I'm Curious

[EyeSeeCold]

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

WRONG.

. Overseeing hidden processes. You know Egos can't stay away from indications of secrecy. It's why I have a hard time putting people on ignore. I'd rather observe silently or be in front of the action. But never ignore it..

[EyeSeeCold]

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

Huh?

[Korpsy Knievel]

WRONG.

. Overseeing hidden processes. You know Egos can't stay away from indications of secrecy. It's why I have a hard time putting people on ignore. I'd rather observe silently or be in front of the action. But never ignore it..

Fe

[EyeSeeCold]

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.

Arguing is more D-A, more Te and more INTp. LIIs develop solid opinions that they hold for long periods of time. Robust arguments > getting bogged over details. You'd know that if you had studied the theory.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Arguing is more D-A, more Te and more INTp. LIIs develop solid opinions that they hold for long periods of time. Robust arguments > getting bogged over details. You'd know that if you had studied the theory.

This is just as dumb as your dual Mt Dew claiming monologues are uniquely beta.

[EyeSeeCold]

This is just as dumb as your dual Mt Dew claiming monologues are uniquely beta.

Monologues are more inclined to come from Narrators and, more specifically, Introverts. Or, more psychologically, narcissists. I wouldn't say that.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Monologues are more inclined to come from Narrators and, more specifically, Introverts. Or, more psychologically, narcissists. I wouldn't say that.

Ti

[EyeSeeCold]

Ti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias



I'll leave this thread open for future inquiries, don't seem necessary now though.

[Creepy-Snaps]

This is just as dumb as your dual Mt Dew claiming monologues are uniquely beta.

So not only are you insulting me on multiple threads now, when I did nothing to you, but you're twisting my words as well?

I never said monologues are uniquely beta. You're the genius who said they WEREN'T beta at all.

[Korpsy Knievel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I'll leave this thread open for future inquiries, don't seem necessary now though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

So not only are you insulting me on multiple threads now, when I did nothing to you, but you're twisting my words as well?

Fe/Si. Good to see you've joined your dual ESC in his thread where you can share alpha values together.

I never said monologues are uniquely beta. You're the genius who said they WEREN'T beta at all.

I originally said they weren't "generally beta". You replied, "Sorry but monologues are Beta, I don't know any nicer way to put it k0rpsey than just saying you're wrong." Narrowing your claim's scope by eliminating qualifiers suggests or even indicates exclusivity.

[Korpsy Knievel]

So not only are you insulting me on multiple threads now, when I did nothing to you, but you're twisting my words as well?

Fe/Si. Good to see you've joined your dual ESC in his thread where you can share alpha values together.

I never said monologues are uniquely beta. You're the genius who said they WEREN'T beta at all.

I originally said they weren't "generally beta". You replied, "Sorry but monologues are Beta, I don't know any nicer way to put it k0rpsey than just saying you're wrong." Narrowing your claim's scope by eliminating qualifiers suggests or even indicates exclusivity.

[Capitalist Pig]

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

yes yes a thousand times yes

edit: that is to say, i do all of this

[EyeSeeCold]

That's nice, Ashton. Thank you for your analysis. With difficulty, I admit, what is clear to me may not be equally clear to everyone else.


But I can't just be LII. Either I am or I am not.

[717495]

ILIs utlize (speaking in the non-Jung sense, in the Model A sense), just that unlike in LIIs, comes as structural visions to inevitably be mocked by their creative function, to trifle over but not be trusted, criticism and skepticism afoot, and they see no point in . Hidden agenda and role, and basically all the functions have their various positionings too, which can be explained by values and emphases. The fun of the Socion is never done.

[717495]

Hey ESC, did you catch this part in the excerpt Aiss posted from Uncle Carl?

"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."

Guess what? You just did all of this.

Jung dung.

[Jinxi]

ESC's cold eyes of fear.

[EyeSeeCold]

I like this one better:

[Skeptic]

Jung dung.

Jung is gold, no exceptions.

And ESC, how helpful would it be for me to tell you that you are totally introverted NT :3? Really though, your type won't be 'concluded upon' through argument with others here; you're better off going typeless if you're worried, and if not there's no need to worry. Tis better to be uncertain than to be argumentatively swayed either way, unless you've a firm grasp of yourself, in which case trusting your own intuition on this matter is probably best assuming in depth understanding of augusta...

[Sir Knight]

And now, a brief interlude.

The Parable of Michael Behe:

"…on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)

[717495]

Jung is gold, no exceptions.

Jung is interesting, useful, but vague and irrelevant to what we should be talking about.

[rat1]

ILIs don't exist. Just chill out