Are these kinds of arguments or debates typical of LSIs/ISTjs?

[Angel von Himmel]

Is this typical of ISTjs ... ? I think having these type of debates are ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

Essentially the whole thing begins with the guy making the assumtion that only those who prescribe already to his own logic are intelligent then proceeds to make boatloads of subjective based arguments which are founded on some sort of skewed Empiracle style reasoning ability. Then, to make matters worse, he downplays intuition and even goes so far as to call Christians dillusional. That seems like some sort of PoLR to me ...

[XoX]

Is this typical of ISTjs ... ? I think having these type of debates are ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

Essentially the whole thing begins with the guy making the assumtion that only those who prescribe already to his own logic are intelligent then proceeds to make boatloads of subjective based arguments which are founded on some sort of skewed Empiracle style reasoning ability. Then, to make matters worse, he downplays intuition and even goes so far as to call Christians dillusional. That seems like some sort of PoLR to me ...

I don't know...somehow I smell here I would say NT type. I go with Gamma and say ENTj or INTp.

About ISTjs...doesn't seem very ISTj but I don't know. ISTjs can be ruthless but I'm not sure if they would make it their agenda to convert people from their beliefs. I think they generally have their own beliefs and couldn't care less about what others believe or don't believe. Gamma NTs seem to always make it their agenda to smash others beliefs which they don't share. And it is VERY Gamma NT to use the word "stupid" when you don't agree with them.

[aestrivex]

this is on video. this is its reasoning:

If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it's an interesting question: [sic; note the wrong use of punctuation]

On the one hand, you believe that god answers prayers and performs miracles.

On the other hand, you know that god ignores amputees when they spontaneously pray for miracles


How do you deal with this discrepancy?

As an intelligent person, you have to deal with it, because it makes no sense.

In order to handle it, notice that you have to make some kind of rationalization.

You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life.

i feel like i'm in a remedial logic class.


all of the conclusions drawn by this video are absurd because they rely entirely upon the traditionally possibility that assumptions are correct no matter what, completely ignoring the reality and consequences of things.

edit: i hadn't watched the last approximately two minutes of the video before making this conclusion. but, very clearly, the emphasis on logical, rational thinking is completely .

[Angel von Himmel]

I agree, his whole argument style is almost purely , but I am not sure if I would agree that he uses and it could be the subjectivity of introverted thinking that makes everything look disconnected. He could also have as second function. In any case, whatever he said is total BS made by synonymous subjective conclusions that really do not seem to appeal to anyone else but himself, which is typically what pure tends to do ... if not that, it is an introverted function of some sort. No way is that ...

[maze]

it could be the subjectivity of introverted thinking that makes everything look disconnected.

What connections do you see him disregarding? The "I'm thinking intelligently and if you are intelligent you will think like me too" is pretty far out egotistical ranting. I'm curious as to how you see the rest of his argument. What christian content do you see him dismissing? You mentioned intuition, where do you see him disconnecting from intuition?

[Angel von Himmel]

The reason I said that he seemed disconnected and subjective in is because his argumentation style focuses more on what he is personally convinced about and essentially everything he says is said simply to convince himself futher in what he thinks. He makes absolutly no conscious attempts whatsoever to gear what he says towards changing anothers viewpoint, just to nitpick at those viewpoints. That is introverted thinking and not extroverted thinking.

Essentially what I am saying is that his argumentations are so much geared towards his own mindset that you would have to be a pretty shallow person to take anything he says worth a grain of salt; atheist, christian, whatever ... he is not convincing at all.

As far as intuition goes I really do not see strong evidence that the guy is an Intuitor, but I am not sure if it is that he uses strong either. So, he might be either. I do tend to think the guy is ISTj simply on account that he seems rather anti-intuitive. Otheriwse he would not be ranting the way he is ranting.

[Joy]

lmao @ the qualifications

[Joy]

that video is hilarious... a must see

[Angel von Himmel]

LOL - are you being sarcastic?

[Joy]

not at all

[Angel von Himmel]

The sad part is that the guy was actually being serious and really actually attempting to prove a serious point.

[Joy]

Ti dominant

[UDP]

Typing is irrlevant.

Probably a j type of some sort.


The point is, anyone who thinks they are right, and feel they have something to say because of it will come off that way. IMO, it's just someone trying to be elevated, but because he really isn't there himself, it comes of as unbalanced, and then furthermore, as arrogant.

[Phaedrus]

Those of you who think that his argument style is purely are all wrong. It is more and Gamma NT as XoX points out, but other T types could probably say similar things. He is much too serious and aggressive to be a typical example of a dominant, so ENTj or INTp are the most likely candidates.

Besides from those considerations he is of course completely right about everything he says in that video. I totally agree with all of his arguments and conclusions.

[Kristiina]

Yep, it would make sense because I love the structured way he added the bulleted lists and all. And he could really need some of that pure belief, some of that thing that's usually associated with and .

The guy who answers him seems to be ENFp. (ENFj is possible, but body language says ENFp.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eeY1EVv2Kk

[XoX]

I guess I can't spot Ti vs Te at all then

So is this Ti? "If I cut my arm and pray it to grow back it doesn't -> therefore God does not exist."

And how would Te differ? Would Te actually cut their arm and observe whether it does or doesn't grow back before making an argument where Ti would just argue it doesn't because the idea would be absurd if you take into account everything medical science has taught us?

[Phaedrus]

I guess I can't spot Ti vs Te at all then

You seem to be better at it than some others. Basically all of his arguments are based on scientific, objectivistic considerations. His point of view is not .

[XoX]

I guess I can't spot Ti vs Te at all then

You seem to be better at it than some others. Basically all of his arguments are based on scientific, objectivistic considerations. His point of view is not .

Hey, it is good your wrote. I won't rest my case just yet. I want to get this straight. It has implications on my understanding of functions.

Ok I still claim it is more Te. It doesn't show holistic use of logic. It takes individual observations and uses them to show logical contradictions in "larger theory". I think it is more Ti to believe in God _despite_ the fact that God doesn't heal amputees. Because Ti tries to see the whole issue and one or two contradicting observations are considered anomalies and are discarded (which annoys Te like nothing else). Te cannot discard observations but instead goes on with the "Here is my observation. Explain it. If you can't then you must change your belief or you are stupid."

If anything this video seems like an attempt of Te type to convince Ti types that they must not believe in God if they are logical creatures like they seem on the surface. It shows how Ti can appear puzzling and illogical to Te types and Te can seem trivial and philosophically destructive to Ti types. Stressing how "college educated people should be logical and understand better" is not Ti at all. Failing to understand how "college educated and (thus) intelligent" people can have beliefs which contradict their observations is not Ti at all. I still stick with Gamma NTs as most likely.

[FDG]

I guess I can't spot Ti vs Te at all then

You seem to be better at it than some others. Basically all of his arguments are based on scientific, objectivistic considerations. His point of view is not .

So I wonder, does this imply that in your twisted mind Ti arguments are not scientific? I'll brutally tell you one thing: if the Ti-model choosen to be applied is the scientific one, you would NOT be able to understand Te from Ti, fool.

Anyway this video is from somebody Aristocratic. Look at how he firstly wants to select his audience based on the education/degrees/bullcrap. I've seen similar painful arguments coming from ISTjs. They never say both sides of the issue.

[Phaedrus]

Ok I still claim it is more Te. It doesn't show holistic use of logic. It takes individual observations and uses them to show logical contradictions in "larger theory".

You are right. That is typical behaviour of an INTp. Individual observations of patterns ( ) --> logical contradictions in someone else's theory (). Both the essential ILI roles -- that of the Observer and that of the Critic -- are in play. I don't think this is convincing argument that he must be an INTp, but his form of argument can be interpreted in the way you just did, and that has also been explained by Smilingeyes in his discussions about the Reinin dichotomies.

I think it is more Ti to believe in God _despite_ the fact that God doesn't heal amputees.

I agree, and so would Jung.

Because Ti tries to see the whole issue and one or two contradicting observations are considered anomalies and are discarded (which annoys Te like nothing else). Te cannot discard observations but instead goes on with the "Here is my observation. Explain it. If you can't then you must change your belief or you are stupid."

Correct. That is how a type would reason.

If anything this video seems like an attempt of Te type to convince Ti types that they must not believe in God if they are logical creatures like they seem on the surface.

Agreed.

It shows how Ti can appear puzzling and illogical to Te types and Te can seem trivial and philosophically destructive to Ti types.

What you say is probably true about , but you don't have to be a dominant to believe in the stupid things Christians and other religious people believe in.

Stressing how "college educated people should be logical and understand better" is not Ti at all.

Correct. It is not .

Failing to understand how "college educated and (thus) intelligent" people can have beliefs which contradict their observations is not Ti at all. I still stick with Gamma NTs as most likely.

Me too.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I agree with FDG on this - his arguments seem to be 'obvious' arguments from real life that can't be disputed (at least by his logic). You get the feeling he went out there and collected arguments against god, just to make 10 arguments. A INTj would be more likely to apply to basic human reasoning, not say things such as 'you're an intelligent person, why do you believe this' - it's as though he's making people watch it by saying 'if you're stupid, you won't watch this', and 'if you watch this, you won't believe in god etc.'

I don't think a INTj would rest his argument on 'if your're a Christian, you'll believe in the power of prayer', unless they had a particular audience - they would be more likely to point to the cruelty of god (in not being consistent+ universal with miracles), which seems like a safer argument.

His logic might be inspired, but the subtext seems very ISTj - it seems like ISTj logic dressed up as logic. There's almost a sneer to every line - it's obviously his personal opinion, but he makes his argument seem like it can't be refuted - not from examples, but general observations - e.g 'look at those amputees' or 'look at those starving people'.

[XoX]

I agree with FDG on this - his arguments seem to be 'obvious' arguments from real life that can't be disputed (at least by his logic). You get the feeling he went out there and collected arguments against god, just to make 10 arguments.

I still think that is Te. Se is not that much related to making arguments or argumentation style though it is a bit hard to say when "no non-sense realism" is Te and when Se. Anyways I associate Se more with "getting things done / making stuff happen / using something" and Te more with "telling how things are / should be / how everyone should think".

Using these descriptions of Te
http://socionist.blogspot.com/2006/1...revisited.html

Substantiating one's own and others' conclusions

"Extraverted logic focuses on the external proof of assertions - facts, examples, illustrations, concrete data and its interpretation"

He seems totally focused on facts, examples, concrete data and its interpretation. The fact that he uses a random list of 10 observations/arguments to make his point does suggest he is Te.

"in extraverted logic citing data serves to specify the subject of discussion and the order of listing is irrelevant, while in introverted logic it reflects the information's internal structure."

I can not see how his information could be Ti because it does not offer any kind of model or structure or holistic view on the subject. "Just" a random collection of 10 Te arguments which the speaker thinks should be disputed before any other conversation needs to take place.

I don't know enough about ISTjs to be totally sure but I think there is more Te than Ti involved in this argument. Actually I would go as far as to say it lacks a lot in Ti. It is primarily Te with perhaps some Se in there too (not sure about this).

This is actually very interesting discussion so let's keep it going

[Phaedrus]

Actually I would go as far as to say it lacks a lot in Ti.

Actually, I would even consider going so far as to say that it might contain no at all. But there is a lot of in it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think it's INTj, but I associate with some of the reasoning, such as 'if this makes you uncomfortable, you should use your rationality to explain it' - I think this is kind of argument, but it could be asking you to use your personal based experience - as is a perceiving function, it won't be readily apparent in the logical (i.e. based on judgement) arguments (though perhaps in the tone of argument, the tone of voice etc.).

So he may use style arguments, but is that likely to represent his type, or the kind of argument he is trying to present (e.g. he may use at the expense of to make his argument more easily recognised (a INTj probably wouldn't do this). Also, if he is merely imitating atheist arguments, it might seem more . I don't really have any way to prove my inklings, but in any case, I don't think it's a partically good way of typing someone (it's somewhat artificial, rehearsed etc.).

(I agree the arguments have weak in them, but unsure if this reflects the person's type).

[aestrivex]

anyone who doesn't see that this guy's argument is a pure manifestation of in my mind, has no working knowledge of socionics.

[Angel von Himmel]

Those of you who think that his argument style is purely are all wrong. It is more and Gamma NT as XoX points out, but other T types could probably say similar things. He is much too serious and aggressive to be a typical example of a dominant, so ENTj or INTp are the most likely candidates.

Besides from those considerations he is of course completely right about everything he says in that video. I totally agree with all of his arguments and conclusions.

I still am not sure if I agree that it is , but I sure know it is not ... and I do not think the guy in ENFp either.

[Phaedrus]

anyone who doesn't see that this guy's argument is a pure manifestation of in my mind, has no working knowledge of socionics.

You still have much to learn, niffweed. Read Psychological Types a couple of times before you say stupid things like that. And study Rick's Summary of the Information Elements. And take a close look at all the things Dmitri Lytov has to say on his site.

[Exodus]

I guess I can't spot Ti vs Te at all then

You seem to be better at it than some others. Basically all of his arguments are based on scientific, objectivistic considerations. His point of view is not .

So I wonder, does this imply that in your twisted mind Ti arguments are not scientific? I'll brutally tell you one thing: if the Ti-model choosen to be applied is the scientific one, you would NOT be able to understand Te from Ti, fool.

Anyway this video is from somebody Aristocratic. Look at how he firstly wants to select his audience based on the education/degrees/bullcrap. I've seen similar painful arguments coming from ISTjs. They never say both sides of the issue.

Ditto.

"I am going to assume you...have been trained to think logically."
"You know how the world works."
"I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question."

Can you really see a Te type saying that last statement?

Purely ISTj...

(And btw, Phaedrus, Jung doesn't mean jack in an argument like this.)

[aestrivex]

anyone who doesn't see that this guy's argument is a pure manifestation of in my mind, has no working knowledge of socionics.

You still have much to learn, niffweed. Read Psychological Types a couple of times before you say stupid things like that. And study Rick's Summary of the Information Elements. And take a close look at all the things Dmitri Lytov has to say on his site.

shut up, please

[FDG]

anyone who doesn't see that this guy's argument is a pure manifestation of in my mind, has no working knowledge of socionics.

You still have much to learn, niffweed. Read Psychological Types a couple of times before you say stupid things like that. And study Rick's Summary of the Information Elements. And take a close look at all the things Dmitri Lytov has to say on his site.

You know, not only you are able to read. And probably 99 percent of the world population is better than you at comprehending.

[Phaedrus]

anyone who doesn't see that this guy's argument is a pure manifestation of in my mind, has no working knowledge of socionics.

You still have much to learn, niffweed. Read Psychological Types a couple of times before you say stupid things like that. And study Rick's Summary of the Information Elements. And take a close look at all the things Dmitri Lytov has to say on his site.

You know, not only you are able to read.

You may be able to read, but you seem to be unable to understand what is written. And that applies to most of you. The level of intelligence on this forum is much lower than I had expected.

[FDG]

anyone who doesn't see that this guy's argument is a pure manifestation of in my mind, has no working knowledge of socionics.

You still have much to learn, niffweed. Read Psychological Types a couple of times before you say stupid things like that. And study Rick's Summary of the Information Elements. And take a close look at all the things Dmitri Lytov has to say on his site.

You know, not only you are able to read.

You may be able to read, but you seem to be unable to understand what is written. And that applies to most of you. The level of intelligence on this forum is much lower than I had expected.

Ewww, poor misunderstood autistic genius! Go back talking with the voices in your mind, maybe they will agree with you.

[olduser]

you two should knock it off.

oh and this is very important: the video is not meant to be an example of socionics functions. It doesn't intend to represent the functions with argument or style. It is about amputees and god.

[aestrivex]

oh and this is very important: the video is not meant to be an example of socionics functions. It doesn't intend to represent the functions with argument or style. It is about amputees and god.

why is that relevant in the analysis of the information elements that it displays?

[Rick]

The guy who answers him seems to be ENFp. (ENFj is possible, but body language says ENFp.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eeY1EVv2Kk

I'm split between EII and IEE, leaning towards EII.
In the first presentation, it's harder for me to say because I don't know what the source of the presentation is, who created it, whether the person reading it is the creator, etc.

[aestrivex]

The guy who answers him seems to be ENFp. (ENFj is possible, but body language says ENFp.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eeY1EVv2Kk

I'm split between EII and IEE, leaning towards EII.
In the first presentation, it's harder for me to say because I don't know what the source of the presentation is, who created it, whether the person reading it is the creator, etc.

that guy looks EII.