Filthy alpha know-it-all
Filthy beta aristocrat
Coeruleum is not merely a natural human being
I loathe Coeruleum with my shriveled soul
Socionics can't into real
Blah blah blah. To stay on topic, coer is a great example of person who's interested in Ti related topics while having very weak Ti. Sometimes this approach can lead to some valuable, innovative ideas but mostly it's just an incoherent mess.
Now who would like to touch the troll petting zoo? Please sign my limited-liability waver.
You also said:
Considering your education in formal logic, it is odd for you to say this:
coeruleum. It would be odd to actually say counter @coeruleum's apparent claim to be well-versed in formal logic while saying you are a math and computer science major and then take issue when I point out what I believe are basic errors in what you said...and then act as though I'm the one who is carrying out at ad-hominem attack for doing as you have done in this thread. I did answer your claim - you acted as though disbelieving that the Universe is fundamentally causal is necessarily a belief, and that being unable to disprove that the universe is causal would mean there is no reason not to believe that it is...while believing in a being that is not causal. Specifically on your claim, as I saw it, it wasn't a matter of belief, but of definition - you cannot disprove causality because it would require disproving the existence of an infinitely long amount of time, and the observation of the appearance of something without cause.
Many brilliant mathematicians such as Euler (although he may have been joking) and Gödel have believed they could "prove" god through maths and logic - I don't know if you have that position, but my only point is if you don't, then brilliant minds have been prone to fundamental errors.
coeruleum "I remember the first time I saw you try to demonstrate mathematical ability, you mixed up first-order and second-order logic. To say you are proficient in formal logic would be a reach.", when as far as I could see, you had made basic errors in logic of your own. That is not a personal attack, and I certainly do not claim to be especially skilled at logic myself. Everyone is capable of error. You did not talk of a "possible" exaggeration of ability - you said "To say you are proficient in formal logic would be a reach." - it would be wrong to say you are proficient in formal logic. Addressing what I saw as your errors, or at least inconsistencies, are not relevant to this thread, only their existence - I will PM you on the subject.
I don't know why, but I could see you actually being ILE-Ne. You seem irrational first and intuitive in your thinking, even if it's scattered and sometimes turns off people that don't understand, like, or have the patience for it. Or maybe you're some kind of hybrid ILE/IEE. Or just Ne.
But I think you're at least "irrational_first+intuitive".
But when you ask why, as if implying it's at odds with his behavior, I guess any reasoning I put forth is going to sound silly. So okay then.
In either case, this unfortunately seems to have turned out like most type me threads. No satisfying resolution and the poster seems to have ended up defending themselves, rather than hone in on a type.
Anyway, I haven't made any guesses to coer's type yet, so for the record, I guess Beta NF. Others have mentioned that he (?) isn't good at Ti, which I agree with, but I think he values it. He also has a tendency to be dramatic and make a comparatively big deal out of unimportant things, which reminds me of EIEs.
As a goatherd learns his trade by goat, so a writer learns his trade by wrote.