold]

oh my god

asl?

[Lotus]

why has everyone been giving me that emoticon lately??? i swear you're the 3rd or 4th person this week

[EyeSeeCold]

why has everyone been giving me that emoticon lately??? i swear you're the 3rd or 4th person this week

It's a sign.

[Timmy]

why has everyone been giving me that emoticon lately??? i swear you're the 3rd or 4th person this week

You know why.

[Capitalist Pig]

why has everyone been giving me that emoticon lately??? i swear you're the 3rd or 4th person this week

check your PM's

[EyeSeeCold]

Yet I acknowledge and admit my weaknesses where LIIs excel.

Because you've placed ILI under one archetype.

And that is....?

Only as a red herring to maintain your delusional fetish of being Jung's identical.

Actually the red herring was a red herring to maintain being your identical.

[EyeSeeCold]

05/05/2011 07:45 <k0rpsey> [ESC] uses Ti because he's an LII.
05/05/2011 07:46 <k0rpsey> his ideas have a Ti cast because that's a primary component of his thought.
05/05/2011 07:47 <k0rpsey> he wouldn't be able to assimilate and expand upon tcaud or labcoat's ideas so quickly if the case were otherwise.
05/05/2011 07:48 <k0rpsey> nor socionics in general since it's a Ti-heavy concept.
05/05/2011 07:49 <k0rpsey> the speed at which he took it in suggests this and that.

So your whole argument is based on the fact that you're slow to understand concepts?

Slander and fabrication.


I haven't expanded upon anything of tcaud's or labcoat's. I've synthesized a couple of tcaud's concepts, but I haven't really added anything in the way you're saying. Most of what I display is just indulgent theorizing that addresses questions and ideas I've had at the moment that were nagging me. But only a select few of ideas, I have, are truly developed, outside of my mind. But nothing robust. The Fighting Styles is the only thing I consider worthy for wide-spread publication.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Trawling chatbox logs to find mention of yourself is Fe > Fi, anxiety over social acceptance.

[Lotus]

there's some truth to that. one of the main differences ive observed between INTps and INTjs is that i've never seen an intp give a shit what type people think they are. ever. intjs always seem to, like it's essential for them that "the community" acknowledges their supposed type in order to post. idk, even unhealthy intps don't cling to things like that.

i can't emphasize enough that INTps seriously aren't concerned with what people think of them. my bf, for instance, has this sense of humor where he's sarcastic/dry 99% of the time and most people do think he's an asshole if they don't catch on, and most people don't. he knows this, and couldn't care less. because it makes him laugh on the inside and the people who do get it are the only ones worthwhile to him anyway

[Jinxi]

ESC, I refuse to explain myself. I dislike you and arguing with you over your type is fruitless. You're just arguing for arguments sake and secretly laughing at us all for giving you the time of day. Uber Ti.

[717495]

The dominants I know usually don't care about what others think, their beliefs are based on their own system of understanding. egos seem to care more about the opinions of others, trying to get the facts straight, weighing them out. Usually has nothing to do with ethics, but I guess the opposite is true about ethics for ethical types. has independent emotions and moral beliefs, and seeks shared emotions and beliefs to try to understand them more objectively. What seems to be the common theme is and getting these elements out in the open, and and keeping them secure and to themselves. This is why I think you won't see a lot of logic-heavy comments by dominants, nor emotion-heavy comments by dominants, even if you might get from them straight opinions. The internalized aspects are understated.