Videos of LII

[Olduvai]

"Despite valuing Ne/Si and being just as adept as a Delta ST in Te. Right."
""Using unvalued functions" basically means "doing something you don't want to do"."
LIIs would not want to engage in Te. Pointing out similarities alone does not work, because while adept in Te, LIIs still won't look at it the same way. Show me devalued Te.

When we say "engage in Te", we really mean "look through a particular lens", one that is focused on "explicit" and "dynamic" properties of "objects". LII can readily perceive these properties, but they would rather focus on other properties, like the "implicit" and "static" properties of the surrounding "field" or "conditions". To LII, "Te" is "information they would rather not think about", but it is nevertheless "information that is easy to think about". That said, if a good enough reason exists for LII to focus on the "explicit" and "dynamic" properties of "objects", LII will do so. For Offerman, the promise of riches and fame might've been a decent reason.

I appear to have been wrong about Offerman, though, so it doesn't even matter.

Talking about the PoLR function ≠ Using the PoLR function.

One does not simply "use" their PoLR function. When one attempts to do so, one merely "grasps at air" for a moment before reverting back to the use of a stronger function.

I meant dynamic as a Reinin dichotomy, not as a dichotomy of information elements, even though they relate. Your description of emotivist types sounded a bit like dynamic types as well. It is precisely because it conflates different things that it is a mistake.

I think you associate too many "properties" with "dynamic"; "dynamic" just means "doings of".

While aristocrats do think of people in terms of archetypes, like "that kind of person", they will also identify with their own kind and use "we".

I think "we" is Fe-related; it denotes a general group or collective. "Like us" or "like them" might be aristocratic, though.

[Olduvai]

devalued Te.

I like "unvalued" better; "devalued" seems to imply a "continuum of valuation", which I don't think is correct. You either value a function or you don't.

[ideae]

I like "unvalued" better; "devalued" seems to imply a "continuum of valuation", which I don't think is correct. You either value a function or you don't.

Oh, are we hair-splitting phrases that fundamentally serve the same purpose? Fine then, I like "I like X more" more, because one talks about how much they like something, and liking something is finding something good, which means the adjective liking takes relates to the extent in which it is liked, not to the quality of its being liked. Devalued does not imply a continuum of valuation, only a conscious act of refusing to value the function, while "unvalued" takes not valuing to be the default situation, in which the function is taken as it is, not actually refused. Yet one actively refuses the devalued functions. And "correct" is not the best way to phrase that. Maybe "right" or "appropriate" but not "correct" because correct takes the system for granted as an objectively true structure on reality, not a list of coherent propositions that do not have to be true or false for the system to work, just held together. The system works by the coherence of the propositions, not the proposition itself. inb4 "you have a reeeeeeal way with words, kiddo"


Edit: In that case, Offerman is an aristocrat, because he keeps talking about how he grew a mustache because he was taught that that is what a man does, how different the types of people were in Chicago and in LA, etc.

[Olduvai]

Oh, are we hair-splitting phrases that fundamentally serve the same purpose?

Not "hair-splitting". Try "clarifying" or "simplifying".

Fine then, I like "I like X more" more, because one talks about how much they like something, and liking something is finding something good, which means the adjective liking takes relates to the extent in which it is liked, not to the quality of its being liked.

This where I have a problem. You either like something or you don't, at least in my world. There is no "half-like" or "quarter-like" or "kinda-like" or "sorta-don't-like". See what I meant by "continuum of valuation"? With "valued/unvalued", it's either "like" or "don't-like".

Devalued does not imply a continuum of valuation, only a conscious act of refusing to value the function

The "valuation" of a fuction isn't a "conscious act"; "valuation" precedes any conscious act. It is intrinsic.

while "unvalued" takes not valuing to be the default situation, in which the function is taken as it is, not actually refused. Yet one actively refuses the devalued functions.

So if a function is "unvalued" for someone then they will not "refuse" or "disparage" said function, but if a function is "devalued" for someone then they will "refuse" or "disparage" said function? Talk about splitting hairs.

And "correct" is not the best way to phrase that. Maybe "right" or "appropriate" but not "correct" because correct takes the system for granted as an objectively true structure on reality, not a list of coherent propositions that do not have to be true or false for the system to work, just held together. The system works by the coherence of the propositions, not the proposition itself.

But the propositions themselves must be coherent for the system to cohere, and I don't think "devalued" is coherent.

inb4 "you have a reeeeeeal way with words, kiddo"

I like your style.

[Whoobie77]

Nick Offerman

Are you on meth

[Olduvai]

Are you on meth

No, I'm actually on crack. I keep it old school.

[ideae]

Not "hair-splitting". Try "clarifying" or "simplifying".




This where I have a problem. You either like something or you don't, at least in my world. There is no "half-like" or "quarter-like" or "kinda-like" or "sorta-don't-like". See what I meant by "continuum of valuation"? With "valued/unvalued", it's either "like" or "don't-like".




The "valuation" of a fuction isn't a "conscious act"; "valuation" precedes any conscious act. It is intrinsic.




So if a function is "unvalued" for someone then they will not "refuse" or "disparage" said function, but if a function is "devalued" for someone then they will "refuse" or "disparage" said function? Talk about splitting hairs.




But the propositions themselves must be coherent for the system to cohere, and I don't think "devalued" is coherent.




I like your style.

Yes, there is "half-like" or "quarter-like" or "kinda-like" or "sorta-don't-like". For example, I like tea, but I like coffee more.

Valuing is a 'conscious act' (which I admit is not the best phrasing) in the sense that you value the function. Functions are not like body parts that statically occupy spots. Functions are dynamic processes, simply because cognition is not a static item but a metabolic processing.

No proposition can be coherent in itself. The proposition has to cohere with other propositions inside the system. If every proposition inside the system coheres with every other proposition, that makes the system coherent.

[Olduvai]

Yes, there is "half-like" or "quarter-like" or "kinda-like" or "sorta-don't-like". For example, I like tea, but I like coffee more.

You like coffee. You like tea. Both contain enough "likeable discernible properties" for you to like them both overall, but one happens to contain more "likeable discernible properties" than the other. You might "like more of one than the other", but that doesn't mean you "like one more than the other". You like them both.

Let's also remember that a function perceives and processes a "singular discernible property"; so, for each function, there is only one discernible property to like or dislike. Thus, one cannot even "like more of one than another".

Valuing is a 'conscious act' (which I admit is not the best phrasing) in the sense that you value the function.

No, whether you "value" a function or not comes before any information. "You automatically don't like" any perceptible unvalued information.

Functions are not like body parts that statically occupy spots.

Is the brain a static and spot-occupying body part? Are the brain's neurons static and spot-occupying? Are bodily systems static and spot-occupying?

Functions are dynamic processes, simply because cognition is not a static item but a metabolic processing.

No, "information metabolism" is the dynamic process; the functions themselves are static because they have to be, otherwise types would not exist.

No proposition can be coherent in itself. The proposition has to cohere with other propositions inside the system. If every proposition inside the system coheres with every other proposition, that makes the system coherent.

I'm not going to speculate about "propositions"; I don't even know what one is in the proper sense.

[ideae]

You like coffee. You like tea. Both contain enough "likeable discernible properties" for you to like them both overall, but one happens to contain more "likeable discernible properties" than the other. You might "like more of one than the other", but that doesn't mean you "like one more than the other". You like them both.

Let's also remember that a function perceives and processes a "singular discernible property"; so, for each function, there is only one discernible property to like or dislike. Thus, one cannot even "like more of one than another".




No, whether you "value" a function or not comes before any information. "You automatically don't like" any perceptible unvalued information.




Is the brain a static and spot-occupying body part? Are the brain's neurons static and spot-occupying? Are bodily systems static and spot-occupying?




No, "information metabolism" is the dynamic process; the functions themselves are static because they have to be, otherwise types would not exist.




I'm not going to speculate about "propositions"; I don't even know what one is in the proper sense.

No, I just like coffee more than tea. They are not merely a sum of properties, but organizations in themselves. Liking both tea and coffee can be inferred from liking coffee more than tea, but not vice versa. Therefore, "I like both tea and coffee" is a weaker, less contingent and less definitive statement than "I like tea, but I like coffee more", so the former does not do its job of conclusively stating what I like as efficiently and effectively as the latter.

[Olduvai]

No, I just like coffee more than tea. They are not merely a sum of properties, but organizations in themselves.

By "organizations in themselves", I assume you mean "discrete" or "singular" entities? If so, then "liking" or "disliking" them is all you can do; you can't "like one more than the other" because you either like a discrete and singular entity or you don't. It's "0 or 1", "A or B". If some "thing" is a "group of properties", and if each "discernible property" is a discrete and singular entity, you "like" the thing if it contains more "likable discernible properties" than "unlikable discernible properties". If I asked "why do you prefer coffee over tea", wouldn't you provide a list of reasons?

I'm gonna try something.

Where X is a discrete and singular object of valuation and (xVy) is "like" or "dislike", then for you "coffee" would be Xx and "tea" would be Xx. Looks the same to me.

Liking both tea and coffee can be inferred from liking coffee more than tea, but not vice versa. Therefore, "I like both tea and coffee" is a weaker, less contingent and less definitive statement than "I like tea, but I like coffee more", so the former does not do its job of conclusively stating what I like as efficiently and effectively as the latter.

But we're not arguing about "what does a better job of conclusively stating in language the concept of like versus dislike", we're arguing about "what is the essence or nature or meaning of like and dislike".

[xerx]

[ideae]

By "organizations in themselves", I assume you mean "discrete" or "singular" entities? If so, then "liking" or "disliking" them is all you can do; you can't "like one more than the other" because you either like a discrete and singular entity or you don't. It's "0 or 1", "A or B". If some "thing" is a "group of properties", and if each "discernible property" is a discrete and singular entity, you "like" the thing if it contains more "likable discernible properties" than "unlikable discernible properties". If I asked "why do you prefer coffee over tea", wouldn't you provide a list of reasons?

I'm gonna try something.

Where X is a discrete and singular object of valuation and (xVy) is "like" or "dislike", then for you "coffee" would be Xx and "tea" would be Xx. Looks the same to me.

But we're not arguing about "what does a better job of conclusively stating in language the concept of like versus dislike", we're arguing about "what is the essence or nature or meaning of like and dislike".

Too bad you cannot even get close to explaining that essence. I state my intuitive conviction about my likes and dislikes, which demonstrates its existence and truth, yet you are too busy speculating about what liking is (and stating its superficial effects in simplistic formal logic won't help that, because I of course like them both but there is more than that) to comprehend it. I would list reasons when you ask me why I prefer coffee over tea, but those reasons would not sum up coffee and tea, but result from them. The disagreement here does not boil down to a static difference between what things are, but between different directions. My preference of coffee over tea has to result from an asymmetry between coffee and tea, yet liking them both does not encapsulate it. I know what I like and how I can like through intuition and trying to sum it up in predicate logic (which does not even explain what 'x' or 'y' does, but merely defines them to be things whose meanings are presumed while speculating about their meaning; that is, you can redefine liking and disliking as x and y all you want, but that will merely change the symbol, instead of evaluating its conceptual meaning) will do nothing. Liking and disliking I already know through my intuitive senses. It is their effective statement that matters, not their nature. If you can talk about it, you already know what it is.

[Olduvai]

Too bad you cannot even get close to explaining that essence. I state my intuitive conviction about my likes and dislikes, which demonstrates its existence and truth

But I'm stating my intuitive conviction about my likes and dislikes by speculating about what liking is (despite stating its fundamental judgment in admittedly simplistic formal logic).
EDIT:
Blame it on the PoLR.
Also, from Filatova's description of supervisory relations:

In principle, for each person it is natural to speak on those issues where he directs most of his attention, especially if the circle of these issues relate to his base function. People may express an interest or indifference to his statements. But suppose that close to this man was a person of his audited type ... And it turns out that any harmless remark is perceived with great sensitivity, that he takes it all too close to heart, because here pressure is exerted on his vulnerable third function.

Just fuck off. Go twiddle your Ti-dick somewhere else, and leave me to my Fi-ramblings.

DOUBLE EDIT:
We went from talking about "valued/unvalued" functions in socionics to talking about the nature of "like/dislike". Is "valued/unvalued" in socionics really the same as personal "likes/dislikes"?

[ideae]

But I'm stating my intuitive conviction about my likes and dislikes by speculating about what liking is (despite stating its fundamental judgment in admittedly simplistic formal logic).
EDIT:
Blame it on the PoLR.
Also, from Filatova's description of supervisory relations:


Just fuck off. Go twiddle your Ti-dick somewhere else, and leave me to my Fi-ramblings.

DOUBLE EDIT:
We went from talking about "valued/unvalued" functions in socionics to talking about the nature of "like/dislike". Is "valued/unvalued" in socionics really the same as personal "likes/dislikes"?

Now you have me as an LII? But you said before that I was strongly devaluing Ne! Be a bit more consistent, now, will you?

But if I have a Ti dick, I should at least give it a good stimulation:

"The assertor of the all-sufficiency of nature in regard to causality (transcendental Physiocracy), in opposition to the doctrine of freedom, would defend his view of the question somewhat in the following manner. He would say, in answer to the sophistical arguments of the opposite party: If you do not accept a mathematical first, in relation to time, you have no need to seek a dynamical first, in regard to causality. Who compelled you to imagine an absolutely primal condition of the world, and therewith an absolute beginning of the gradually progressing successions of phenomena—and, as some foundation for this fancy of yours, to set bounds to unlimited nature? Inasmuch as the substances in the world have always existed—at least the unity of experience renders such a supposition quite necessary—there is no difficulty in believing also, that the changes in the conditions of these substances have always existed; and, consequently, that a first beginning, mathematical or dynamical, is by no means required. […]
Certain philosophers have, nevertheless, allowed themselves the liberty of making such a saltus (metabasis eis allo gonos). From the changes in the world they have concluded their empirical contingency, that is, their dependence on empirically-determined causes, and they thus admitted an ascending series of empirical conditions: and in this they are quite right. But as they couldnot find in this series any primal beginning or any highest member, they passed suddenly from the empiricalconception of contingency to the pure category, which presents us with a series—not sensuous, but intellectual—whose completeness does certainly rest upon the existence of an absolutely necessary cause. Nay, more, this intellectual series is not tied to any sensuous conditions; and is therefore free from the condition of time, whichrequires it spontaneously to begin its causality in time.But such a procedure is perfectly inadmissible, as will bemade plain from what follows. pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo bitch In the pure sense of the categories, that is contingent the contradictory opposite of which is possible. Now wecannot reason from empirical contingency to intellectual.The opposite of that which is changed—the opposite ofits state—is actual at another time, and is therefore possible. Consequently, it is not the contradictory oppositeof the former state. To be that, it is necessary that, in thesame time in which the preceding state existed, its opposite could have existed in its place; but such a cognitionis not given us in the mere phenomenon of change. Abody that was in motion = A, comes into a state of rest =non-A. Now it cannot be concluded from the fact that astate opposite to the state A follows it, that the contradictory opposite of A is possible; and that A is thereforecontingent. To prove this, we should require to know that the state of rest could have existed in the very same timein which the motion took place. Now we know nothing more than that the state of rest was actual in the timethat followed the state of motion; consequently, that itwas also possible. But motion at one time, and rest atanother time, are not contradictorily opposed to eachother. It follows from what has been said that the succession of opposite determinations, that is, change, does notdemonstrate the fact of contingency as represented inthe conceptions of the pure understanding; and that itcannot, therefore, conduct us to the fact of the existenceof a necessary being. Change proves merely empirical contingency, that is to say, that the new state could not have existed without a cause, which belongs to the pre-ceding time. This cause—even although it is regarded asabsolutely necessary—must be presented to us in time,and must belong to the series of phenomena. "





35488410.jpg

oAmKKu2.png

LaEE5z9.png

[Olduvai]

Now you have me as an LII? But you said before that I was strongly devaluing Ne! Be a bit more consistent, now, will you?

I'm pretty certain now. As for your Ti-ejaculation: I don't swing that way.

[Olduvai]

35488410.jpg

Attachment 3109

Don't worry: one of these days you'll get your ass chewed out by a roughnecked SLE, if you haven't already.

Again: fuck off.

[ideae]

Don't worry: one of these days you'll get your ass chewed out by a roughnecked SLE, if you haven't already.

Again: fuck off.

You wish. I like SLEs and find them fun company (at least they don't have that emotivist smile). But I don't know about what you call SLEs. If, in your oh so wondrously consistent and realistic system, I am an LII, maybe your understanding of an SLE is equally crooked and matches up with my actual supervisor. So maybe you can post how you understand types to be and end this derailed circlejerk once and for all.

[Olduvai]

You wish. I like SLEs and find them fun company. But I don't know about what you call SLEs. If, in your oh so wondrously consistent and realistic system, I am an LII, maybe your understanding of an SLE is equally crooked and matches up with my actual supervisor. So maybe you can post how you understand types to be and end this derailed circlejerk once and for all.

I do wish, because then you'll know how it feels to feel inferior or inadequate.

Regardless, here are some videos featuring Jase Robertson of Duck Dynasty, who is the SLE:




And now, some pictures of SLE:

Attachment 2429
Attachment 2430
Attachment 2431
Attachment 2432
Attachment 2433
Attachment 2434
Attachment 2435

EDIT:
You might get something out of the videos, but the pictures you probably will think are worthless because of your weak Se. "Explicit Object Statics" includes "facial features"; nothing will stand out to you, but I see similarities though I can't describe them because I'm almost as bad at Se as you.

I'm honestly not expecting you to take anything I say seriously, but I really don't care because I know I'm right, even if I can't prove it.

[ideae]

I do wish, because then you'll know how it feels to feel inferior or inadequate.

Regardless, here are some videos featuring Jase Robertson of Duck Dynasty, who is the SLE:




And now, some pictures of SLE:


EDIT:
You might get something out of the videos, but the pictures you probably will think are worthless because of your weak Se. "Explicit Object Statics" includes "facial features"; nothing will stand out to you, but I see similarities though I can't describe them because I'm almost as bad at Se as you.

I'm honestly not expecting you to take anything I say seriously, but I really don't care because I know I'm right, even if I can't prove it.

I don't get it. They seem alright to me. I'm fine with SLEs. I feel Beta rationals creeping me out more. And I can see the similarities in those examples, that general aura of feeling in command (for lack of a better word that comes to my mind right now) of the environment, and I am perfectly fine, even somewhat energized, by that. The only problem here is that you think you got me figured out when all you have is a surface window of me messing with you. Your system is not the same as reality and what you think I am in your system is not the same as who I am in reality. Do not judge me by what you think I am in your system. You are not automatically right about me just because you unhealthily cling to your system against reality.

[Olduvai]

I don't get it. They seem alright to me. I'm fine with SLEs. I feel Beta rationals creeping me out more. And I can see the similarities in those examples, that general aura of feeling in command (for lack of a better word that comes to my mind right now) of the environment, and I am perfectly fine, even somewhat energized, by that. The only problem here is that you think you got me figured out when all you have is a surface window of me messing with you. Your system is not the same as reality and what you think I am in your system is not the same as who I am in reality. Do not judge me by what you think I am in your system. You are not automatically right about me just because you unhealthily cling to your system against reality.

I'll judge you however I want, and I knew you would try to downplay my post.

I'm not "correct" because of my system, I'm correct because "I feel" I am, and you can mock that notion as much as you like, but I still know I'm right.

If you met a real life SLE, the situation would be different. I mean, I can watch videos of Bill de Blasio and not feel supervised at all, and that's because he isn't attacking my weak functions. I like watching videos of LII, actually.

[ideae]

I'll judge you however I want, and I knew you would try to downplay my post.

I'm not "correct" because of my system, I'm correct because "I feel" I am, and you can mock that notion as much as you like, but I still know I'm right.

If you met a real life SLE, the situation would be different. I mean, I can watch videos of Bill de Blasio and not feel supervised at all, and that's because he isn't attacking my weak functions. I like watching videos of LII, actually.

And I knew you would try to dismiss what I said like that. You cannot judge me because you do not know me; you can only judge what you think I am in your own system. I was just messing with you here. If you met a real life me, the situation would be different. You are no Ti-PoLR, because you rely on your own personal system too much. Ti-PoLR is just your excuse for making mistakes and inconsistencies. What type do you think Bill de Blasio is? I need my Beethoven.

[Olduvai]

And I knew you would try to dismiss what I said like that.

You cannot judge me because you do not know me; you can only judge what you think I am in your own system.

No, I know exactly who you are because I've heard words like these before, from another LII. You can think whatever you want about me and my "system" (it's more like a "method" btw), because it doesn't matter. I know I'm right, and the more logic you throw at me the more convinced I become.

I was just messing with you here.

Yeah, just like you'd mess with me in real life, because my logic is just as fuzzy in the world outside these forums. You find my notions "comical" and "worthy of ridicule".

If you met a real life me, the situation would be different.

I've met three real life "yous" already, and it's always been the same: taunt, taunt, taunt. The first one said "your ideas are kinda vague, man"; the second one said "you're not very imaginative, man"; the third one said "I haven't thought about that since 6th grade, man".

Honestly though, I'd love to meet you in real life: we could go to like a mall or something, and I could type every single person we talked to. I could find us an SLE; hell, I could introduce you to one of my SLE friends, perhaps the female SLE I work with, since it'd be rather hilarious to see you squirm beneath her critical lens

You are no Ti-PoLR, because you rely on your own personal system too much. Ti-PoLR is just your excuse for making mistakes and inconsistencies.

Do you think I want to be IEE? I only accepted IEE as my type after attempting to find any possible way I could be another type, and the results just weren't convincing. I've gotten IEE on every personality test I've taken since AP Psych in high school, and I always wished I could be ILE; I even switched the "F" to a "T" when I first got the result. In a society that demands logic from men, I bring ethics to the table. Do you know how much trouble I've gone through because of my disposition? I only know SLE so well because I grew up around them, and super-ego relations are not a fun thing, my friend. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of who I am, but only just recently did I develop such self-respect. It's oft been said of me that I take things too personal, and that is just not characteristic of a logical type.

What type do you think Bill de Blasio is? I need my Beethoven.

LII, bro. Check out this video of Jon Stewart interviewing him:

This video leads me to tentatively type Jon Stewart IEE; if you can see it through the grainy, pixellated video quality, watch Stewart's body language. He hunches over his desk and looks small, like he's secretly intimidated. Furthermore, starting at 3:49 he begins to spew rambling Ne+Fi.

[ideae]

No, I know exactly who you are because I've heard words like these before, from another LII. You can think whatever you want about me and my "system" (it's more like a "method" btw), because it doesn't matter. I know I'm right, and the more logic you throw at me the more convinced I become.




Yeah, just like you'd mess with me in real life, because my logic is just as fuzzy in the world outside these forums. You find my notions "comical" and "worthy of ridicule".




I've met three real life "yous" already, and it's always been the same: taunt, taunt, taunt. The first one said "your ideas are kinda vague, man"; the second one said "you're not very imaginative, man"; the third one said "I haven't thought about that since 6th grade, man".

Honestly though, I'd love to meet you in real life: we could go to like a mall or something, and I could type every single person we talked to. I could find us an SLE; hell, I could introduce you to one of my SLE friends, perhaps the female SLE I work with, since it'd be rather hilarious to see you squirm beneath her critical lens




Do you think I want to be IEE? I only accepted IEE as my type after attempting to find any possible way I could be another type, and the results just weren't convincing. I've gotten IEE on every personality test I've taken since AP Psych in high school, and I always wished I could be ILE; I even switched the "F" to a "T" when I first got the result. In a society that demands logic from men, I bring ethics to the table. Do you know how much trouble I've gone through because of my disposition? I only know SLE so well because I grew up around them, and super-ego relations are not a fun thing, my friend. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of who I am, but only just recently did I develop such self-respect. It's oft been said of me that I take things too personal, and that is just not characteristic of a logical type.



LII, bro. Check out this video of Jon Stewart interviewing him:

This video leads me to tentatively type Jon Stewart IEE; if you can see it through the grainy, pixellated video quality, watch Stewart's body language. He hunches over his desk and looks small, like he's secretly intimidated. Furthermore, starting at 3:49 he begins to spew rambling Ne+Fi.

Of course it makes sense. Let me spell it out for you, little child: saying "I know you won't take my thoughts seriously but here are them anyway" allows you not to take others' genuine criticisms of your thoughts seriously by accusing them of not taking your thoughts seriously in their criticisms, responding with a measly "well, you just didn't listen to me clearly enough, and you don't take me seriously, so what will you know anyway?". Did you get that? I don't have to repeat it; if you didn't understand it the first time, you can read through it again, because it is written text.

It also seems that you seem to unify all you hate into the LII label (not the actual type in itself) because of your identifying with the IEE label. You cling to that superficial (in letters only) identification because it allows you to direct what makes you feel weak and pathetic into one entity. But I am not an LII just because I pissed you off. Your little sob story is all dandy, but that is your story, not mine, and do not feel you can describe me oh so easily from it.

And you do not have notions or methods. What I mean by 'system' is rigid, meaningless classification, like "Implicit Object Dynamics".

[Beautiful sky]

Nick Offerman is obvious SLI and so is his character Ron Swanson. And you all argue like little kids.

I agree

[ideae]

I'll judge you however I want, and I knew you would try to downplay my post.

I'm not "correct" because of my system, I'm correct because "I feel" I am, and you can mock that notion as much as you like, but I still know I'm right.

If you met a real life SLE, the situation would be different. I mean, I can watch videos of Bill de Blasio and not feel supervised at all, and that's because he isn't attacking my weak functions. I like watching videos of LII, actually.

Your habit of using type names in singular with zero article, like "videos of LII" as if there were this one being "LII", one superorganism that manifests itself in different individuals, as opposed to different individuals having the same type, creeps me out a bit. But you are still a fool for admitting that you know you are right because you feel it. I do not need to mock it because it does that for me. I should, however, emphasize that you started talking about how you are such a feeler too overtly, as if your label identity is threatened and you are defending yourself by stressing that you are a feeler, not a thinker, in part as an excuse against real accusations of logical inconsistency (which is relevant, very much so, when you put forward a logical system which you think is correct, defend it against others and seek to be accepted). Call it a hunch.

[Olduvai]

Of course it makes sense. Let me spell it out for you, little child: saying "I know you won't take my thoughts seriously but here are them anyway" allows you not to take others' genuine criticisms of your thoughts seriously by accusing them of not taking your thoughts seriously in their criticisms, responding with a measly "well, you just didn't listen to me clearly enough, and you don't take me seriously, so what will you know anyway?". Did you get that? I don't have to repeat it; if you didn't understand it the first time, you can read through it again, because it is written text.

It also seems that you seem to unify all you hate into the LII label (not the actual type in itself) because of your identifying with the IEE label. You cling to that superficial (in letters only) identification because it allows you to direct what makes you feel weak and pathetic into one entity. But I am not an LII just because I pissed you off. Your little sob story is all dandy, but that is your story, not mine, and do not feel you can describe me oh so easily from it.

And you do not have notions or methods. What I mean by 'system' is rigid, meaningless classification, like "Implicit Object Dynamics".

You're doing exactly what I said you would do! I'm not criticizing you nor do I hate you, I just wish for you to take my notions seriously! You can't expect me to justify my thoughts on your terms, I am simply incapable! This stuff is real whether it makes sense to you or not! I can sense these things, it's like what "intuition" is to you!

bahhhh I'm getting tired of this, I find it very straining

[ideae]

You're doing exactly what I said you would do! I'm not criticizing you nor do I hate you, I just wish for you to take my notions seriously! You can't expect me to justify my thoughts on your terms, I am simply incapable! This stuff is real whether it makes sense to you or not! I can sense these things, it's like what "intuition" is to you!

bahhhh I'm getting tired of this, I find it very straining

Fine. I admit it. You got me; I am an LII. In case you would like extra confirmation by way of VI, I am very ugly, I wear thick-rimmed glasses which I adjust by the bridge, I have 83 pimples (and counting) on my face and I am wearing a Batman costume right now, which I made myself. I preach science and facts in my school newspaper and masturbate to string theory as an SLE jock beats me up. Sometimes I wish I have the will to stand up for myself, do what I want in life and go skydiving like LIEs, but I can do nothing because of my Se PoLR and I can only get it out of my system by messing with random, well-meaning crackpots on the Internet.

[Olduvai]

Your habit of using type names in singular with zero article, like "videos of LII" as if there were this one being "LII", one superorganism that manifests itself in different individuals, as opposed to different individuals having the same type, creeps me out a bit.

But that's the reality. LII is like a pie chart where Ti takes the biggest slice followed by Ne and so on. So there is a sense of "uniqueness" or "individuality", but it's essentially the same configuration for each representative.

But you are still a fool for admitting that you know you are right because you feel it. I do not need to mock it because it does that for me.

And this is why it is difficult to be a male feeler :shrugs: I'm used to it by now, though

I should, however, emphasize that you started talking about how you are such a feeler too overtly, as if your label identity is threatened and you are defending yourself by stressing that you are a feeler, not a thinker, in part as an excuse against real accusations of logical inconsistency (which is relevant, very much so, when you put forward a logical system which you think is correct, defend it against others and seek to be accepted). Call it a hunch.

True, but I'm also emphasizing that fact because it explains why you perceive so many logical inconsistencies. Bro, if you're LII then you have primary "minus-Ti", which I define as "deduced differences in or of a set of conditions". What's happening is I'm putting forth my own "set of conditions", and you're noticing how many differences or inconsistencies there are between my proffered set and what you consider to be "the proper set", which is really just "your own set".

I'll openly agree: I am inconsistent and it is a problem. But it is something that I cannot help, just as you cannot help but notice it and chastise me for it.

[Olduvai]

Fine. I admit it. You got me; I am an LII. In case you would like extra confirmation by way of VI, I am very ugly, I wear thick-rimmed glasses which I adjust by the bridge, I have 83 pimples (and counting) on my face and I am wearing a Batman costume right now, which I made myself. I preach science and facts in my school newspaper and masturbate to string theory as an SLE jock beats me up. Sometimes I wish I have the will to stand up for myself, do what I want in life and go skydiving like LIEs, but I can do nothing because of my Se PoLR and I can only get it out of my system by messing with random, well-meaning crackpots on the Internet.

Your post has the same tone as one of Scapegrace's responses to one of my posts; I've got her as a Ti-type also, but I'm still not quite sure which one. Anyway, here's what I said:

No, you can't have a serious conversation about it because it pertains to your weak functions.

And her response:

Oh no! My weak functions!

Talk about dismissive. Oh well.

And for fuck's sake man, Bill de Blasio is the mayor of New York City. Why are you assuming I think LII are pitiful and weak?

[Olduvai]

@Maritsa, are you coming to the aid of your dual?

[ideae]

Whatever Ti means to you, Johannes, LIIs do not just criticize and dismiss. LIIs build positive systems and frameworks, as opposed to methodology. Descartes and Kant are two LII philosophers that demonstrate that. As a counterexample, Nietzsche, a clear Beta NF, did not form such systems, but endorsed a personal and social vision as his philosophy. As a Delta philosopher I have Marcus Aurelius, who focused more on how to be good and such, and I am not quite sure on Gamma philosophers but Heraclitus and Diogenes could have been ILIs.

I was being dismissive because arguing responsibly did not work as well. From an earlier post in the thread, I said that Offerman was more of a Delta than an Alpha, to which you responded that he is judicious, "which means he values Si and Ne", but that meant nothing. Deltas are just as judicious as Alphas.

But that's the reality. LII is like a pie chart where Ti takes the biggest slice followed by Ne and so on. So there is a sense of "uniqueness" or "individuality", but it's essentially the same configuration for each representative.

No, that is not the reality, but your own thought. It is a very common and very dangerous mistake in typology to assume that it holds precedence over the people that it derives itself from. Typology notices, classifies and explains patterns on the actions and thoughts of people. The types do not give rise to the people. Types explain only a fraction of their personality, being derived from their aspects of personality, not vice versa. Most people in the field who take typology up as an action assume that it decides for people, instead of merely classifying and theorizing about their thought patterns. They view typology as a prescriptive, dictating field because they deliberately engage with the field and come up with ad hoc rules for those thought patterns, but they merely come up with a contingent descriptive theory on the already existing thoughts.

[Olduvai]

Whatever Ti means to you, Johannes, LIIs do not just criticize and dismiss.

No fucking shit. I never said "LII IS ONLY GOOD AT CRITICIZING"; I made that point to emphasize why you notice so many inconsistencies of mine, and also to emphasize how "seriously" Ti-types in general take Fi-statements. That is, not seriously at all.

LIIs build positive systems and frameworks, as opposed to methodology.

Again: no fucking shit. Here:

Bill Kurtis (born William Horton Kuretich; September 21, 1940) is an American television journalist, producer, narrator, and news anchor. He was also the host of a number of A&E crime and news documentary shows, including Investigative Reports, American Justice, and Cold Case Files. Previously, he anchored CBS Morning News, and was the longtime anchor at WBBM-TV, the CBSowned-and-operated TV station in Chicago.

Bill de Blasio (born Warren Wilhelm, Jr.;^[2] May 8, 1961) is the 109th and current mayor of New York City. From 2010 to 2013, he held the citywide office of New York City Public Advocate, which serves as an ombudsman between the electorate and the city government and is first in line to succeed the mayor. He formerly served as a New York City Council member, representing the 39th District in Brooklyn (Borough Park, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Gowanus, Kensington, Park Slope, and Windsor Terrace).

Gene Simmons (born Chaim Witz; Hebrew: חיים ויץ‎; August 25, 1949) is an Israeli-born American rock bass guitarist, singer-songwriter, record producer, entrepreneur, and actor. Known by his stage persona The Demon, he is the bass guitarist/co-lead vocalist of Kiss, a heavy metal band he co-founded in the early 1970s. With Kiss, Simmons has sold more than 100 million albums worldwide.

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily inlogic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.^[4] From 1939–1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge.^[5] During his lifetime he published just one slim book, the 75-page Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), one article, one book review and a children's dictionary.^[6] His voluminous manuscripts were edited and published posthumously. Philosophical Investigations appeared as a book in 1953 and by the end of the century it was considered an important modern classic.^[7] Philosopher Bertrand Russell described Wittgenstein as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating".^[8]

Have you considered "jealousy" as a motivation for my "spitefulness"?

Descartes and Kant are two LII philosophers that demonstrate that. As a counterexample, Nietzsche, a clear Beta NF, did not form such systems, but endorsed a personal and social vision as his philosophy.

I've seen Kant typed as LII before, but never Descartes.

As a Delta philosopher I have Marcus Aurelius, who focused more on how to be good and such, and I am not quite sure on Gamma philosophers but Heraclitus and Diogenes could have been ILIs.

I have Bertrand Russell as IEE and Wittgenstein as LII. I too am not sure about Gamma philosophers, although I have a feeling Leibniz was ILI.

I was being dismissive because arguing responsibly did not work as well. From an earlier post in the thread, I said that Offerman was more of a Delta than an Alpha, to which you responded that he is judicious, "which means he values Si and Ne", but that meant nothing. Deltas are just as judicious as Alphas.

I was just saying that to show the possibility of him being Alpha.

No, that is not the reality, but your own thought.

No, it is the reality.

It is a very common and very dangerous mistake in typology to assume that it holds precedence over the people that it derives itself from. Typology notices, classifies and explains patterns on the actions and thoughts of people. The types do not give rise to the people.

I see a "type" as a "set of implicit and static properties of an object". It's an Fi-ego thing.

Types explain only a fraction of their personality, being derived from their aspects of personality, not vice versa. Most people in the field who take typology up as an action assume that it decides for people, instead of merely classifying and theorizing about their thought patterns.

Yeah, there are probably other "elements" involved in our personalities, but I still think "type" can "decide" for people. "Type" is something fundamental and fixed; it is a permanent way of viewing the world. Thoughts and feelings come and go; ideas are born, argued for, and cast away; but as an IEE, I will always notice "Expilcit Field Statics" and "Implicit Object Statics". As I grow older and accumulate more information, the way I react to certain information may change, and the way I approach the world may change, but I'll still be accumulating the same kinds of information at age 60 as I was at age 10. Maybe I'll notice more Fi when I'm older, or maybe I'll notice more Ne. Maybe I'll make connections I wasn't able to make before simply because I have a larger amount of information to analyze. Whatever the case, I'll still be noticing Ne+Fi.

They view typology as a prescriptive, dictating field because they deliberately engage with the field and come up with ad hoc rules for those thought patterns, but they merely come up with a contingent descriptive theory on the already existing thoughts.

Again: meet me in real life and I'll introduce you to your supervisor, and then you'll see how prescriptive this shit can be.

You're an asshole, by the way. You made me feel really bad about my "feeling" nature; you called me a fool for justifying my claims by saying "I feel it is so", but how else am I to justify them? I know these things to be true because I've seen them, yet no matter how hard I try I cannot provide adequate logic. It's like calling a dog a fool for barking instead of speaking a human language.

Also: heard this guy on the radio yesterday, pretty sure he is LII:

His name is Max Fisher, and he works for the Washington Post. Here's another video:

[ideae]

Leibniz was a 'pure' philosopher, in that he did not seek real life returns to philosophy, which makes me think Alpha NT at least. Newton was more of an ILI. I did not insult your feeling nature (if I were an LII, my dual would be an ESE, which leads with feeling) per se by calling it inadequate by itself, but said that it was inadequate for particular tasks (like everyone is for some other task), like justifying logical systems. Type can be static and fixed, but that does not mean it decides for people. Types can simply be fixed ways that people never relinquish once they assume them once. They do not have to be prescriptive dictators of personality. Automatically presuming otherwise shapes much of typology's mistakes, including VI (not the kind that judges expressions, because that conveys thoughts, but the kind that judges facial bone structure and such), stereotypes (thinking that types determine people => having people as representatives of their types => defining people by their type stereotypes) and pretty much the entire dangers of relying on systems to dictate actions.

And that Max Fisher guy is a drone. I hate his 'we' talk and I hate statisticians in general.

[Olduvai]

Leibniz was a 'pure' philosopher, in that he did not seek real life returns to philosophy, which makes me think Alpha NT at least. Newton was more of an ILI. I did not insult your feeling nature (if I were an LII, my dual would be an ESE, which leads with feeling) per se by calling it inadequate by itself, but said that it was inadequate for particular tasks (like everyone is for some other task), like justifying logical systems.

... okay, fair enough.

Type can be static and fixed, but that does not mean it decides for people. Types can simply be fixed ways that people never relinquish once they assume them once.

I see what you're saying, but I swear it goes deeper than that. It has to do with how you look at the world and the things you deem important, and it determines which fixed ways you will choose and never relinquish.

They do not have to be prescriptive dictators of personality.

Again, I see what you're getting at, and I appreciate your message. This whole conversation has actually reminded me of the importance of real-world matters; don't ask me how.

Automatically presuming otherwise shapes much of typology's mistakes, including VI (not the kind that judges expressions, because that conveys thoughts, but the kind that judges facial bone structure and such)

I highly suggest you read the following text; it describe's Filatova's VI methodology, which think is correct (I also think Filatova is the best socionist):

These portraits have been photographed by Yekaterina S. Filatova, a socionist from St. Petersburg, since 1991. She gave us her permission to place some of her pictures at our site. She did not use any “visual identification” methods – she is rather much critical towards such methods, and never wants to “type” pictures which some people send to her. On the contrary, she first determined the type of the person (by interviewing, in course of long contacts, etc.) and only then, when this person expressed his/her agreement with the type description and his/her permission for being photographed, she made his/her pictures in several standard perspectives (which allowed comparing pictures of different people with each other). In addition, she often received feedback from these people and kept contacts with them, since many of them were her former students, colleague professors or even practicing socionists. If anybody later expressed his doubts about the correctness of his/her type identification, then his/her pictures were removed from the collection to a separate folder marked “dubious” for future verification. The total number of portraits made by her exceeds several thousands, and the most reliable of them have been published in her books.

stereotypes (thinking that types determine people => having people as representatives of their types => defining people by their type stereotypes) and pretty much the entire dangers of relying on systems to dictate actions.

I understand, I'm not big on stereotypes either; the only reason I said "LIE goes skydiving" is because I am friends with an LIE who went skydiving. Like, fer serious.
Sorry, misunderstood your point. Two questions: so what should systems instead be used for? and what should dictate actions instead of systems?

And that Max Fisher guy is a drone. I hate his 'we' talk and I hate statisticians in general.

I actually agree.

[Beautiful sky]

@Maritsa, are you coming to the aid of your dual?

Never typed the person.

[Beautiful sky]

I see what you're saying, but I swear it goes deeper than that. It has to do with how you look at the world and the things you deem important, and it determines which fixed ways you will choose and never relinquish.

I very much agree with this. However action can be dictated by other experiences and lack of processing in other areas such as intelligence, emotional intelligence, compassion which I actually think is partly inherited and partly fostered by interactions with people.

[wacey]

He's one of maaaany of my favorite "gurus". I felt that typing him in a LII thread was appropriate.

Terence McKenna

[Olduvai]

He's one of maaaany of my favorite "gurus". I felt that typing him in a LII thread was appropriate.

Terence McKenna

I agree that he might be Alpha NT, but I would say ILE > LII.

For reference, here's Robert M. Wallace (LII) discussing Hegel:

[Suz]

well I'm as confident as ever in my typing ability, and I say LII.

Okay guys, I agree: Nick Offerman is no LII. The jury is still out on his actual type, though.

Like i've said before, your overconfidence in your socionics is not helping your credibility. It may may you feel self-important, but it doesn't mean you really know what you're talking about.