Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Despite you rewrite with a different style, the basic idea is still the same. Rhetoric did not change this. I understand well your "binary array" analogy, but I see it as an attempt of presenting your reasoning as something different. If it's simply a binary array, you would not insist so much in the dichotomy. I saw no relativization in your words, so I do not trust that it were only a "way of presenting the idea". I think that you said what apparently you said, and now you're trying to prove that you didn't say it.
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.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
I insist in the same analogy. You can, outside typology, invent a system of rules and make calculations with them. If the system is not based, not model, reality, you can still make evaluations, but they would be... meaningless. Unless some degree of correlation with reality exist, this system will have nothing to say about "real/unreal". I see Maths and Logic as nature-based in certain way so I put entity in them. What I simply disagree with you is that a pure "theoretical" system, as you said, could make evaluations about reality.
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?
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Your argumentation presupposes that the usage of epistemiology you're doing is valid. I undsterstand what you're trying to say, but I simply disagree.

If we consult a dictionary, it says that epistemology is a branch of PHILOSOPHY. Is Philosophy a Science? Has it the property of falsiability? I guess not. Therefore, how can you prove the tools you're using are correct?
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.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Something you don't know... and I suppose you know it better than me, and your interpretation is the correct one, etc. What you still don't undertsand is that your interpretation of the same phenomenon is your interpretation. Unless you can prove your interpretation is the correct one, it would be only an opinion of many.
My arguments were a demosntration, not a "proof". What kind of proof do you want, being written on Wikipedia word-by-word?
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
I insist to you that if you're insterested in simply memorizing a set of rules and applying it without questioning their validity, I'm not. Maybe I'm a Ni using your method, but I don't care it. I'm not interested in seeing if I fit in the definition of geen or blue, but how much real blue or green are, and the implications of this. And I really can't understand (well it is a way of speaking, I can) why some person would be interested in applying a set of rues simply for applying them, or putting so much emphasis in this instead working with the part of this that it's seen as close to real.
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". )
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
I know they're these systems are not the same. I simply said, and I thought I was enough clear, that unless you can objectively prove the more correctness of one of them, all of these interpretations of the same phenomenon are equally valid by default. I insist I'm interested in knowing myself, not discussing if my height is better expressed in metric units or imperial units (well... metric of course ).
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?
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Anyway, do you really think I'm insterested in applying a set of rules for the simple sake of applying them?
What I see is that you are in a hurry to present yourself as LII instead of knowing what this means.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
And who are you (us in your sentence)? The Magisters (Dixit) of Socionics? I laugh about this, and I laugh because... you're usually alone against other "magisters".
The difference between us is that I'm asking for correctness while you're asking for freedom of speech .
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
As arbitrariy as any opinion about any issue which cannot be proven.
Claiming to "Scientific reasoning" (what you undestand as it) in something that it's not a Science...
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.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
I'll say to you: Socionics is not a Science.
Again, repeat with me: Socionics is not a Science.
Socionics is not a Science.

Now you repeat after me: Socionics is a set of definitions and axioms.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
You still don't understand my point of view. As Socionics ideas cannot be proven, (it is not a Science) you cannot use what you understand as "Scientific reasoning". Thre is no REAL laws here, there is no falsiability. Therefore applying perfectly "the rules" will produce "an accurate type" but VOID. I'm not interested in this. Capisci?
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?
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
It was supposed ILEs are "big picture" type...
Big picture is not a synonym for delusion.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
The rule man attacks again... I'm not interested in my sociotype as you understand the issue. I've said it more than once.
So why are you asking for your type on a Socionics board?
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
I said "rely heavily" not "are exclusively based". They use "Ti calculations", so to speak, with scientific knowledge whose validity has been tested.
See upper about what I said of "Ti+Te combination" in Science.
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)
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Yes you can't resist to offer your opinion as evidence simply because "you know more...". Don't make the same fault you put in others and IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, for "god's" sake. Magister Dixit everywhere.
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.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
That kind of fallacy (Argumentum ad populum) is only commited if you use it as the main source of opinion against other evidences.
The question is that your supposed understanding about this is IRRELEVANT because YOU CANNOT PROVE that your particular vision is the correct one, because this is not a Science theferore there is no falsiability.
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.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
If there would be objective proofs then I would agree with you about this.
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?
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Don't "digitalize" or "dichotomize" my vision. I see reality as a set of probabilities in a issue "composed" by probabilities, and I see this issue in that way.
The analogy is valid.
Do you undertand QM? If I'm going to calculate a sum there's no probability question, you do it well or you don't, for example.

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 .
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Lottery is probability-based, and without an objective proof it's the best it could be achieved about a type, a matter of probabities (and not based in a poll, only influence by it, as a variable of many).
I see some aspects of reality as probability-based, and others don't. That's the advantage of working with fuzzy logic; 0% and 100% are also included
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?
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
You can be sure that I'm not going to commit suicide due to typology questions, or more or less knowing. Is this so important for you?
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)
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
It doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure you could offer to me a description (of many) that affirms categorically what Ne is fitting in your vision, and this still will be an strict application of rules...
You are certainly right.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Yeah I admit that this apparently would make you right, but because you underline the key words that agree with you, and in PROFILES. Profiles are profiles, you know. And that "exact thinking" you underlined again sounds like LIIs almost can't agree with fuzzy logic or relativism...
More of the same, rules rules rules... You seem more LII than LIIs!!!!
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)
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Anyway I hope you believe me about this: I have nothing against being an ILI, I mean, there's no "I want to be a LII" or something like than. If I'm an ILI good then. I've in fact admired (and secretely envied) some Ni properties, in MBTI days and here. I simply do not agree with your method, or the way you "behaves" about Socionics.
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.
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
You said I ignored other users (LIIs/ILIs), I said to you this is not true.
And now you affirm that I'm using them as an evidence... of what? Where did you read in my words that I'm using them to point that I'm a LII or whatever???

I only said that I have no data about them, does this imply that I'm saying that this imply my LII-ness? I have not used them as evidence of anything, affirming that I have not data just points that I cannot evaluate. Don't you understand? Do not affirm that I use them as evidence when I'm not doing such thing. Period.
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 .
Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
Any of us should stop. I cannot force you to be who do this, but as I've expressed, I'm not interested more in your participation, due to various reasons (not only what you say, but also how you say it). It would be a courtesy to submit to the desires of the creator of the thread.

Consider also that this is not a generalist one, but a thread focused in MYSELF and this should have some value.
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.