Originally Posted by
Myst
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.