The earth is round

[Eliza Thomason]

@Subteigh and Subteigh-Squared [aka Subteigh-on-Steroids or, @TheJackal], how wonderful to see your names in my notification box this morning. Good morning to you both.

Its interesting to study your identical Socionics types in action, side by side, viciously and valiantly battling ignorance and stupidity.

Commonalities in your argument style: aggressive and accusatory, no problem hurling insults, one after the other, no problem blaming. You both take the tact of piling one accusation on top of another on top of another (see how many you can cram in a paragraph - Subteigh-on-Steroids is even worse on this) making it hard to know where to begin (or why to begin) to respond.

Yes, so, that's unpleasant. For me. You probably would not take it that way. But add to that, neither of you ever acknowledges a point I make, and never say anything along the lines of, "Interesting. I had not heard that/considered that before."

I could go on but its bringing it all back to think about it. And I just ate breakfast.

Ah ha! I just looked at our Model A's - INTp and ENFp. My main ego function is Ne, which I use extensively in these discussions and look - that's your IGNORING function. Yes. Your Ne is in your ignoring function. Well, that explains a lot. What I get on with in life is what you try to pretend does not exist. That makes a lot of sense here.

Constructivist vs. Emotivist. Let's talk about one of those points for a minute.

Constructivist (You two)
- Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.

Emotivist (me)
- Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.

Do you see any of that in our communications?



Subteigh, you are questioning my INTp type for you. Yes, lets talk about that!

ENFp is a Negativist (like you and Jackal's INTp also), and likewise I tend approach typing with the view of what one is not, first. The "not" is what grabs me first, usually. And after some communicating with you, it became quite clear you are not the soft, gentle, highly-tuned to interpersonal feelings, emphatic EII, who debate style is completely different from yours. EII holds it back (unless her feelings have been hurt - then she might bite back - once, and sharply), as EII's sensitive soul does not want to offend anyone, or risk bruising anyone's feelings, which they are highly attuned to. (Right, @Maritsa?)

Look:

Here is a first general descriptions of EII:
- the two main distinguishing qualities are an interest in human values and a developed capacity for compassion.

Human values. Feelings. Beliefs. That is EII's focus. You are not interested in my values except to try to debunk them. But EII perceives my values with little explanation from me and then treads carefully not to step on them in any way, shape or form.

Also, Subteigh, your idea of humanitarianism is to make the world a better place by shooting down ignorance and creating complex new constructs for a better society. EII's idea of humanitarianism means going to the library faithfully every Saturday morning for Story Time to read a book to the 3 and 4 year olds. You two are on completely different pages as to your definitions of humanitarianism.

Also, you don't care that your arguing style stresses me out. My complaint on that account is not going to soften your approach one bit. Not so with EII.

Here are some top INTp descriptors:
♦ Excels in analytical thinking; presents his ideas with clarity and some measure of order; notices flaws, alternative options, and brings them up in a discussion.
♦ Mentally comprehends and models the entire system; captures a notion and then systematizes it, suggesting simplified explanations and schematics.
♦ Can distinguish what's important from what is secondary; however, often neglects details and specifics in presenting material, preferring to present a more general (vague) overview of the topic or the situation.

Sound familiar to you Subteigh? And TheJackal? It should.


Also your use of Fi [Introverted Feeling (or, ethics) falls into a completely different place on Model A, making you use Fi completely differently than EII.

Here is EII's Fi, placed first and foremost in Model A:
Introverted ethics in first function designate a person for whom the main orientation in life is making judgments about good and evil, morals and depravity, decency and dishonorableness. EII very acutely feels the general trends and standards of behavior which prevail in a society or a social group. She is usually mindful of these norms in order to not be insulting to other people.

When encountering people who are disadvantaged, outcast, unhappy, or weak she experiences a desire to emotionally support them and console them. Thus others will frequently refer to her with their troubles, and she will listen to their grievances and confessions sometimes for hours. She tries to sympathize, to enter their personal position, to feel their emotional pain as if it is her own, to accept the person and give them moral support.

Subteigh, would you say that one of the main things that characterizes your life is that it is populated with so many unhappy, outcast and disadvantaged people who come to you for consolation, as they can just see that you are a person who will listen with sweet empathy for hours to their grievances and confessions? While you feel their emotional pain, and give them moral support?

This woudl be hard for the INTp, of whom this is said about their Fi placement:

Super-Id Block
Mobilizing - Introverted Ethics, Fi

ILIs may display an insensitive attitude towards others and may have a hard time establishing amiable relationships. However, when the ILI has developed deep interpersonal bonds, they tend to hold on to such attachments very strongly. ILIs are almost always lacking in confidence concerning their own abilities to forge relationships, consequently, they rarely speak of their more positive sentiments with others with whom they share merely superficial acquaintanceships.

Yes, so it would be quite a strain for the ILI to do what the EII does so well: comfort the afflicted, those whom she has only a superficial relationship with, people she has just encountered that have emotional burdens. But EII can and does - EII shines in this.

My EII sis-in-law has told me more than once fascinating stories of the emotional lives of someone she JUST MET on the bus or in the park.

I will never forget the story of the mom in the little city park that my EII sis-in-law met one day when she took her little ones there. This ordinary looking young mom, early in this first and only conversation with my EII friend revealed she had grown up in an extremely abusive household. When she was very young and her parents would yell, fight, and smash things, she would go to her room and an angel would come and play board games with her in her room until the fight was over, and then put her to bed. As she grew, her Guardian Angel would come sometimes and take her on sort-of "field trips" to heaven, where other other angels and children played, a wonderful place where you could ride the giraffes and run with the lions and zebras. Growing up she thought this was normal, and that all the other children did this too, until, much older, it gradually became clear her experience was unique...

My EII sis-in-law told me this story (which has even more fascinating twists and turns to it) so clearly - remembering with her elephant's memory for conversations, all the details and emotions, so much so that if feels as if I was told the story first-hand, too.

Because this emphatic listening is first and foremost for an EII. EII's empathy and listening is SO STRONG that they can and do receive such unique experiences when strangers open themselves to their highly attuned empathy.

Stratiyevskaya says this as first and foremost of an EII:

Fi Block of Ego, 1st position, Program Function: "Ethics of Relation"

The EII attempts to create the most harmonious, most humane, in his opinion, form of ethical relations, which would exclude the suppression of one personality by another, conflicts, discord, lack of understanding, and mutual distrust.

"Poor peace is better than a good quarrel" – this is the basic form of his ethical strategy.



I think its obvious in this thread, especially since Jackal amplifies all of the INTp traits (but you exemplify them well here, too) that "Poor peace is better than a good quarrel" is not your motto. A good quarrel is perfectly fine with you INTp's.

Yes, so, that's just the beginning, Subteigh, of why you are not an EII.

Then you could look the Model A Fe placements for INTp (which should sound very familiar) and the Model A Fe placements for EII (which is quite foreign to you, Subteigh!).

Consider that I might be good at this typing thing some of the times, Subteigh. I am IEE, ENFp, sometimes called "The Psychologist", and we use our NeFi to perceive these things quickly. And Holographical-Panoramic Cognition is used by IEE to "detect the possible hidden motivations of a person, as if building their psychological 'hologram'."

Oh, BTW, your INTp type is sometimes called "The Critic". I can't imagine why!


___________

Okay, I am back and now its afternoon. Yes, TheJackal, this is being turned away from Flat Earth Theory and particularly the Process you are trying to drag me through (my type is Result! Not Process!) and to Socionics, as that's the fascinating aspect of this discussion, to me.

Quick primer on some Process/Result differences:
Process
- Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end
- Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking.
- Focus between the beginning and the end of processes
- More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end
- "Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."

Result
- Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
- Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
- Focus on the beginning and the end of processes
- More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.
- "Of course we followed the correct procedure, since we got the right answer."

So you can see, since we hold such conflicting approaches, how we conflict in going about discussing this theory. What makes it a real drag for me is that your "Aggression in everyday life" style means you are very assertive in trying to drag me out of Result and through your precise Process, and I am not interested. That's added to our completely different Cognitive styles.


Anyway, since Subteigh wonders why I think he is INTp/ILI, I have culled the writings of various authors of this site's archives concerning INTp/ILE. I picked these particular quotes both because they particularly remind me of you two in these discussions, and in other instances because these pieces of ILI type description I have seen so clearly in the lives of the very-different-yet-same unique ILI's I know IRL. So, I thought you might find some like-mindedness, too. These things are quite unlike the INFj/EII descriptions, I expect will sound familiar to you, Subteigh and TheJackal.

by author Sara Csaky [INTp]
...[INTp] is an effective artist of the world, always looking for ways that he might change it to better to heed his needs. He is an intellectual dreamer so lost in his own world that when shaken from his mind me may at first appear lost and distant.

An eloquent and effective speaker, he can make the most mundane things seem quite amazing with his extravagant verbal skills. The INTp is very often fluent in several languages and may have even made up his own as a child. He is very mathematically inclined due to his ability to understand structure and patterns. The INTp shows an intense interest in religion and is more often than not delving into his studies of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and any other religion ancient or modern that strikes his interest. He shows a mish-mash of beliefs and usually does not commit to one religion or the other. [this is SO YOU, Subteigh!]

Socially he is charming and charismatic. When feeling sociable he will approach others with child like enthusiasm and a sardonic wit. However when not feeling social he is aloof and temperamental. The INTp puts up barriers and will rarely let them down. He is very guarded and worried that people are judging him because he himself is constantly quietly observing humans. The INTp is very skeptical about love, and though he wants more than anything to love, when he does he thinks himself foolish and quickly backs out of the relationship. As a rule he keeps a distance between himself and his friends. One of his biggest fears is to rely on someone emotionally.

The INTp is self-confident to a fault. He loves a debate not only to prove his point to the person he is sparing with but also to confirm his own beliefs. The study of human behavior is very important to him. He can be blunt and insensitive to others simply to see their reaction. He can also be a kind sensitive listener, though he does not like to give advise due to his fear of doing more harm than good. He is calm, restrained and often unreadable.

Perfect chaos is the only way to describe the choice living conditions for the INTp. He will leave the laundry and dishes undone, but the small important things to him are kept in perfect order. It is not uncommon for him to alphabetize and categorize his movie and book collections. The INTp will collect and study odd things such as, fossils, rocks, and old photographs. Things that most people might find boring are quite fascinating and important to him. He is bothered if he finds such small important things out of order and prone to fly into a rage if they are touched by one other than himself.

The INTp is incredibly instinctive. He often knows what the out come of any given situation will be. He rarely gets himself into grave trouble for this reason. He is aware of this ability but is often unwilling to share it if he has not been taken seriously in this aspect in the past.


Gulenko on INTp:

"Has a good eye for noticing contradictions and omissions in actions and words. Skeptical about the prospects of hasty initiatives. "

"Takes up only those tasks that ensure reliable returns. Thrifty with money. Does the job scrupulously, slowly, attentively examines details. Calculates everything in his mind. Tries to control the process.[] Able to capitalize on information that he or she has accumulated."

"He likes to discuss and argue on a variety of topics, but growing hot-tempered he can spoil the mood for himself and others. Poorly control his emotions: his states range from melancholic depression to outbreaks of discontentment and frustration. His problem lies in finding inner balance."

"Due to associatively organized memory and love of learning is often erudite. Clearly discerns contradictions and inaccuracies in the positions and opinions of others. Possessing a thoughtful mind can make an impression of a clever and far-sighted man. Cautious when making decisions. His position is that you need to run a little ahead of the game. Always chooses the safest course of action."

"Resents that knowledge and intellectual skill rarely lead to the desired results. He knows a lot, but to come up with something himself is difficult for him. Skeptical about the prospects of new initiations and adventurous ideas. Envisions and presents things as more complicated than they really are. Although, he can instill hope into those who have been demoralized. Keen to try his hand at different activities in order to gain confidence in his abilities. However, he rarely attains multifaceted development. With pleasure he studies all the novelties and innovations in his spheres of interest. Able to find uses for things that otherwise seem outdated and worn out.

Does his work is accord with the established methods, slowly and scrupulously, going into all the specifications. Can be rigorous with details and meticulous to the point of pedantry. Professional activity and diligence are characteristic of him only within a formal system, where there is structure and regulation. Tries to have a set of necessary tools at his workplace and at home. Does not like to take anything on credit. In business activity, he is independent, self-sufficient and effective."

" A skeptic by nature. Notices all the contradictions, oppositions, and deficiencies in the surrounding world. "

"Critic is a self-contained type with a predilection for theoretical reasoning. Most of all he is interested in problems of informational and general theoretical nature. The "hustle and bustle" of worldly life is of little value to him. Optimal regimen for him is independent work, which does not require great physical effort and urgency, and which provides the opportunity to exercise the mind. His career development is gradual, his advancement proceeds step-by-step. When interacting with his colleagues, ILI must always be aware that in spite of his knowing, he is usually only outlining the problem without offering anything in return. In addition, his ideas can be unrealistic and too complicated for implementation. He is better than anyone in evaluating existing trends, however, implementation of fundamental reforms to avoid impending dangers you will have to do by yourself—do not count on his involvement here. As with all intuitive types, "Critic" prefers that all problems of domestic and workplace set-up, supply and maintenance are resolved by somebody else instead of him. So if you take care of him in these matters, this will free him to do more creative work."


INTp profile by Stratiyevskaya

ILI does not glorify and "sing odes" to the brave. To the contrary, he will consider it to be his responsibility to timely warn others against rash decisions and actions, to counsel them about all the possible lacks and dangers, to point out all the unfavorable courses of events. He, as no one another, sees the original hopelessness of many enterprises and the foolishness of poorly timed undertakings. Nevertheless, even with all these expectations of the worst, the ILI, in contrast to some other intuitive types, does not foretell of an imminent end of the world; he is generally against causing public hysteria by means of bleak predictions.

Balzac [this is a Socionics nickname for INTp/ILI] likes to look at everything that is occurring around him philosophically; therefore he finds "comfort" in sayings of the kind: "everything passes", "we'll all be there", "tomorrow is not the end of the world", "this, too, shall pass"...

He considers that everything will come in time to a person who knows how to wait. And Balzac knows how to await. He also knows how to fill this waiting time such that it can last his entire life, and still not have any negative impact on his plans.

He usually knows how to manage and "own" his time – this enables him to feel independent. He does not subordinate himself to the circumstances, rather he utilizes them to his benefit. He is not in a habit of harboring any flattering delusions concerning himself and thus capable of realistically estimating his own possibilities under the specific circumstances at some stage in time.

A drawback of Balzac's warnings and admonishments is the absence of positive alternatives within them, in consequence of which they frequently have the effect of "freezing" or "stopping" some activity.

[That later is an annoyance of mine in this thread. I started this thread saying that I was enjoying learning about the Flat Earth Theory, and it seems TheJackal is bent on stopping me from enjoying it. As a Delta ENFp, I don't like someone trying to encroach on my freedom. Trying to "stop" my mind.]

TheJackal, this was not your intention coming here to 16types, but you need to know you have stumbled on a great tool for your life here at 16types. You are not that great at reading people and finding the best girl for you. However, I've got it narrowed down for you quite a bit now that I know you are INTp. You need a nice ESFp/SEE girl - your perfect Dual. They are not hard to find in a social situation; they are very attractive and noticeable. They are socially adept, and are happy to run that department for you. You will be very happy all your life with her, and you are EXACTLY what she needs, just the way you are.

For Subteigh, who mistakenly considers himself to be the sweet and empathetic hothouse flower, INFj/EII, I will conclude with excerpts from writings of author Leandro Javier Sepp, INFj, on INFj:

Often believed to be a martyr for the sake of their own attitudes, INFjs are actually highly sensitive, neurotic slave of their own skills. Since they have awareness of the many meanings behind the various gestures, words, and breaths, the INFj has no difficulty in understanding the moods of people and the situations they are in; they can discern and dissect the motives of any viewpoint, even independently of principle.

Despite her shyness, she carefully word her sentences in a way in which she can answer with the most effectiveness and in a way that appeals to the expectations of others. However, she remains closed and distant to the world; only after she has made sure of her surroundings will she seek to open herself to any experiences remotely resembling extroversion.

...INFjs have difficulty refusing the needs and demands of others, and usually comply without taking much thought to their own needs. However, they may bottle up those emotions until some breaking point, where an INFj may flee from a pressuring situation leaving others bewildered. They have difficulty breaking unwanted relations, and may comply with the desires of those by which they have no personal interest; over people may not be truly made aware to their feelings in result.

INFjs may often lack awareness of their surroundings, and have a poor concept of time; usually they are not very inclined to participate in sporting or outdoor activities.

As lovers of routine, INFjs love orderly surroundings; they find peace in structured environments, and seek to keep their lives well on track. But, they may have difficulty realizing their dreams and desires.

Oversensitive and self-conscious, they are vulnerable to physical discomforts, small headaches, messy hair, and unclean clothes mostly resulting from the immense pressure they place upon themselves to live a happy life in a nice comfortable atmosphere. However much time they spend to provide these things for themselves and others, they are not always very good at achieving them, but they depend on it for their own survival and well-being.

INFjs are secretive and reactionary, they rarely reveal their own true opinions and secrets and seek not to be placed in any position upon which they must express themselves: public speaking, reading loudly, or any sort of public exposure does not suit any INFj well.

INFjs fall into two different categories according to appearance and values.

One type of INFj would be considered rather outgoing, braver, and could lead some sort of active social life, often working as translators, psychotherapists, teachers, or any other type of job that would allow them to improvise their ready-made skills. These are the ethical subtypes.

Another type of INFj follows a different path, appearing more reserved and immersed in an imaginary world; often chasing after fantasy tales, scattered, selfish, and dreamy. These are the intuitive subtypes.

INFjs may be of the opinion that the best way to handle most situations is to feign their own demise. Because of these self-defeating tendencies, their eyes may have a sorrowful look to them, even when they are happy they could have a martyr like appearance.

.................................................. .....Attachment 7006

[Enters Laughing]

Yes, so, that's unpleasant. For me. You probably would not take it that way. But add to that, neither of you ever acknowledges a point I make, and never say anything along the lines of, "Interesting. I had not heard that/considered that before."

This is possibly because it isn't true, or if new, is minor to my general knowledge on the subject and not getting the grips with the main issue at stake. I am knowledgeable about religions and subsets of religions to varying degrees, as well as some degree of philosophy. I think also that you live in a world where the supernatural is possible, whereas I do not: I do not even consider arguments invoking the supernatural, because they are fundamentally without substance. They are not even interesting to talk about.

Ah ha! I just looked at our Model A's - INTp and ENFp. My main ego function is Ne, which I use extensively in these discussions and look - that's your IGNORING function. Yes. Your Ne is in your ignoring function. Well, that explains a lot. What I get on with in life is what you try to pretend does not exist. That makes a lot of sense here.

Maybe you are IEE, but I've always considered my more readily apparent than yours. Maybe it is, in my view, my creative function and this manifests in a certain way, or maybe being -dominant doesn't manifest as might be expected in individuals who are heavily tied to a conservative religion and seek to reinforce their own beliefs rather than having a wide range of interests outside that religion.

Constructivist vs. Emotivist. Let's talk about one of those points for a minute.

Constructivist (You two)
- Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.

Emotivist (me)
- Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.

Do you see any of that in our communications?

I resonate strongly with the Construvist description (it is about one of the strongest Reinin traits I do identify with), but I do not consider the Reinins useful for typing purposes.

what one is not[/I], first. The "not" is what grabs me first, usually. And after some communicating with you, it became quite clear you are not the soft, gentle, highly-tuned to interpersonal feelings, emphatic EII, who debate style is completely different from yours. EII holds it back (unless her feelings have been hurt - then she might bite back - once, and sharply), as EII's sensitive soul does not want to offend anyone, or risk bruising anyone's feelings, which they are highly attuned to. (Right, @Maritsa?)

This is is an outrageous argument to make about my personality considering the circumstances. If I said Islam was fundamentally evil and you agreed with me, would that mean you lack the traits you described me as lacking? My counter would be that, in my view, we are discussing a fundamentally evil doctrine, as Damnation is, and if anything, it is YOU who lacks these traits by your approval of the doctrine of Damnation. I really think you still fail to have any clue about how outrageously offensive I find it: it is only because I believe that humans are fundamentally good they I am arguing with a person who holds such views in the first place. You are the one here who is failing to be "humane" and all that guff. But I do not believe this is necessarily a matter relevant to our respective personalities.

Also, I do not feel I need Maritsa to continue her act in her thread (which after all, has included many instances where she has deleted loud, angry, and vitriolic posts, perhaps out of shame or embarrassment, which is fair enough, or in order to act with her idealised view of how EIIs supposedly are. I don't believe many of the several self-typed EIIs would readily agree with her analysis, although they will be far less loud and energetic about their views of what EIIs can be.

This discussion in regards religion is also very depersonal to me: your comments here suggest that you take my criticism of Christianity personally, as a reflection on you. I have no interest in causing you upset. I don't intend to be inconsiderate of your feelings...indeed, I wish the best for you, and hope you move to a better ideology. Don't you think you are being very one-directional? It is your feelings that I have apparently upset, but I consider you to hold an ideology that doesn't even recognise my intrinsic human worth: what about my feelings? It is not nice or helpful to have such values normalised in our society (in my opinion of course, but I think it is a reasonable opinion, of couse).

I have been on this forum for more than ten years, even been admin and a moderator once or twice. I think I have been generally consistent in my behaviour, and I doubt few people would consider me as somewhat lacking in empathy and not being soft, gentle etc. I think while I was admin, it was more typical for my style to be considered overly focused on being "correct", not allowing people to insult other, and endlessly debating and justifying the nuances of my moderating philosophy even for minor infractions. I was somewhat neurotic at times, but even when I was being repeatedly insulted and provoked by a forum owner (while I remained an admin), I remained and continued to do the core non-technical duties while not responding in kind (if indeed I responded publicly at all): i.e. if you believe my behaviour in this thread is harsh, you fundamentally misunderstand me.

Look:

Here is a first general descriptions of EII:
- the two main distinguishing qualities are an interest in human values and a developed capacity for compassion.

Human values. Feelings. Beliefs. That is EII's focus. You are not interested in my values except to try to debunk them. But EII perceives my values with little explanation from me and then treads carefully not to step on them in any way, shape or form.

Also, Subteigh, your idea of humanitarianism is to make the world a better place by shooting down ignorance and creating complex new constructs for a better society. EII's idea of humanitarianism means going to the library faithfully every Saturday morning for Story Time to read a book to the 3 and 4 year olds. You two are on completely different pages as to your definitions of humanitarianism.

You mentioned Maritsa before for some reason, but do you know that I once went to great length to defend Maritsa when no one else would? When a forum owner deleted Maritsa's account out of pure spite (which at the very least meant the lost of all her Private Messages: her posts could at least be later restored to a new account, as did happen) I argued extensively about it in Site Discussion and also privately in the Mod section and through PMs, even though I was an admin at the time. There were a fair number of individuals, even normally reasonable individuals, who found it funny and/or supported the action (a fair number of individuals at the time thought it legitimate for Maritsa to be banned altogether, at the very least)

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...aritsa-s-posts

Can you refer to examples on this forum where Maritsa has done anything comparable? In most part, I've witnessed her provoking arguments with most of the rest of the forum, in particular self-typed Deltas.

In regards my view on humanitarianism...and not "I'm a Humanitarian because I'm EII", they're not actually complicated. I'm more interested in the world being improved through cost-effective measures, taking much inspiration from projects such as: http://ourworldindata.org/

Attempting to improve myself and others through discussing practical, ethical values as I like to do would be a good manifestation of a EII role, I would have thought. I don't know why you don't think I'm interested in what you think: I feel you confuse the monolith of a religious group's values as one and the same with your own thoughts, and that further, you don't seem at all interested in what I think except to state that I have been malignantly influenced by anti-Catholic forces.

Maritsa's style of "humanitarianism" according to you is to be interested in an unpopular "pop" psychology and battletyping others as a means of "improvement" and/or self-actualization. Her range of interests (in terms of the various humanities) also seems limited, at least from the point of view of an introvert.

Also, you don't care that your arguing style stresses me out. My complaint on that account is not going to soften your approach one bit. Not so with EII.

That is completely unfair (it's not true that I don't care). I believe you are likely to find the mere appearance of my username stressful, but I do not intend it so: You really ought not feel pressured or harried, it's only me. I do think however, that you are pleading special exceptionalilty: You believe I'm the one at fault, and that I am not stressed out by what I consider your hateful doctrine (of damnation), your uncalled for character assessment of me (not that I necessarily object to you doing so per se), and your attempt to draw someone else into the debate.

Subteigh, would you say that one of the main things that characterizes your life is that it is populated with so many unhappy, outcast and disadvantaged people who come to you for consolation, as they can just see that you are a person who will listen with sweet empathy for hours to their grievances and confessions? While you feel their emotional pain, and give them moral support?

I feel it is a little unfair to put me on the spot in this way, and induce me to divulge my private life when I have typically been reticent in giving out details and very much a slow-burner in that regard over a decade on this forum. It seems like you are asking me to do what someone like Maritsa does, and made a parade of being a Humanitarian. You evidently do not know enough about me to get a sense of my history, my life situation, and my experiences and thoughts on various matters. I do not tend to make a public record of such things, at least not one that is permanent (I don't believe I have encountered you in the chatbox, and via PMs, and to a lesser degree, in offline chat and Real Life). You seem to be pushing me to say "Yes, I'm a Humanitarian, I do all these great things" or "No, I don't care about anything, not even myself". What I've said in this paragraph is why many have doubted the typing of EII for Maritsa...it is all very much a performance for her, a public show...whereas for other self-typed EIIs, this is anathema to their way of living, and further, a prolonged counter to a confrontation with the highly energetic and combative Maritsa is also contrary to their nature. Being required to "testify" their EII-ness as you are asking here is very much pushing them to wear their hearts on their sleeves while at the same time necessitating they act contrary to their personality. Speaking personally (but an impersonally observation), I reveal myself utterly to a very few number of people, and speak in varying degrees of generalities depending on interpersonal closeness. I do not set the powder keg alight and reveal myself all at once and continuously to absolutely everybody who wishes to hear/read it.

"Poor peace is better than a good quarrel" – this is the basic form of his ethical strategy.

You seem to think that the state of fundamentalist religion in the world today is equivalent to a "Poor peace": this is not my view at all. I also do not consider the doctrine of Damnation something which is resolvable by a "good quarrel": the doctrine is fundamentally evil, I cannot argue with anyone who says otherwise. Finally, a good peace is even better than a poor peace: I work from the assumption that we want the same things: i.e. recognizing the inherent value of every individual, say, and attempt to move to an even better version of what we already have by remaining true to my own standards (via actions and words). I think you perhaps have a limited reading of what is meant by that phrase, or you misunderstand the focus of my actions.

Oh, BTW, your INTp type is sometimes called "The Critic". I can't imagine why!

Considering the doctrine of Damnation fundamentally evil and the Flat Earth model lacking in evidence doesn't especially make me a Critical person.