InvisibleJim v2 - Including Enneagram Edition

[anndelise]

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.

The full context of that thread was about me arguing that trusting one's instincts, beliefs, opinions, etc was not the same thing as them being accurate to reality...iow correct.

You are the one who kept arguing against that, starting with calling that concept absolute rubbish.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm still open to the idea that you didn't realize what it was you were arguing against. And you obviously are still having problems grasping the details of what has been actually said and quoted even in this thread.

And I had come back because your buddy Ryan had quoted me and said that no you hadn't said what I had said you said. So I provided it to him. See...I like the facts to be known...not buried and ignored just because someone like you (and him) refuses to acknowledge they erred.

[InvisibleJim]

The full context of that thread was about me arguing that trusting one's instincts, beliefs, opinions, etc was not the same thing as them being accurate to reality...iow correct.

You are the one who kept arguing against that, starting with calling that concept absolute rubbish.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm still open to the idea that you didn't realize what it was you were arguing against. And you obviously are still having problems grasping the details of what has been actually said and quoted even in this thread.

And I had come back because your buddy Ryan had quoted me and said that no you hadn't said what I had said you said. So I provided it to him. See...I like the facts to be known...not buried and ignored just because someone like you (and him) refuses to acknowledge they erred.

The usual half arsed bullshit, the full context of your contribution to this thread are your other 'worthwhile' contributions to this forum.

It's only confimed until she gets mad enough at the person...at which point she'll confim them a different type.

First that's not how you spell confirm. Second... as I said that is absolute gibberish.

Now we have the added logic that you are applying that same criticism in my thread making you a hypocrite.

p.s. Ryan is not my friend

[InvisibleJim]

This entire post is an exposition of subjective logics () ↑

Now we are entering the more fuzzy issue of function definitions. Are we splitting the ideas or are we splitting the logic chain?

If so, objective logic arguing in favour of observing subjective logic. Look again.

[Korpsy Knievel]

CONFLIKAZ GON CONFLIK

[InvisibleJim]

Your demonstrated IE prefs are hardly that fuzzy.

Fi? Ne? Introverted Extroversion eh?

[InvisibleJim]

Information Element—Socionics nomenclature, bruh.

Ashton, tell me more about your niche abbreviations.

Clarity is always welcome.

However I would prefer if you could sit down with siuntal and reach some type of consensus on my type as you are both of opposite opinions with ideas derived from a reasonably sound basis.

[InvisibleJim]

Why siuntal?

Because you both have a relatively high level of understand which often reaches opposing conclusions. Add to this - more challenge, more gain. This has the added benefit that you can have a rational conversation with siuntal.

[Gilly]

Because you both have a relatively high level of understand which often reaches opposing conclusions. Add to this - more challenge, more gain. This has the added benefit that you can have a rational conversation with siuntal.

He can't have a rational convo with you?

No offense bro but you are kind of being a dodger

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tfuldodger.htm

[InvisibleJim]

He can't have a rational convo with you?

Not really.

[silke]

@anndelise
I apologize for leaving you hanging here having to fend against Ryan and Jim. I'm having some guests over this weekend so I am out of time right now to read everything and reply. I will try to get back to you in the evening or tomorrow depending on when I get some more free time.

CONFLIKAZ GON CONFLIK

Only that Jim has been in a relationship with HelenOfTroy typed as IEE. They still keep friends and he has even invited her into this thread to comment on his typing. Typing Jim as LSI would make them conflictors, which is a big stretch from what can be seen of their interaction.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Only that Jim has been in a relationship with HelenOfTroy typed as IEE. They still keep friends and he has even invited her into this thread to comment on his typing. Typing Jim as LSI would make them conflictors, which is a big stretch from what can be seen of their interaction.

Yes, has been. Is no longer, at least in the intimate sense. That is, it didn't work at close range. Three takes on conflictor relations, how they can be initially appealing, why they fall apart, and how they can retain civility and comity at a more comfortable (i.e. greater) distance:

http://www.socionics.us/relations.shtml

Both partners seem to monitor each other's weak areas. This prevents conflicts from coming out into the open, since both partners feel too unsure of themselves to discuss their relationship effectively. As a result, conflicts stew beneath the surface — causing pain and long-lasting offense (if partners expect anything of each other) — without any hope of resolution. Initially partners may attract each other from a distance because they are such opposites, but their language and thought patterns are hopelessly difficult to digest at a close psychological distance. At best partners may have occasional rare moments of resonance when both are in a strange mood and begin to talk about life without focusing attention on one another.

http://www.socionics.com/rel/cnf.htm

These are relations of constantly developing conflict. Conflicting relations have the worst compatibility between partners among all other relations. However, it does not seem to be so obvious, especially in the earlier stages of development. Conflicting partners appear rather attractive, interesting and with impressive abilities. Both partners are usually convinced that they can coexist and collaborate quite peacefully, but soon it becomes apparent that something is always going wrong, making their relationship problematic. Both partners may mistakenly think that the cause of these problems is minor and easily fixed and that all they need to do is to show a little bit more effort in understanding their partner. Unfortunately, these attempts to continue pushing their relationship any further will soon provoke an open conflict between the partners. When conflict starts, partners hit each other with arguments exactly in the direction where they can cause maximum pain. In return, the other partner may counterattack even more aggressively. With every conflict these relations become worse and worse. Although Conflicting partners show confidence where their partner is unconfident, they are unable to protect and take care of each other's weak points. This regularly brings disagreement and disappointment into these relations. When after several fruitless attempts to establish a stable relationship the partners give up and break the relationship, they feel saved and released.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Conflict

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place.

Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.

It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support.

Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

I've seen enough IEE-LII pairings to have kept the latter type open as a fair possibility for Jim as well. That retains its degree of sensibility after the arrival of Helen, whom I've got no argument against as instantiating IEE.

[Aquagraph]

Some arguments in this thread make me want to push people ahead of an incoming train.

Anndelise, you might convince those who follow this debate but I believe that you're not so naïve that you actually believe in changing the way Invisible Jim and Ryan think.

"Don't argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

But maybe the point of debates is not convincing but to have fun. You are on the right tracks if you enjoy this.

[anndelise]

Some arguments in this thread make me want to push people ahead of an incoming train.

Anndelise, you might convince those who follow this debate but I believe that you're not so naïve that you actually believe in changing the way Invisible Jim and Ryan think.

"Don't argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

But maybe the point of debates is not convincing but to have fun. You are on the right tracks if you enjoy this.

I actually Prefer conversations rather than debates and arguments. With conversations there is a return of give and take, with all parties acting in good faith.

What I Detest is when people ignore the facts, even when it's been presented to them straight up, lie, and/or play their little debate games because they're not in it for truth nor mutual understanding, but to try to play one-up on their perceived opponent and/or promote a certain image of themselves.

[Ryan]

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#post863167
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.

Except that post of yours didn't address any of Maritsa's claims despite it being intended as a counter argument. It could have been "The earth is round" and it still would be be silly. It's irrelevant. You brought up something argubly everyone agrees on, and yet has no bearing on that situation.

[InvisibleJim]

Except that post of yours didn't address any of Maritsa's claims despite it being intended as a counter argument. It could have been "The earth is round" and it still would be be silly. It's irrelevant. You brought up something argubly everyone agrees on, and yet has no bearing on that situation.

Ryan, Ann has no concept of what she does above the most simple direct relationships. She then considers finding these simple direct relationships a notable achievement. Don't even try to explain this to her, we'll be here all year.

This was as clear as crystal in the context of the original posts she pulled into this thread and she has forgot what she posted there.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Ryan, Ann has no concept of what she does above the most simple direct relationships. She then considers finding these simple direct relationships a notable achievement. Don't even try to explain this to her, we'll be here all year.

This was as clear as crystal in the context of the original posts she pulled into this thread and she has forgot what she posted there.

This sort of mutual aggravation and unintelligibility is also highly consistent with conflictor relations as outlined above:

• Both partners seem to monitor each other's weak areas. This prevents conflicts from coming out into the open, since both partners feel too unsure of themselves to discuss their relationship effectively. As a result, conflicts stew beneath the surface — causing pain and long-lasting offense (if partners expect anything of each other) — without any hope of resolution.
• These are relations of constantly developing conflict. Conflicting relations have the worst compatibility between partners among all other relations.
• Both partners may mistakenly think that the cause of these problems is minor and easily fixed and that all they need to do is to show a little bit more effort in understanding their partner. Unfortunately, these attempts to continue pushing their relationship any further will soon provoke an open conflict between the partners. When conflict starts, partners hit each other with arguments exactly in the direction where they can cause maximum pain. In return, the other partner may counterattack even more aggressively. With every conflict these relations become worse and worse.
• When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place.

[InvisibleJim]

This sort of mutual aggravation and unintelligibility is also highly consistent with conflictor relations as outlined above:

This is the most sound argument in favour of me being LII in this thread. I like it.

[Ryan]

Ryan, Ann has no concept of what she does above the most simple direct relationships. She then considers finding these simple direct relationships a notable achievement. Don't even try to explain this to her, we'll be here all year.

This was as clear as crystal in the context of the original posts she pulled into this thread and she has forgot what she posted there.

Maybe. I wanted to walk her through it just in case. I don't think she understand that she didn't argue against Maritsa claims, period.

[Korpsy Knievel]

This is the most sound argument in favour of me being LII in this thread. I like it.

Best of luck pawning off the fool's gold you'll receive as reward for pandering to Maritsa's conceits.

[anndelise]

@anndelise
I apologize for leaving you hanging here having to fend against Ryan and Jim. I'm having some guests over this weekend so I am out of time right now to read everything and reply. I will try to get back to you in the evening or tomorrow depending on when I get some more free time.

I've got 7 books I'll be studying for the next 3-6 weeks which I find more interesting than arguing Jim's type. However, because of the continuous red herrings and strawmen Ryan and Jim keep producing, I'm providing you with a simple summary of what I was arguing for/against in that thread, and what Jim was arguing against me about. maybe it'll help clear up what precisely the topic of that argument was, rather than what's being claimed about it now.

 

X = being correct, accurate to reality, real
Y = trust own instincts, intuition, analysis, opinions, and self

Maritsa: I'm X because I Y.
ann: Y is not the same as X.
Jim: (Y is not the same as X) = not X.

Aqua: Jim, why ((Y is not the same as X) = not X)?
Jim: people Y, but criteria.
Aqua: ann and I treat (Y is not the same as X).
Jim: You believe (Y is not the same thing as X) because you don't Y enough.
Maritsa: Jim, you mean that because Aqua and ann don't Y enough they'll attack those who Y?
Jim: Maritsa, that's a valid interpretation.

ann: Jim, who/what determines the criteria for (Y is the same as X)?
Maritsa: Y determines if (Y is the same as X).
Jim: Maritsa, (Y determines if (Y is the same as X) = X
Jim: people have the right to Y.

Jim: Y should be respected.
ann: maybe we're having communication issues:

You think (Y determines if (Y is the same as X)),
I don't think (Y determines if (Y is the same thing as X)).

Jim: the evolution of science supports that (Y determines if (Y is the same thing as X)).

X does indeed change by Y.

siuntal, may you enjoy your company and the rest of the weekend.

[InvisibleJim]

*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.

I've got 7 books I'll be studying for the next 3-6 weeks which I find more interesting than arguing Jim's type. However, because of the continuous red herrings and strawmen Ryan and Jim keep producing, I'm providing you with a simple summary of what I was arguing for/against in that thread, and what Jim was arguing against me about. maybe it'll help clear up what precisely the topic of that argument was, rather than what's being claimed about it now.

 

X = being correct, accurate to reality, real
Y = trust own instincts, intuition, analysis, opinions, and self

Maritsa: I'm X because I Y.
ann: Y is not the same as X.
Jim: (Y is not the same as X) = not X.

Aqua: Jim, why ((Y is not the same as X) = not X)?
Jim: people Y, but criteria.
Aqua: ann and I treat (Y is not the same as X).
Jim: You believe (Y is not the same thing as X) because you don't Y enough.
Maritsa: Jim, you mean that because Aqua and ann don't Y enough they'll attack those who Y?
Jim: Maritsa, that's a valid interpretation.

ann: Jim, who/what determines the criteria for (Y is the same as X)?
Maritsa: Y determines if (Y is the same as X).
Jim: Maritsa, (Y determines if (Y is the same as X) = X
Jim: people have the right to Y.

Jim: Y should be respected.
ann: maybe we're having communication issues:

You think (Y determines if (Y is the same as X)),
I don't think (Y determines if (Y is the same thing as X)).

Jim: the evolution of science supports that (Y determines if (Y is the same thing as X)).

X does indeed change by Y.

siuntal, may you enjoy your company and the rest of the weekend.

10/10

[Eliza Thomason]

Looking at the conversation between Invisible Jim and Anndelise, I would say it looks as if Jim is her Supervisor. In my experience, I feel more tolerant toward my Conflictor than my Supervisee.

But I have never been locked in a Conflictor relationship, only observed those who are, and they do start off amicably in the cases I have seen. And since Jim and Anndelise are not in a relationship, he looks more like her Supervisor to me.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Hahaha

[Kim]

Maritsa:

I'm right. I have very good instincts about people. I trust my intuition, my analysis, and myself.

- I have good instincts about people, therefore my opinion of their type is correct.
Ann:

Trusting them is not the same thing as being accurate.

- Trusting your instincts does not mean they reveal to you what is correct (lots of other factors can come into play).
Jim:

Absolute gibberish. You don't seem to understand how people function.

Absolute gibberish. You are wrong.
Ryan:

Except that post of yours didn't address any of Maritsa's claims despite it being intended as a counter argument. It could have been "The earth is round" and it still would be be silly. It's irrelevant. You brought up something argubly everyone agrees on, and yet has no bearing on that situation.

Everyone agrees with what Ann said.

And yes, it was relevant.

Looking at the conversation between Invisible Jim and Anndelise, I would say it looks as if Jim is her Supervisor. In my experience, I feel more tolerant toward my Conflictor than my Supervisee.

But I have never been locked in a Conflictor relationship, only observed those who are, and they do start off amicably in the cases I have seen. And since Jim and Anndelise are not in a relationship, he looks more like her Supervisor to me.

I disagree. LIIs as supervisors keep the conversation going and just throw more Ti at you, but from my experience, are fairly benevolent about it (although it comes across as condescending to us at times). I think the common Ne does create some sense of connection in thinking and they seem to get a sense of where the confusion is coming from.

I agree with the LSI typing.

[Eliza Thomason]

Wrong, that's exactly what it was about the moment he began equivocating ....
...I've got difficulty seeing E6 in any non-Ji or -Si ego, and hkkmr's inability to cross his legs or take lunch without Jim militating against his proprietary rights to do so is E6 as hell. The IP vibe just isn't present in Jim and I've been wondering for some time whether his initials aren't a joke hiding in the open. LII made sense for a while because Ti/IJ is blatantly out front, and he doesn't seem like an ILE (and for whatever reason, a substantial portion of self-professed ILI noobs turn out to actually be alpha NTs; oddly that almost never plays out in the opposite direction). However, in the end he doesn't seem quite so airheaded as many in that bunch. I also don't think a gamma NT would experience as much indigestion as Jim has complained about in the course of examining fuzzy correlations between typologies.

Static, merry, declaring, positivist, aristocratic, blah blah blah. LSI 6w5 sx/sp

Well this was really interesting for me, k0rpsy. Its the first time I have ever read through anything of yours that is long and thoughtful. But that's because I usually only see short and judging from you. Your thoughts and your explanation of how you arrived at them are really interesting, and also informative. I enjoyed reading them. I would think your conclusion is right, too.

But we disagree that Invisible Jim is Conflictor with Anndelise. I think that is because you are in agreement with Anndelise that her type is IEE. I disagree that she is my Identical. I think she is my Lookalike. (Anndelise and I have agreed to disagree on this one. I respect that she sees it differently).

Especially interesting for me reading this post was that I found myself typing you for the first time as I read. NT was my first impression. Then I saw clearly the "J", then I realized all this thought had to come from an "I", so, yes, INTJ. Yes, that fits. And it makes you my Supervisor! Which explains that kindly, warm affection you shower on me.

I have an INTJ friend whom I really admire and who seems to also enjoy my friendship. She is very different from me in many ways. She has a amazing mind and she is very accomplished, having built and now manages her own considerable wealth. What brings us together as friends is we both have a same love of our Catholic faith, having met after admiring each other's opinions on a local forum on this subject. I admire her knowledge and diligence and I think she likes my different approach to the same love. However, learning Socionics and realizing she is my Supervisor I wonder when or if I am going to start to annoy her one day. I hope not. But our shared love of our shared faith is what keeps us friends.

Alas, I have the idea you and I would not share that love, k0rpsy.

[InvisibleJim]

Alas, I have the idea you and I would not share that love, k0rpsy.

I think on that bombshell and since the mods are exacerbating an off topic contribution to the thread rather than cleaning it up (kim styleeee) it's time to close the thread before there is more embarrassment.

[Suz]

Appreciable quantities of random exploratory thinking coupled with the occasional moral quandary. Such fun.

sounds like you value Ne... why do you type yourself ILI as opposed to SLI?

[Beautiful sky]

sounds like you value Ne... why do you type yourself ILI as opposed to SLI?

he doesn't know his last letter

[felafel]

he doesn't know his last letter

it was lost in the mail mwahahaha

[InvisibleJim]

sounds like you value Ne... why do you type yourself ILI as opposed to SLI?

Because I don't like doing it myself. I prefer outsourcing Ne.

[Beautiful sky]

Because I don't like doing it myself. I prefer outsourcing Ne.

How do you do that?

it was lost in the mail mwahahaha

ROFL

[Suz]

Because I don't like doing it myself. I prefer outsourcing Ne.

well, Ne-DS is when you like when someone else does it for you

[Beautiful sky]

well, Ne-DS is when you like when someone else does it for you

LOL

It's when you make Brussels sprouts and the person is willing to try it because you say you've made it a new way.

[InvisibleJim]

well, Ne-DS is when you like when someone else does it for you

I'm not likely to accept Ne generated discussion outcomes, but like to whittle it down to one acceptable concept.

Excessive Ne starts to earn my ire.

LOL

It's when you make Brussels sprouts and the person is willing to try it because you say you've made it a new way.

Well that's the opposite of what I'm likely to do.

Discussing is different from doing.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm not likely to accept Ne generated discussion outcomes, but like to whittle it down to one acceptable concept.



Well that's the opposite of what I'm likely to do.

Discussing is different from doing.

Brussels Sprouts not in order for you?

[InvisibleJim]

Brussels Sprouts not in order for you?

Why the fuck would you eat sprouts? Monstrous.

[Beautiful sky]

Why the fuck would you eat sprouts? Monstrous.

Inulin.

[InvisibleJim]

Inulin.

Brussel sprouts taste like licking batteries. Eat bananas or onions instead.

[Beautiful sky]

Brussel sprouts taste like licking batteries. Eat bananas or onions instead.

They don't have inulin

[InvisibleJim]

They don't have inulin

Natural sources

Plants that contain high concentrations of inulin include:

Agave (Agave spp.)
Banana
Burdock (Arctium lappa)
Camas (Camassia spp.)
Chicory (Cichorium intybus)
Coneflower (Echinacea spp.)
Costus Saussurea lappa
Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)
Elecampane (Inula helenium)
Garlic (Allium sativum)
Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus)
Jicama (Pachyrhizus erosus)
Leopard's-bane (Arnica montana)
Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris)
Onion (Allium cepa)
Wild yam (Dioscorea spp.)
Yacón (Smallanthus sonchifolius spp.)