Se Polr thread split - jung discussion

[Kill4Me]

Over my head...? It was a joke.

And I agree that Peterson is Ti. I'd still click constructive for that post. And it's totally unrelated to the posts here.

It's identical to the logic on the Jordan Peterson thread. I posted Jung's description of Ti and said it was a dead ringer for Jordan Peterson. That you clicked a constructive for and now seem to be taking the position that the same type of logic is suddenly MBTI logic.

My pointing out the MBTI logic here has zero to do with your typing me ILE etc.

I didn't say that it did....to turn your phrase back at you, "that's an idiotic reading between the lines."

Furthermore, your "pointing out" the MBTI logic had zero to do with my post. So I wouldn't say you were pointing it out, rather you were imagining a possibility. My post only referenced Jung's description of Te. You will remember that Jung is a primary resource on the functions. As I said, MBTI and Socionics both branch off from Jung although each have aspects that make it unique from the other.

The Peterson post didn't utilize MBTI logic. Your post in this thread did. It's as simple as that, no need for you to weave elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts.

The logic is identical in the Peterson post as it is in the post here. I posted the Ti descriptions from Jung and reasoned that Peterson was a dead ringer for Ti. I posted the Te descriptions from Jung and reasoned that Peter's story was describing Te. I don't see anything elaborate at all.

Basically. Your logic was MBTI logic because it failed to appreciate the Rationality of Ti lead, trying to explain all Rational intentionality as Te. Jung's Te definition being used or not, this is the same logic that MBTI's function stacking utilizes.

I never failed to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead" or tried to explain all "rational intentionality as Te." You were merely exploring the possibility that I was failing to appreciate and explain such things. All I did was apply Jung's description of Te to Peter's situation. See my post on the Jordan Peterson thread you clicked constructive on. Keep in mind that it's the same type of logic/reasoning. Jung's definitions are used as a primary resource.

I'm not exploring "some set of possibilities". It's simpler than that, if some description or reasoning matches my observations, good, if not, then the logic needs fixing.

Perhaps you would consider substituting the word observations with vision.

You're exploring possibilities for innovating Jung's descriptions by synthesizing it with "advances in the science of psychology":

In general, with the update thing I meant that there have been advances in the science of psychology since Jung that I find describe and explain some observations better than some of Jung's stuff. I was not referring to making my own typology system.

I've mentioned before that Ne cognition naturally utilizes synthesis.

Nice of you to see me as this creative but no, I'm not creative enough to innovate possibilities and I don't care either. Like I said, I wasn't talking about any personal version of Socionics.

No. My cognition is anything but that divergent creativity of Ne or consideration of various possibilities. That shit just hurts my head and I find it pointless.

Okay. I think you misinterpreted what he wrote, tho'.

Well, you could have said that from the beginning and made it the main focus of your reply instead of getting carried away in all this business about Mbti logic.

You also originally typed yourself SLE.

[Myst]

It's identical to the logic on the Jordan Peterson thread. I posted Jung's description of Ti and said it was a dead ringer for Jordan Peterson. That you clicked a constructive for and now seem to be taking the position that the same type of logic is suddenly MBTI logic.

Just because you referred to Jung in both posts, it doesn't make all the logic contained in the posts identical.

I didn't say that it did....to turn your phrase back at you, "that's an idiotic reading between the lines."

Then please don't associate random disparate things together.

Furthermore, your "pointing out" the MBTI logic had zero to do with my post. So I wouldn't say you were pointing it out, rather you were imagining a possibility. My post only referenced Jung's description of Te. You will remember that Jung is a primary resource on the functions. As I said, MBTI and Socionics both branch off from Jung although each have aspects that make it unique from the other.

Wtf, clearly you typing me ILE really takes you off track with assuming motives for me in a really unrealistic manner.

Just to be very clear, I was not imagining a possibility. I couldn't care less about possibilities. The logic was directly matching MBTI logic, simple as that. Your post referenced Jung's Te AND it included your own interpretation of things and that had the MBTI logic going on in it.

I never failed to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead" or tried to explain all "rational intentionality as Te." You were merely exploring the possibility that I was failing to appreciate and explain such things.

I wasn't "exploring a possibility", I was making a definite declaration. These are two very different things.

Perhaps you would consider substituting the word observations with vision.

You sir, are seriously an idiot.

You're exploring possibilities for innovating Jung's descriptions by synthesizing it with "advances in the science of psychology"

I was not synthesizing it. Wtf. I said nothing that would have implied such a thing. And not exploring possibilities either, but feel free to continue imagining things that are not there in reality. Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case).

Well, you could have said that from the beginning and made it the main focus of your reply instead of getting carried away in all this business about Mbti logic.

I did say it before that you misinterpreted peteronfireee's post, and here he is confirming that.

You also originally typed yourself SLE.

And?

[Kill4Me]

Just because you referred to Jung in both posts, it doesn't make all the logic contained in the posts identical.

Logic is not your strong suit.

Then please don't associate random disparate things together.

I didn't.

You made an "idiotic reading between lines."

Wtf, clearly you typing me ILE really takes you off track with assuming motives for me in a really unrealistic manner.

I am speaking about your cognition, not your motives. Socionics 101.

Earlier you imagined me attempting to explain your motives:

"It's as simple as that, no need for you to weave elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts."

I have made no such attempt.

Just to be very clear, I was not imagining a possibility. I couldn't care less about possibilities. The logic was directly matching MBTI logic, simple as that. Your post referenced Jung's Te AND it included your own interpretation of things and that had the MBTI logic going on in it.

Well, the post's logic wasn't directly matching MBTI logic at all. It's not MBTI logic to reason logically about functions using Jung's definitions. And I haven't know that to be your position. You didn't have this response on the Jordan Peterson thread when I quoted excerpts from Jung's definitions of Ti and called it a dead ringer for Peterson. You even clicked constructive for the post. I note that you had typed Jordan Peterson an LII in that case, too.

I wasn't "exploring a possibility", I was making a definite declaration. These are two very different things.

Well, in your mind it may have related to reality and not a possibility but it was a possibility that your mind imagined. And well, to imagine is to explore outside the scope of reality. So I still call that exploring a possibility, even if you were quick to declare it to yourself as having a definite relation to reality and/or have a stake in denying that you were imagining a possibility.

You sir, are seriously an idiot.

Ahh but I wasn't an idiot when you were clicking constructive or like for nearly all my posts on the Jordan Peterson thread.

I was not synthesizing it. Wtf. I said nothing that would have implied such a thing.

It's amusing that you can't own up to even the most obvious stuff I point out if it any way overlaps with ILE. very, very amusing.

And not exploring possibilities either, but feel free to continue imagining things that are not there in reality. Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case).

Now you're imagining the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in socionics. So add that one onto the list of possibilities you have imagined.

In this interaction alone, you imagined the following possibilities (none of which pertain to the reality of anything I've said):

-you imagined the possibility that I was failing to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead".
-you imagined the possibility that I was trying to explain all "rational intentionality as Te."
-you imagined the possibility that I was somehow implying you clicked constructive for admiration of me
-you imagined the possibility that I was attempting to explain the motives behind your reasoning/posts
-you imagined the possibility that I was retyping Peter.
-you imagine the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in Socionics.

So all in all, I think I'll leave the imagining to you. You have a knack for it.

I did say it before that you misinterpreted peteronfireee's post, and here he is confirming that.

Based on what he wrote in the post, I said it sounded like Si/Te and it does, based on the information I had of the situation, my read on the situation was right. Peter then proceeded to clarify certain aspects of the story after you imagined the possibility that I was retyping him.

And?

I am pointing out that you originally typed SLE.

...

[whodat]

K4 is right about extroverted thinking.

[Myst]

"Just because you referred to Jung in both posts, it doesn't make all the logic contained in the posts identical."

Logic is not your strong suit.

Lol then why are you typing me ILE if you think that.

"Then please don't associate random disparate things together."

I didn't.

You made an "idiotic reading between lines."

No, I didn't need to read between the lines to name what you did - listing things that are not connected to each other, that is, disparate.

"Wtf, clearly you typing me ILE really takes you off track with assuming motives for me in a really unrealistic manner."

I am speaking about your cognition, not your motives. Socionics 101.

Call it cognition or whatever, but you are speaking about imagined internal stuff here: "you were imagining a possibility". It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track.

Earlier you imagined me attempting to explain your motives:

"It's as simple as that, no need for you to weave elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts."

I have made no such attempt.

So then you just listed disparate things randomly, okay.

"Just to be very clear, I was not imagining a possibility. I couldn't care less about possibilities. The logic was directly matching MBTI logic, simple as that. Your post referenced Jung's Te AND it included your own interpretation of things and that had the MBTI logic going on in it."

Well, the post's logic wasn't directly matching MBTI logic at all. It's not MBTI logic to reason logically about functions using Jung's definitions. And I haven't know that to be your position. You didn't have this response on the Jordan Peterson thread when I quoted excerpts from Jung's definitions of Ti and called it a dead ringer for Peterson. You even clicked constructive for the post. I note that you had typed Jordan Peterson an LII in that case, too.

When are you finally going to get it into your thick skull that in terms of the MBTI logic issue, your Peterson post was completely different from the post in this thread?

The Peterson one didn't use MBTI logic, it's as simple as that. Really that hard to understand?

You were reasoning here about more than just Jung's definitions (and I explained how it was MBTI-esque). In the Peterson thread you didn't do that. You may have had the same problematic views as here, but you didn't express them in that post, so I had nothing to disagree with there.

"I wasn't "exploring a possibility", I was making a definite declaration. These are two very different things."

Well, in your mind it may have related to reality and not a possibility but it was a possibility that your mind imagined. And well, to imagine is to explore outside the scope of reality. So I still call that exploring a possibility, even if you were quick to declare it to yourself as having a definite relation to reality and/or have a stake in denying that you were imagining a possibility.

Maybe one day you will learn what the difference is between exploring possibilities and a definite declaration. The former is noncommittal, bringing up ideas, potential, whatever, and is not defined, the latter is very much definite, committed and certain.

And lol, see you are trying to imagine motives for me, where you say here that I have a stake in denying that I was imagining a possibility. Lol wtf... I think I'm gonna stop wasting time on this stupid bullshit from you.

"You sir, are seriously an idiot."

Ahh but I wasn't an idiot when you were clicking constructive or like for nearly all my posts on the Jordan Peterson thread.

Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation.

"I was not synthesizing it. Wtf. I said nothing that would have implied such a thing."

It's amusing that you can't own up to even the most obvious stuff I point out if it any way overlaps with ILE. very, very amusing.

Obvious in your imagination. And again you are trying to imagine motives for me.

"And not exploring possibilities either, but feel free to continue imagining things that are not there in reality. Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)."

Now you're imagining the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in socionics. So add that one onto the list of possibilities you have imagined.

Do you even know what the word "possibility" means. I doubt it. I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics.

In this interaction alone, you imagined the following possibilities (none of which pertain to the reality of anything I've said):

-you imagined the possibility that I was failing to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead".
-you imagined the possibility that I was trying to explain all "rational intentionality as Te."
-you imagined the possibility that I was somehow implying you clicked constructive for admiration of me
-you imagined the possibility that I was attempting to explain the motives behind your reasoning/posts
-you imagined the possibility that I was retyping Peter.
-you imagine the possibility that I harbor a blind belief in Socionics.

So all in all, I think I'll leave the imagining to you. You have a knack for it.

I made declarations, so fix all your sentences to that.

If you don't explain all rational intentionality as Te, why call peteronfireee's stuff Te.

The admiration thing was a joke and I already said so...

And yes you are trying to explain motives behind my lines, with (wrongly) assuming I could have a stake in denying things and assuming the (wrong) motive that I would intentionally disagree with anything ILE stuff stated about me.

"I did say it before that you misinterpreted peteronfireee's post, and here he is confirming that."

Based on what he wrote in the post, I said it sounded like Si/Te and it does, based on the information I had of the situation, my read on the situation was right. Peter then proceeded to clarify certain aspects of the story after you imagined the possibility that I was retyping him.

It wasn't right, peteronfireee corrected you.

"And?"

I am pointing out that you originally typed SLE.

And? What's your point with this lol. You are just a broken record.


And I'm done explaining things because it would just get repetitive because you are not getting it at all. See ya.

[Kill4Me]

Lol then why are you typing me ILE if you think that.

Because you are Ne-lead. Imagining possibilities is your strong suit.

No, I didn't need to read between the lines to name what you did - listing things that are not connected to each other, that is, disparate.

It is not disparate or random at all. The logic is identical.

It's only random and disparate to you because you imagined MBTI logic into the post.

And along with that the other possibilities you took imagined from our interaction here.

Call it cognition or whatever, but you are speaking about imagined internal stuff here: "you were imagining a possibility". It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track.

They aren't unrealistic. I'm pulling right out of your posts. They don't pertain to reality so they come to you through the imagination of a possibility.

My view is not foggy and confused at all. I don't have any personal investment in you being an ILE or a LSI. I'm just typing, like I would type anybody.

And you didn't call my view foggy and confused when you clicked constructive for at least five of my posts on the Jordan Peterson thread. I note that on the Peterson thread you also typed Peterson LII. I typed Peterson LII, too. On this thread you disagree with the typing at issue.

So then you just listed disparate things randomly, okay.

They weren't random at all.

When are you finally going to get it into your thick skull that in terms of the MBTI logic issue, your Peterson post was completely different from the post in this thread?

The Peterson one didn't use MBTI logic, it's as simple as that. Really that hard to understand?

Neither post used MBTI logic. You only imagined the possibility that I was failing to appreciate the "rationality of Ti lead" or that I was trying to explain all "rational intentionality as Te."

You clicked constructive to a post applying Jung's definition of function to a typing. That was only about two weeks ago. Here, you claimed that the same application of Jung was MBTI logic. In the post where you imagined me using MBTI logic, you also ended off with a condescending remark about my "idiotic reading between the lines." And only an hour before that you responded condescendingly to me on another thread for retyping you ILE where you referred to me as an idiot and were frustrated that I hadn't responded to you. And I told you to go fuck yourself. So it's hard to tell what position you really take as it seems to change within short periods of time.

You were reasoning here about more than just Jung's definitions (and I explained how it was MBTI-esque). In the Peterson thread you didn't do that.

Maybe one day you will learn what the difference is between exploring possibilities and a definite declaration. The former is noncommittal, bringing up ideas, potential, whatever, the latter is very much committed and certain.

You imagined the possibilities at some point before committing to it. It did not come from any data in reality. Plenty of ILEs take their intuitions for the truth and this can lead them to insisting upon the reality of one or more possibilities.

And lol, see you are trying to imagine motives for me, where you say here that I have a stake in denying that I was imagining a possibility. Lol wtf... I think I'm gonna stop wasting time on this stupid bullshit from you.

You said I was imagining motives even before I said that.

I said in the last post you had a stake in making these denials. You said I was weaving "elaborate theories here to explain my motives behind my reasonings/posts" about two or three posts before that.

This suggests you have a non-linear cognition. You took something that happened after you said it and apparently claim it as a basis for your saying it in the first place. This non-linear cognition does not conform to Ti-dom but Ne-dom.

Obvious in your imagination. And again you are trying to imagine motives for me.

Nice projection. You're the one imagining motives, as follows:

"Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

"It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

"Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."

"I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality.The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."

If you don't explain all rational intentionality as Te, why call peteronfireee's stuff Te.

So you're still exploring the possibility that I said it. It doesn't seem to be sinking in. I called his stuff Te because it fit Jung's description of Te....same logic as used in my application of Jung's description of Ti to Peterson. I never said all rational intentionality was Te. That's a pondering from your imagination.

The admiration thing was a joke and I already said so...

You provided a post-hoc explanation.

And yes you are trying to explain motives behind my lines, with (wrongly) assuming I could have a stake in denying things and assuming the (wrong) motive that I would intentionally disagree with anything ILE stuff stated about me.

Me saying you have a stake in denying that you imagine possibilities hardly counts as any elaborate theory about the motives behind your reasoning, especially considering that you made that claim prior to the post where I said you have a stake in denying that you imagine possibilities.

And it's not based on any reading between the lines but on what you wrote. In the last post alone you denied it three times:

-"Just to be very clear, I was not imagining a possibility. I couldn't care less about possibilities."
-"I wasn't "exploring a possibility"
-"And not exploring possibilities either,"

And if that wasn't enough, you denied it more times in this recent post. Me thinks the lady doth protest a bit much.

You're the one trying to weave together elaborate theories to explain my motives behind my reasoning that you're an ILE, as follows:

"Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

"It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

"Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."

It wasn't right, peteronfireee corrected you.

He was clarifying. Read his post. That's another possibility you imagine.

And? What's your point with this lol. You are just a broken record.

Your type came up.

On the ILI/LII thread, I told you I thought you were ILE. You called me an idiot.

However, you originally typed yourself SLE. ILE and SLE are lookalike relations.

Not hardly the broken record you are with the number of times you denied cognizing possibilities.

And I'm done explaining things because it would just get repetitive because you are not getting it at all. See ya.

You haven't explained much of anything. Your response to my points about you being ILE are mainly (1) condescending remarks that I am an idiot (2) repeated blanket-statement denials and (3) ad hominems where you weave together these crazy ideas about my motives, as follows:

"Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

"It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

"Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."

"I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."

Clear Ne-dom stuff pulled out of your imagination. ^ Your responses to me here are much too illogical for a Ti-dom. You aren't clear-headed.

[Myst]

You haven't explained much of anything. Your response to my points about you being ILE are mainly (1) condescending remarks that I am an idiot (2) repeated blanket-statement denials and (3) ad hominems where you weave together these crazy ideas about my motives, as follows:

"Your blind belief in socionics addled your brain, losing the ability to just see the concrete facts and instead imagining things based on whatever typing you give to a person (me in this case)"

"It's unrealistic assumptions that you make simply because you typed me ILE. It's painful to watch this disconnect of yours from reality. Letting Socionics make your view of actual things foggy and confused and overly speculative and totally off track."

"Like someone else in this thread said, even broken clocks are right sometimes. But lol that you care so much for validation."

"I say this is blind belief in Socionics because you let it obscure reality. The reality that you would be able to see if you didn't use Socionics."

Clear Ne-dom stuff pulled out of your imagination. ^ Your responses to me here are much too illogical for a Ti-dom. You aren't clear-headed.

If only you had the ability to stop to think for a second to get what my original reasoning was.

Like I said I'm not going to repeat the explanations that all went over your head.

Also if the quoted sentences are Ne dom then you are Ne dom... and everyone else is, too.