Man, you're so prone to equivocation, but I have the feeling you're doing it intentionally this time to get away with your mistake... REGARGLESS, you have no justification to suggest that I meant true/false thinking in this case - which is in fact the only way I used the term binary previously -, that would imply I don't acknowledge relative thinking can acknowledge sets of two options, which was never the case. You just try to profit from the fact that "binary" is not so well defined to imply only 2 exclusive/opposite options in order to win the argument, but still if we get back to what I said (true/false) you don't earn it.
All personality types systems are modelled on reality, that doesn't make them the same. Do you intend to use Socionics or to make your own system?
That's a totally different story! I was just communicating you an idea, if you're intellectually unprepard for understanding it - rejecting epistemology - that doesn't make it a tautology and I'm not wrong per se.
My arguments were a demosntration, not a "proof". What kind of proof do you want, being written on Wikipedia word-by-word?
Exactly your problem. If you don't know what green and blue are defined, you can't find how much blue or green there is, not the same as established, simply because you're using rogue definitions. Similarly, if you don't know what Socionics LII and ILI are using the definitions, you'll end up having your different types, therefore you're not using Socionics. The problem is that you're not using Socionics Ni but your personal definition of Ni.
Q.E.D.
(You said above that you're using "scientific reasoning", not philosophy. But science without definitions is not science, rejecting the definitions in order to freely replace them with your beliefs is what they call "mental masturbation".)
Oh but don't take apple for oranges - well ok, not your fault, your Ni base takes its toll- we were discussing what's your type in Socionics, not whether Socionics is teh sh*t.
Just curious: jumping from one thing to another without even noticing, isn't this Intuitive Irrational (Perceiving) in your book, too?
What I see is that you are in a hurry to present yourself as LII instead of knowing what this means.
The difference between us is that I'm asking for correctness while you're asking for freedom of speech.
No science falls from the sky, it is developed by people. Scientific reasoning is required before the science. This scientific reasoning includes being capable to understand and stick to premises, what you appear to lack.
Socionics is not a Science.
Now you repeat after me: Socionics is a set of definitions and axioms.
I understand this, but if you're unwilling to accept the rules, go do something else... What are you doing here, playing an RPG, building your character the way you like? (maybe this means "MensSuperMateriam") In this case, I have a wish: redefine yourself as Super Man and free N Korea, will you?
Big picture is not a synonym for delusion.
So why are you asking for your type on a Socionics board?
Hello, we were talking about the validity of pure logic, which you initially rejected. You were checkmate, now you try to distort the premises to get away with it. Be honest, at least, that you're playing a game.
All that was not tested - eg. the design of a large bridge - is built with the mind, still correct. There are (absolute) correct rules of logic which one can't defy, unless he/she is not using logic. Man can know a priori whether something - including of physical nature - is possible or impossible, without testing it. Do you agree with it? (if not, I will give you an example like the ones with the architects and you'll be checkmate again, so think well about it)
Please stop bullshitting, all I said is that I'm closer to the definitions. If you compare my ramblings and your ramblings to the reference, you can see this for yourself. Also, it's unlikely someone like you, who reserves the right to define the types anything his heart desires, to be more accurate than me, who try to be correct regarding the Socionics reference.
That's clarified by my arguments, not by my assertion. But since you ignore all arguments and take everything just as "his opinion is ILI" vs "some others said I'm LII", then yes, you are committing that fallacy.
What kind of proofs? Give me an example, and also tell me what proofs of that "objective" nature do you have to reject ILI and embrace LII?
Do you have a winning lottery right now in your ownership? yes/no - easy. There's no probability involved, reality is not composed from whether you "could be" a winner or not, but if you are. If you're not, you may stick your percents you now where, they won't help you getting rich.
Man, the lottery was just an example, WTF is wrong with you? I can give you a different example, for instance whether 2+2=5. It's a fact that 2+2=4, I wouldn't give a shit about the "possibility" to make 5, because that's flatly false in any possible world. So rejecting a false proposition does not mean "refusing to consider a possibility", it simply means rejecting falsehood. DO YOU FUZZY-LOGICALLY UNDERSTAND?
No, the discussion helps me generate ideas. Tiresome but still catchy: http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.3.rels/relsumm.html (chart 2, ILE:ILI). I have an ILI friend I chat with on IM, our record is 12h+ in a raw, IIRC it was 14h.
(also check woofwoofl's post to have an idea of what stupid things users on this forum can say, there are some retards who cover contradictions with an alleged difference given by subtypes- but this is it, this is not an academy, it's a free forum and any random internet user can say anything, one reason to listen to arguments instead of opinions)
You are certainly right.
Hmm LIIs are not that assertive and IMO they don't even really see a point convincing someone else, just because they know "the truth".
In fact this is something that made me think when I tried to find out my subtype - at least figuring out whether subtyes make sense. Consider the fact that ILEs are vocal and assertive, LIIs are polite and generally immersed in themselves. Now, some ILEs are more laid back, while others are more strict and vocal. But now, if I'm the second category, is that because of Ti - being more strict - or Ne - being more vocal? It makes no sense and IMO people stick only to some superficial observations to speculate and create these hypotheses.
(I also train myself mentally for this, seeing only two options: the tough way and the ignorant way)
Well I know that the more you try to push an ILI towards a conclusion, the more you make him/her resist and dodge your arguments. However, besides being hard to get out of my way, I don't have the necessary inventory to trick them the right way.
Maybe not now, but previously you said that "ILI won" because more people said so. I can't read your mind to know what you're currently thinking.
Isn't that censorship? I mean if you misrepresent me, then forbid me to have my word based on your authority in this thread? If you can live with that, and ask me to get lost, I'd perhaps have no moral alternative - except if you say something too outrageous and I'll have to protest.



)
It was supposed ILEs are "big picture" type...
- but this is it, this is not an academy, it's a free forum and any random internet user can say anything, one reason to listen to arguments instead of opinions)
.
