Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
Well, lest I be an alpha NT as well, I'd chalk that up to simple logic. Given two systems where shared terms are used, if they contain semantic content that differs from one another or, more damningly, contradicts the one they are held against, then reconciliation hits a wall. In the former case, you either have to mediate between the two (on what basis, I'm unsure) or you have to hold them at arms length. Perhaps you find the shared content between them and dismiss the rest. However, that approach gives no thought to how the difference in thought arose! TBQH, if you want to give any deep input into how they've come at odds, you have to study the two in question as independent systems, judge the premises or bases upon which they rest, and see what coherence and contradiction arises. If you and I both keep saying A, but I mean B and you mean C or (-B), then, yeah, there's a problem up in here.
Now ya see, this is the kind of discussion I wish I was having all along, lol.

The issue in this case, Socionics-wise, is that everybody creates their own independent systems, each one with its own little minute details that make it different from everybody else's, and nobody really confers with others and bounces ideas off of other people in order to find some sort of community consensus. As a result, systems splinter off, and communications between these two systems requires a hefty amount of clarification on behalf of everybody who attempts to communicate. What I would have preferred happen is, if this conversation were to even continue, that others would contribute their own observations about the matter being talked about. Observations that match up to, or don't match up, the ones I brought up, for example. It'd be a much more interesting discussion, and it'd probably lead to people actually learning and progressing instead of attacking and defending.

Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
If ESC was going to accept your claims on your basis he would have. What we're essentially talking about is the basis upon which we set our reasoning. Appeals to obviousness or fitting with our own beliefs carry no weight here.
That would require making an extensive argument for everybody's type right here right now, which is far too much work for one sitting. Even if I did make such arguments, which I have in the past, they could just as easily be thrown out for any other reason, the most likely one being the lack of any sort of consensus about most things Socionics on here anyways. Further compounding the issue is the fact that ESC seems to have less of an interest in learning something as he does in blindly attacking what he perceives as a faction without actually posing his own ideas or observations. Unless I'm misinterpreting his actions.