I actually am considering IEI heavily for you lately. You seeing your supervisor as skilled huuummm. Though socially it would only be their extraversion where they'd have an advantage over an IEI.
And btw, nah, I don't think either is that extremely skilled. They are social, extraverted and all that, sure. But that's it.
I understood you originally, but I find this idea too twisty, that is, I don't see the point in redefining what "logic" means. It was actually really weird, the idea itself (of redefining it), hence my asking if you were doing some Socionics stuff there.Sigh, no, I just explained poorly. I was trying to say:
I can accept A therefore A as illogical (albeit true) given: You must alter the premise in some way in order to claim you've used logic
Sure it's twisty, since truisms are generally.. well.. true
This is directly relevant to the problem because iirc one of those "incorrect" solutions could be rewritten A therefore A.
(I wasn't calling truisms "twisty".)
And no, you remember wrong, that incorrect solution cannot be rewritten as "A therefore A". I'll try explaining more as to why.
I don't understand your question/issue.Okay I get why one and four are wrong..if you recall I wound up explaining this in chatbox to someone recently.
And three is apparently the correct answer despite being the most outlandish
But if you don't equate someone with "I" in the premise then what is that same I doing in the conclusion
The premise is this: "Someone says, "I killed all of the Gormagians"".
The incorrect answer (NOT a truism) we are discussing is this: "It's logically true when I kill all of the Gormagians".
The "someone" in the premise is equated with "I" in that same premise since they are talking about themselves. The incorrect answer does not have "I" stated in a way that would clearly refer to this "someone".
You can also consider it in this way: premise being "someone killed all the Gormagians" and incorrect conclusion being "I killed all the Gormagians". Clearly, "someone" is not necessarily "I".
(Also, of course, when in my previous post to you I said "2. This requires equating this someone with "I"", I meant to refer to the conclusion only, not to the premise.)
Does this help?
I was responding to your question on "Why did you not, instead, set them on a boat with red sails or make them wear funny hats?". Indicating that no one ever claimed that that option had to be excluded.that was kinda my point? Then I mean I could justify three, but it'd be a stretch when A because A is right fucking there in number two. I mean unless it's a tense thing?
This isn't logically relevant here. Otoh, if you want, you could talk to me about this topic regardless of the formal logic issue being discussed here.not gonna open this can of wormsnot when societal self-awareness and new ideologies can so often be traced back to origins in fictional writing...not when all the progressive dictionary writers who are willing to include neologisms would disagree... No no no
Great I feel like I opened it(I do find it interesting.)
Lol ok.can't remember? Let's assume I was being a fuckwit
ah me too man, so many things dead from conception
![]()
I did find the paradox reference interesting originally though.
See, I am seeking your Ni+Fe
I have trouble typing myself as anything rational
agree
What truism conundrums? I see no conundrum.




Reply With Quote