Someones got a crush! A match made in heaven.Originally Posted by lungs
Someones got a crush! A match made in heaven.
[Today 09:22 PM] lungs: lol @ jim the intellectual resorting to 3rd grade insults
[Today 09:22 PM] lungs: SITTING IN A TREE LOL!
Lungs, just ask him out.
Heh, love is a wonderful thing as long it lasts, anyway, Jim, anndelise complains you supervise her, you can't be ILI. Not listening to what Delta NFs have to say is like a death sentence upon me, violent one. So, are you this LII, Jim?
You are in my thread lungs. But please don't tell me you fancy me now.
And to think I wanted to troll this thread before.
Note, I will edit the following as soon as I remember what the code I'm thinking of is, again.
(it was spoiler, grrr)
------
He starts his first post to me by saying that it's absolute gibberish that 'trusting one's instincts, intuitions, analysis, and self is not the same thing as accuracy'.
----------
Here, in post 29-33, Aquagraph summarizes that he and I try to keep separate our perceptions and analysis of our perceptions from assumed reality.
Jim argues here that we try to keep them separate because (he believes that) aqua and I don't trust our ability to form opinions. So again, linking accuracy/reality with personal views/beliefs/opinions.
Post #34----------
Remember, this argument is over my argument that trusting one's own opinions is not the same thing as being accurate to reality.
--------
------
please recall that I am referring to
A) trusting one,s own views/opinions/etc is not the same thing as those being accurate to reality.
B) Jim did say that a person trusts their intuitions formed from their observations to be right, to a certain degree.
C) but when asked who determines what degree is or is not appropriate (in context of being accurate to reality), Jim agrees with Maritsa that it is a person's own degree of judgment (again, keep in mind, this is in the context of accuracy to reality)
---------
And, finally:
Post#53-------
(NOTE: Post #51 is where I recalled mentioning The Secret. But my memory is off in that I must have deleted it prior to posting #51. My apologies.)
Note 2: I still stick by my belief that trusting one's intuitions, beliefs, etcetc is NOT the same thing as those intuitions/beliefs/etcetc being accurate to reality.
Nor can I accept that someone strongly believing that person P is type X makes nor changes person P into type X.
Who knows, I could be wrong. Would my strongly believing it alter reality, making reality to conform to what's in my mind? Can I believe strongly enough that InvisibleJim is ESFj, and that would alter his mental processing into those of an ESFj's??
Last edited by anndelise; 11-16-2012 at 09:34 PM.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
@anndelise do you think this approach lends itself better to white intuition or black intuition?
No, that's impossible. What you're talking about is found in schizophrenics, such impairment of one's ability to perceive reality, so in a way schizophrenics actually "alter reality" in their minds.
What's the verdict on Jim's type, anndelise? Only some Ti monster would rattle you that much from what I have gathered.
What do you mean by "this approach"?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Any tasty arguments as yet Jim?
Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.
In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.
When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.
So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.
InvisibruJim
ummm... this approach?
Oh, plenty of those.
I don't actually have an opinion on his type. I have had only that thread and this thread's worth of interaction (that I remember).
However, I personally don't think that the above is supportive of Jim demonstrating epistemic objectivity as per @siuntal 's post #70 in this thread.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I don't even know what that is, anyway, going to get back to this, someday.
"this approach" could be referring to
* your approach in that other thread,
* You're approach in this thread,
* My approach in that thread (though not likely referring that),
* Or my post detailing out and summarizing the argument from that other thread.
Hence why I asked what "this approach" refers to.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I think the 1st and 2nd apply in the context of this thread. I'm particularly intrigued with respect to how you might correlate this to introverted or extroverted intuition.
Jim's passive agressiveness and refusal to admit when he is wrong totally pisses me off. He doesn't argue. He's like a goddamn shrink with is popcorn smile face.
"Oh reallllly?"
"Are you suuuure about that?"
Until he feels like someone is getting the better of him and then he resorts to absurd and ineffective personal attacks that have nothing to do with the original conversation.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
I don't think there is enough info about how you drew the conclusions in that thread to determine that.
Take also into account that Maritsa (supposedly Ne) and you (?) agreed, while I (also supposedly Ne) didn't.
I do think there might be a link to Te vs Ti.
But to get into that would lead to discussing/arguing Maritsa's self-typing, which I am not interested in doing.
(I'm also still open to the idea that you weren't quite arguing against what you thought you were. Perhaps an equivocation related to "accurate", "appropriate", and "right". It's also possible to me that you might have been playing with Maritsa during that thread.)
I did not respond to @siuntal's post#70 to argue for nor against any typing of you. It was more to add more info that gave a twist to what she had quoted. (though I am sure that her opinion is not limited to that quote.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I think we would need to clarify what sort of ideas belong to Ne and which to Ni to differentiate between those selections, otherwise we are just cross correlating.
True dat.
It's good to see you converted to the dark side I was advocating, even if it took a few months.
I didn't convert to anything.It's good to see you converted to the dark side I was advocating, even if it took a few months.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Now we could start a much more interesting discussion (than my socionics type) on how right and wrong, or decisions are formed based upon the perceived information available at any time and a process which has been tuned on a genetic-nurture basis (very much a point of epistemic objectivity!)
Of more interest is that you have grasped that this applies once we understand that people are always mixing a range of opinions and experiences as inputs into that decision engine.
I think you've already noted and applied the idea that sometimes people are arguing different arguments, because they perceive alternative scenarios from the same information.
This will then lead to the eventual conclusion that by a certain age, one can only change the mind of another by providing additional information, not by providing the information that the view of someone else is different.
Here is why I think so:
The idea of appropriateness is important because people start to value certain streams of input information with a much higher weighting than other streams. For example, one might value information from memory with a relatively higher weighting than another person. But ultimately people value their independent conclusions with a far stronger certainty than others conclusions.
This has real consequences for how we perceive and therefore affect the reality around us.
The rest was intriguing conjecture on the nature of reality itself.
I have never ever argued that people don't make decisions, nor form opinions, based on the info they had obtained/accepted at that given moment in time. I think it would be stupid to think that they didn't.
What I do (and did) argue against is the idea that a person's level of confidence in their opinions, etc is the same thing as those opinions/etc being accurate to reality.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
If one is confident in their opinion it follows suit that they think it's a an accurate representation of reality.
What is your argument against that anyway?
What really is somebody's Socionics type and is there a 'real' answer?
We can state that 2 is always 2, it is summoned from a universal field of 2 which we can pull 2's from at any point it can meet and self destruct with -2's summoned from the infinite permanent field of anti-2, but what is an 'accurate' opinion?
Stop with your strawmen, Ryan.
I never said that that person would not think they were accurate.
I said that their confidence in their opinion is not the same thing as accuracy/reality.
Huge fucking difference.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Really? You don't conceive a difference between reality vs opinion?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
You will note that I didn't state that. However, I'll play.
Unless you can perceive it then how do you know that there is?
That is why closing the loop between alternate perceptions is fascinating.
Big deal.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
You and other feelers have expressed similar sentiments before. Surely you're not saying this because you're not confident of your ability to objectively assess information? Which makes me wonder: if someone says they are not great at handling information in such manner, meaning they won't be able to verify something without outside help, what makes them suddenly brighter when that information is presented by another person?
In the end, you're arguing semantics.
Yeah, someone saying they are correct does not make them correct. Wiser words have never been spoken.
Did you by any chance observe and argue against these opinions? I mean, regardless of what that person said, did you verfiy their claims? That is what matters.
thank you
Of course, InvisibleJim called that absolute gibberish.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I'm not interested in your games, InvisibleJim. Leaving your words open to multiple interpretations, and then jumping on a person if they chose the wrong one. Similar to the Ti games many self-typed Ti types play. I find it kinda funny that you seem to want to play this game with a Ti polr...but if that helps you feel better about yourself and the arguments you posed both in this thread and the other...*shrug*
Though this could also be linked with what another poster said earlier on this thread about you refusing to admit when you're wrong (or made an error).
Or maybe you legitimately seek to come to a mutual understanding of each other rather than seek to argue whatever you can get away with. Though I think that would be a stretch considering your words and behaviors in this (and the other) thread.
*shrugs* no matter even if all the above are wrong and there,s something else going on with you...I'm still outta here. Good luck.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I once thought I was a type, but turns out I was another type. Life sucks sometimes but then you die.
Bridges.
Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.
In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.
When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.
So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.
InvisibruJim
No he didn't.
And I'm the one who doesn't admit I'm wrong.
You will note the opposing logic train, Maritsa is wrong because Maritsa is Maritsa.
One wonders why some people (particularly a certain brand of delta-NF) demand to get taken seriously and then stomp their feet, spit out their dummy and leave when asked to behave reasonably. My perceived reality (boom boom) wasn't made with them in mind.
Yes he did. In his very first post to me in that thread.
If you had bothered to read that conver I had posted in this thread, from the start, you'd have seen it plain as day.
Combined Post #20, 21 & 25 from that thread:
Maritsa's Post#20: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post863167Absolute gibberish.Trusting them is not the same thing as being accurate.
You don't seem to understand how people function.
My post to Maritsa Post#21: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post863169
InvisibleJim's first post to me #25: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post863177
There it is, in black and white.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Read your own words. I posted them to Ryan, and earlier in this thread, and even gave a link so you could remind yourself that yes, you did indeed call it absolute gibberish.
No matter how strongly you believe or trust that you didn't say it, the reality is that you did.
There it is, in post #25 of that thread, typed up under your account.
So now, let's see if you can admit it, or if you are going to continue to lead Ryan, yourself, and others astray as to what you said, or attempt to bypass it with more red herrings and bullshit.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Ann, you still haven't provided any analysis or evidence that refutes any of Maritsas claims. That was Ryan's point and it doesn't refute your point regarding 'confidence vs reality' but it doesn't make Maritsa wrong or right either.
That was the lynchpin of everyone's replies to you.
You are extremely tiresome.
Just as I thought...more red herrings and bullshit.
Ryan said you hadn't said what I said you said.
I showed him that yes, you had.
You trying to turn this into being about my argument with Maritsa is just your pathetic attempt to distract people from my point to @siuntal in this thread.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Quoting out of context is an ugly trait. Because Ryan read the full context (you originally posted!) he thinks you are full of shit.
I'm glad you are another person who could stick to their high morals and leave my thread when they stated they would.
I don't think that just because he keeps playing logic games with his 'arguments' and unwilling to admit what he's said even when it's blatantly shown to him means that he is LSI. Squark doesn't do that. And I've known other people I have typed TiSe who aren't like that.
However if your reasons include other reasons, ok.
But yes, I vote now as him portraying valued Ti with subdued Te.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Posting Permissions
)
