Michael Moore

[World Socionics]

I just have a hard time imagining echidna leading the discussion productively; everything he has said in other threads leads me to believe that his grasp of socionics is rather simplistic, and his typing abilities limited at best, so you'll have to excuse my pessimism in assuming that he leads discussions because he talks the loudest.

I can't take what you say seriously until you either
1. Provide a good response to my argument on the Michael Moore thread that successfully defeats my argument.
2. Give an explanation as to why you have yet to provide a response, making sure that the explanation is consistent with my arguments being simplistic and relying on limited typing ability.

To persist without meeting either of these two conditions suggests that either I am not the things you say I am or that regardless of what I am, you are even more inept.

[Gilly]

I can't take what you say seriously until you either
1. Provide a good response to my argument on the Michael Moore thread that successfully defeats my argument.
2. Give an explanation as to why you have yet to provide a response, making sure that the explanation is consistent with my arguments being simplistic and relying on limited typing ability.

To persist without meeting either of these two conditions suggests that either I am not the things you say I am or that regardless of what I am, you are even more inept.

Hows this for an explanation, robot boy: I don't give a shit what you think

You claim Michael Moore is an IEE because he is a moralist. In my book, that qualifies as "limited typing ability."

[InvisibleJim]

Has anyone in this thread met Michael Moore? I don't think anyone has sufficient knowledge to establish a firm and confident typing.

[World Socionics]

Hows this for an explanation, robot boy: I don't give a shit what you think

If that's the case, then why bother talking to/about me in the first place? You seem too angry to be doing it all for the lulz.

You claim Michael Moore is an IEE because he is a moralist. In my book, that qualifies as "limited typing ability."

You're not showing why my argument is simplistic, you're instead revealing that you frequently misinterpret my arguments in an overly simplistic fashion.

What I actually said was this:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg Watching this video you can see how he simply is incapable of 'arguing the principle' as Milton Friedman puts it. The young Michael, looking like the most stereotypical young, male IEE I have seen in a while * , gives the facts (Te) "Ford did this and that" with his moral conclusions (Fi) "I think this is wrong". Friedman points out what his Ti vulnerability simply cannot appreciate i.e. it's the principle that needs to be considered, not the facts of the specific case with moral judgments derived from it."

^^ An argument that instead of making the simplistic association that you claim instead points to three information elements, noting how they possibly fit into Moore's personality according to an informed view of Model A and based on observation from a cited source.


[After waiting for a response... ] Whooped a second time I see.

[Olga]

Thanks, Brian. We shall do so - look into your type at some point!
I got interested in the Moore -type argument and watched the video. It is difficult to judge the type just by this short video. Apparently it was not M.M but somebody look alike. Although M.M raised an athical question about how human the policy was I would not judge him as ethical - just because of that. He seems to be intuitive and introverted and he was looking confused but it could be anything really.

Friedman is a very fishy extravert (impression) and showed not just logics but also NE-qualitiy- very quickly turned over the whole conversation inside out. From a discussion of a very concrete question he moved away to the bigger picture: is it worth to consider safety if the worth of person's life would be not that amount but much bigger amount? Ethics is transferred into logics. Should we consider pros and cones then? Is it worthy? Do you want the safety of the car to be considered first even if millions of people will be starving (?- not producing that car). Can we judge FORD for his policy? Can we rely on those numbers? Or shall we better consider life has an infinite value on one hand and risk is a part of life on the other hand and to say more - people do not want to pay much for their safety. Philosophy.
Friedman showed too many aspects using not just logics but intuition of possibilities too. That is how I saw this argument.
And who thinks what about the type of M.M except the version of IEE? Could be some intuitive introvert, ILI, may be?

[Gilly]

If that's the case, then why bother talking to/about me in the first place? You seem too angry to be doing it all for the lulz.



You're not showing why my argument is simplistic, you're instead revealing that you frequently misinterpret my arguments in an overly simplistic fashion.

What I actually said was this:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg Watching this video you can see how he simply is incapable of 'arguing the principle' as Milton Friedman puts it. The young Michael, looking like the most stereotypical young, male IEE I have seen in a while * , gives the facts (Te) "Ford did this and that" with his moral conclusions (Fi) "I think this is wrong". Friedman points out what his Ti vulnerability simply cannot appreciate i.e. it's the principle that needs to be considered, not the facts of the specific case with moral judgments derived from it."

^^ An argument that instead of making the simplistic association that you claim instead points to three information elements, noting how they possibly fit into Moore's personality according to an informed view of Model A and based on observation from a cited source.


[After waiting for a response... ] Whooped a second time I see.

Kid you crack me up. Whooped? Because I wasn't here to respond immediately? I think you're more "whooped" than i am for being on this topic like white on rice.

Secondly, if you read the description, and, FOR FUCKS SAKE LOOKED AT THE KID, ITS NOT EVEN MICHAEL MOORE

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA this is great fun, please, more more more!!

[World Socionics]

I got interested in the Moore -type argument and watched the video. It is difficult to judge the type just by this short video. Apparently it was not M.M but somebody look alike.

Damn! Let's hope Gill-brains doesn't see this.

Kid you crack me up. Whooped? Because I wasn't here to respond immediately? I think you're more "whooped" than i am for being on this topic like white on rice.

Secondly, if you read the description, and, FOR FUCKS SAKE LOOKED AT THE KID, ITS NOT EVEN MICHAEL MOORE

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA this is great fun, please, more more more!!

He already did? Double Damn!!!

My point still stands that the argument, although founded on the false premise that the person in the video was Michael Moore, is a complex and thorough one and that your point is a simplistic misinterpretation of that argument.

On the plus side, you may actually have found something new to say on the Michael Moore thread.

[Gilly]

Also Milton Friedman is an academic douche.

[Gilly]

I'm sorry but if you weren't balls deep in confirmation bias, there's no WAY you would have mistook that skinny ass kid with brown eyes for a young Michael Moore.

Thus proving my point: you suck at typing people.

[World Socionics]

Thanks, Brian. We shall do so - look into your type at some point!
I got interested in the Moore -type argument and watched the video. It is difficult to judge the type just by this short video. Apparently it was not M.M but somebody look alike. Although M.M raised an athical question about how human the policy was I would not judge him as ethical - just because of that. He seems to be intuitive and introverted and he was looking confused but it could be anything really.

It was more the reliance on and the confusion at Friedman's response that points to Delta Intuitive-Ethical.

[Gilly]

He already did? Double Damn!!!

My point still stands that the argument, although founded on the false premise that the person in the video was Michael Moore, is a complex and thorough one and that your point is a simplistic misinterpretation of that argument.

On the plus side, you may actually have found something new to say on the Michael Moore thread.

No I'm not really interested in the Michael Moore thread, or Michael Moore's type for that matter. It's true that it's a more nuanced argument than I gave you credit for, but I still have yet to see any evidence of good typing skills in you.

[World Socionics]

I'm sorry but if you weren't balls deep in confirmation bias, there's no WAY you would have mistook that skinny ass kid with brown eyes for a young Michael Moore.

Thus proving my point: you suck at typing people.

That doesn't prove your point. In fact it could not possibly prove your point...
This is a case of not typing the right person, rather than typing the right person wrong. The latter is required for your point to be proven.

[World Socionics]

No I'm not really interested in the Michael Moore thread, or Michael Moore's type for that matter. It's true that it's a more nuanced argument than I gave you credit for, but I still have yet to see any evidence of good typing skills in you.

You have yet to vindicate any evidence of bad typing skills. *shrugs*

So far my only mistake is to go on an unfortunate red herring which can only be said to be irrelevant rather than a bad typing of Michael Moore.

[InvisibleJim]

Classical Analytical Psychology Discussion:

This is delicious spaghetti!

Bystander! You are mistyped!

Bystander! You are poor at typing people!

Typologists A + B, You are mistyped!

Rinse and repeat. Better yet rinse and repeat in the Type Micheal Moore thread.

[The Penetrator]

I need a smoke

[somavision]

Michael Moore seems to focus on the immediate external emotional atmosphere, I think he tends to combine this with factual information elaborated in an emotive fashion and thenreduced to form a kind of structural system of causality, speaking alot about the processes that have lead to a situation being like it is today and what he percieves will be the consequences if a trend continues. I think he is Fe ego. I could be wrong, But if I had to make a guess on his type - IEI.

[World Socionics]

Michael Moore seems to focus on the immediate external emotional atmosphere, I think he tends to combine this with factual information elaborated in an emotive fashion and thenreduced to form a kind of structural system of causality, speaking alot about the processes that have lead to a situation being like it is today and what he percieves will be the consequences if a trend continues. I think he is Fe ego. I could be wrong, But if I had to make a guess on his type - IEI.

Si Mobilising could work.

[mu4]

I get the feeling echidna is my duplicate.

[Gilly]

That doesn't prove your point. In fact it could not possibly prove your point...
This is a case of not typing the right person, rather than typing the right person wrong. The latter is required for your point to be proven.

Look, typing people involves more than logically dissecting their behavior. You apparently cannot grasp this yet. Try again in 4 years or so.

The point is, you are SO bad at typing people, than you couldn't discern the OBVIOUS discrepencies in that kid's behavior, as compared to the actual Michael Moore. Not being able to tell the difference between two obviously different people? THAT is evidence of poor typing skills, if you ask me.

You have yet to vindicate any evidence of bad typing skills. *shrugs*

So far my only mistake is to go on an unfortunate red herring which can only be said to be irrelevant rather than a bad typing of Michael Moore.

VINDICATE BLAHBBITY BLEE BLAAHH

Sorry, there is no form for me to fill out to have you filed away as a shitty typer. I've been around a while, so I call it like I see it: you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[Gilly]

I get the feeling echidna is my duplicate.

Yeah, red tape technicality douchebag who deflects and smiles endlessly until nobody gives a shit any more.

[World Socionics]

Look, typing people involves more than logically dissecting their behavior. You apparently cannot grasp this yet. Try again in 4 years or so.

The point is, you are SO bad at typing people, than you couldn't discern the OBVIOUS discrepencies in that kid's behavior, as compared to the actual Michael Moore. Not being able to tell the difference between two obviously different people? THAT is evidence of poor typing skills, if you ask me.

Observing the way a person acts and applying those observations to a system IS logically dissecting people.

Actually, I have yet to take a look at Michael Moore other than a few pictures and articles. What I thought was a young Michael Moore would have been my first observation of him in a video. If you had made points which weren't so easy to rebut without any prior knowledge of Michael Moore then I might have taken out the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD.

VINDICATE BLAHBBITY BLEE BLAAHH

Sorry, there is no form for me to fill out to have you filed away as a shitty typer. I've been around a while, so I call it like I see it: you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Are you okay?

[squirreltual]

Echy doesn't so much hide behind red tape, his brain is all red tape. Unless you debate on his home turf - the logical argument, he will frustrate the fuck out of you because you will never get a rise out of him. Trust me.

[Gilly]

Observing the way a person acts and applying those observations to a system IS logically dissecting people.

Only if you insist on being pathetically hyper-literal in the way that you are. This is not science.

Actually, I have yet to take a look at Michael Moore other than a few pictures and articles. What I thought was a young Michael Moore would have been my first observation of him in a video. If you had made points which weren't so easy to rebut without any prior knowledge of Michael Moore then I might have taken out the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD.

You're joking, right? You didn't know Michael Moore was a fucking whale? Oh wait, you own a copy of Farenheit 9/11, so you are probably just LYING!

Seriously, stop this, I am beginning to be embarrassed for you.

[Gilly]

Oh, and by the way, my points being "easy to rebut" does not make them wrong. Learn to think like a human, instead of a computer, and then we can actually discuss this stuff. For now, bye bye.

[World Socionics]

Only if you insist on being pathetically hyper-literal in the way that you are. This is not science.

Are you saying that I shouldn't take what you say literally? Okay.

You're joking, right? You didn't know Michael Moore was a fucking whale? Oh wait, you own a copy of Farenheit 9/11, so you are probably just LYING!

Seriously, stop, I am beginning to be embarrassed for you.

Looking a picture told me Michael Moore was a large man but I doubt Michael Moore was born a whale. It's perfectly conceivable for him to have put on all his weight post thirties and so have been thin when younger.

My parents last played it around 8 years ago when I was at the wonderfully ignorant age of 12. I cannot remember anything about the plot or characters other than it making fun of George Bush.

Oh, and by the way, my points being "easy to rebut" does not make them wrong. Learn to think like a human, instead of a computer, and then we can actually discuss this stuff. For now, bye bye.

To rebut is to show why an argument is wrong. If it is easy to show that an argument is wrong then it is not just wrong, but obviously wrong.

I do not compute.....

[mu4]

I would say for echidna, logic is a passion and one of the primary ones and unlike a computer, logic is irrationally adhered to based on personal preference rather than as a limit of his system.

I've never met a human computer, but sometimes I meet stubborn passionate individuals who want to act like one.

In this study of socionics to think that the human beings and individuals around us are somehow robots or computers, it's rather sad, rather, it is absolutely clear that our feelings and passions are somewhere in that mind and body of ours, hidden and masked sometimes, but there, lurking, waiting to make you fall in love with something absurd.

[Gilly]

Lol you call that "passionate?" I call it refusing to communicate with people unless they abide by your terms, which is fucking autistic. Even if he knows what I am saying makes sense, he can't accept it unless I present it in equation format, which is a phase I've been through and am past and want nothing to do with. He can go fuck himself with his "passion" as far as I am concerned.

Also, stop trying to make this retardation sound poetic; it's not. It's stupid and arrogant. Obviously he has guts and a brain and feelings, but if he insists upon communicating in equation format, I want nothing to do with it. Logic is a passion of mine as well, but at least I don't nip at the tiniest irrelevant inconsistencies in others' statements while making glaring suppositions on my own part.

[World Socionics]

Lol you call that "passionate?" I call it refusing to communicate with people unless they abide by your terms, which is fucking autistic. Even if he knows what I am saying makes sense, he can't accept it unless I present it in equation format, which is a phase I've been through and am past and want nothing to do with. He can go fuck himself with his "passion" as far as I am concerned.

Also, stop trying to make this retardation sound poetic; it's not. It's stupid and arrogant. Obviously he has guts and a brain and feelings, but if he insists upon communicating in equation format, I want nothing to do with it. Logic is a passion of mine as well, but at least I don't nip at the tiniest irrelevant inconsistencies in others' statements while making glaring suppositions on my own part.

It's not about presenting an argument in an equation, it's about presenting an argument that actually makes sense. Indeed, yours do not. If the argument is logically inconsistent then its conclusions are unsound and thus nonsensical. An argument that is unjustified is no better than a dogmatic assertion. You might as well be yelling in my face "BACHELORS ARE MARRIED MEN!!!" and insisting that what you are saying is not only perfectly reasonable but correct.

What glaring suppositions? If I am currently supposing anything without justification then please point it out. I've already highlighted the Michael Moore imposter incident on my post as 'irrelevant' and thus removed its imperfection from my argument without undermining myself.

[Gilly]

Echidna, just so you are aware, I actually founded a class in symbolic logic at the (rather prestigious) boarding school I attended in high school. It began as a private tutelage, and I excelled so fast in learning the rules of logic, fallacies, and overall structure of symbolic reasoning that my tutor thought I should be teaching my peers at age 18. At 19, I dissuaded my 50-something year old college philosophy professor of his belief in God over the course of a semester by picking apart the fallacies in his statements and laying out a coherent web of logical analysis concerning existence of god for him to pore over.

So you telling me that my arguments are "logically inconsistent" is kind of like telling a trained samurai that he needs a better weapon. I don't care how much you would like to pick apart my statements for tiny inconsistencies and the like, because I know what I am saying is not logically fallacious far before you ever seek to accuse me of such things by pointing out irrelevant nuances in my word choice. To me, you are trite, boring, frustrating, and about as laughable as attempted pedagogy could ever be.

Seriously. Go back and actually try to find a "logical fallacy" in something I've said that is not a silly nitpick of potential microscopic error, but an actual, relevant take on why something I've said might REALLY be wrong.

[InvisibleJim]

Don't feed Echidna, he's like the blob. The more you shoot him with nukes the bigger he gets.

His avatar is clearly signposted to this effect.

[Absurd]

Is this the place I get socionics for free?

[Gilly]

Don't feed Echidna, he's like the blob. The more you shoot him with nukes the bigger he gets.

His avatar is clearly signposted to this effect.

I'm not blind My girlfriend stepped on my leg this morning and gave me a charliehorse; I needed a punching bag.

[Absurd]

I'm not blind My girlfriend stepped on my leg this morning and gave me a charliehorse; I needed a punching bag.

I'm not gay, I have had sex with a gay man buy I'm not gay.

[Gilly]

I'm not gay, I have had sex with a gay man buy I'm not gay.

Oh cool! :-) :-) :-)

[Absurd]

Oh cool! :-) :-) :-)

You got it. Yay, Gilly, you got it, Yay.

Project Absurd exploding socionics site underway.

[Gilly]

I never get it

[Absurd]

I never get it

Ye, I noticed you get into arguments you can never win but struggle nevertheless. Must be E3 or something.

[Gilly]

Yeah I've always been the "tell me I can't and watch me" type.

[Absurd]

Yeah I've always been the "tell me I can't and watch me" type.

Audience is yours.

[World Socionics]

Echidna, just so you are aware, I actually founded a class in symbolic logic at the (rather prestigious) boarding school I attended in high school. It began as a private tutelage, and I excelled so fast in learning the rules of logic, fallacies, and overall structure of symbolic reasoning that my tutor thought I should be teaching my peers at age 18. At 19, I dissuaded my 50-something year old college philosophy professor of his belief in God over the course of a semester by picking apart the fallacies in his statements and laying out a coherent web of logical analysis concerning existence of god for him to pore over.

So you telling me that my arguments are "logically inconsistent" is kind of like telling a trained samurai that he needs a better weapon. I don't care how much you would like to pick apart my statements for tiny inconsistencies and the like, because I know what I am saying is not logically fallacious far before you ever seek to accuse me of such things by pointing out irrelevant nuances in my word choice. To me, you are trite, boring, frustrating, and about as laughable as attempted pedagogy could ever be.

Seriously. Go back and actually try to find a "logical fallacy" in something I've said that is not a silly nitpick of potential microscopic error, but an actual, relevant take on why something I've said might REALLY be wrong.

I'm at one of the world's top Universities studying Philosophy with my highest scoring module being formal logic (predicate logic to be precise), all the while attaining a 1st for my work so far (over the maximum counted grade for the logic course). As you can see, I can also boast and given that I've mentioned something more prestigious than some high school somewhere in the states, I'd say I win even in that little contest

A review of your logical fallacies:

Appeal to authority: Your 'BACK TO THE BOOKS' statement based on you having 5 years experience. A more recent example would be you boasting about your past logical attempts as if they will make your argument any more correct.

"Straw Man": Your presenting my previous argument as simplistic when in fact it was 'more nuanced than [you] gave [me] credit for'.

Ad hominem: Most recently, you saying you were going to leave the discussion because I 'think like a computer'. Not only an ad hominem but also a misunderstanding of what computers are capable of. Indeed, should a computer grasp the full complexity of the English language, it would be a very powerful debater, limited only by the capacity of its knowledge base.

Dogmatic Assertion, mixed with Hyperbole: Most of what you say. Starting with your very first words to me:
"You seem like a smart guy, echidna, but half of what you are saying here is complete hogwash, and you say it with such simplistic certainty that I wonder if you really have any idea what you are talking about. His weight has zilch to do with his type, more to do with lack of an active lifestyle and genetics. Being motivated by change and progress has squat to do with Ne. His "moralism" does not indicate a lack of Ti in any way."

^^ While the post of mine you were commenting on was one dominated with the subjunctive mood e.g. 'would', 'could', 'suggests', 'points to', your response is one that says everything as fact without adequate justification. I did not stop to justify the things I say, but that is not necessary while I am using the subjunctive mood to show that what I am saying is uncertain. Indeed you are even committing a straw man here by making out that I am the one speaking with 'simplistic certainty' and then falling to hypocrisy when you yourself use sentences like 'IS complete hogwash' and 'HAS squat to do with'.

"Correlation does not imply causation": I once said it's interesting to note that a lot of IEEs do the Leftist political campaigns that Michael Moore does. Unlike me, you appeal to the correlation of political leaders with aristocratic types to come to the conclusion that not being cut out for political leadership necessitates a democratic type rather than aristocratic. You use the words "This, to me, SAYS Democratic>Aristocratic", when you should have used "SUGGESTS". The whole point being that your premises do not necessitate your conclusion. Indeed, all I would have to do is mention a single Democratic political leader for the entire argument to be proven false while the use of a subjunctive would have guarded against that.

^^ Indeed the list of names that you provide is short enough to fall to the 'hasty generalisation' fallacy. It could also fall to the 'fallacy of the single cause', which is something I avoid with the use of the subjunctive

More Dogmatic assertions: "You are overestimating yourself"... "This is absurd"... How do you know I'm overestimating myself? How have you demonstrated that it is absurd?

Fallacy of composition: Assuming that because something I say requires further explanation, it must be 'Absolute Rubbish'. Even if a part of what I say is false, that does not mean the whole is rubbish.

Straw Man through False dilemma: "Yes of course, all the rest of you lazy slobs just sit and piddle your own dicks. I knew it." In response to my, saying that Betas "tend to try and unite people towards a single ideological goal", you assume that because Alphas and Gammas are not Betas, then according to my logic, they MUST just not do anything. In fact, all I would be saying is that they just don't tend to do focus on this in the way that Betas do. By using 'tend to' I am once again safeguarding myself from the logical critique I can heap on you.

Another dogmatic assertion: "your flawed logic". Where? Indeed by later saying that I am TOO logical, 'like a computer', you contradict this. How can you say that my logic is flawed and then try and make out that my lack of 'human' error prevents me from winning the argument?

And another: "There are no mitigating external factors that make Aristocrats more inclined towards leadership of large groups." Clearly false as upbringing, education and popularity all come into it as well. There's also False Attribution here, as it is not written anywhere that being Aristocratic makes you a leader, rather being Extraverted or Se leading might make you more likely to assume command. Being Aristocratic could instead be associated with being political (i.e. seeing people in terms of the groups they belong to) but not whether they would want to take the head of the movement.

Contradiction: You say you are well trained in formal logic, like a samurai with a bladed weapon, nevertheless you say things like this: "I agree it's not the most logically consistent thing to do, but it does not defy logic and is clearly very possible, as it happens every day."

Hypocrisy: "SOCIONICS IS NOT A RECIPE FOR JUSTIFYING THE STEREOTYPES YOU HAVE CREATED" What were you doing when you used the Aristocratic/Democratic divide to justify your political leader stereotype? At least I'm not stooping to False Attribution while I am doing it.

I'll go on to the fallacies you've committed on the current thread in due course.