Quote Originally Posted by Accipiter View Post
Yeah, I agree about the unnecessary girlscout example, sounds like manipulation, doesn't belong there or need more context.
I have been thinking myself if the example should have been in there. There is no rhetorical need for it (from the perspective of generally accepted rethorical rules), but I decided to leave it in there for a reason: I am IEE, and it is socionically typical for an IEE to elaborate on how they arrived at a conclusion, adding such details to the narrative. In a sense, it is a literary appoach to writing theoretical stuff. A thing or two can be learned about the mindset of the IEE, if one pays attention. Socionics teaches us we have a choice: to view things from our own pathetic limited perspective, or put oneself in another person's shoes.

If you ask ten professors in philosophy to explain a single aphorism by Nietzsche, you get ten totally different answers. But if you ask me, I'd say Nietzsche, whatever his level of brilliance, was a megalomaniac, narcissistic EIE, and we should understand his writings as such, and the outcome of our conclusions will be different. Why? Because when I read something, I do not only read what is said, but also contemplate who said it and why it was said, applying all sorts of social sciences, including Socionics, in the process. I do not make the mistake made by ten professors of philosophy.

Thus spoke an IEE.