Does intpwurm sound better than intjwurm?

[IntjWurm]

Originally Posted by complicater-complexer

Explain what you exactly mean by foundationalism.

Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs). Alternatives to foundationalism include coherentism, foundherentism, and reformed epistemology; which is what I thought you meant after you mentioned coherence in thinking.

[kensi]

Originally Posted by IntjWurm

INTj: TiNeSeFi
INTP: TiNeSiFe

So as you can tell, they are not the same. Is this what you mean by sub-type discrepancy?

I for all intensive purposes of even being able to talk about a designation..have to say that all of our thinking stems from the fact we have inborn preferences.
(eg. you can ask someone which car you prefer the ford or the honda--- this stems aroubd the car axis, but you cannot ask do you prefer the ford or the GE microwave, in the presence of other cars. You have to stick with the same axis)

Thus i see only TiNe being of real relevance in both scenarios (The rest is just theory in the attempts to come up with another model by derivative. All the preferences of the axis are already used up....to make further usage of the axis and attribute further designations would only limit the applicability of those very designations created)

Originally Posted by IntjWurm

Since is a dominant function in INTj and a creative function in ESTp, it is very unlikely that it will operate in exactly the same fashion in both, and so may affect different aspects of verbal expression differently.

dido..........

[RSV3]

Originally Posted by IntjWurm

INTj: TiNeSeFi
INTP: TiNeSiFe

So as you can tell, they are not the same. Is this what you mean by sub-type discrepancy?



No, you may be mistaken about the statements you made which I quoted.

Just to clarify:
LII: TiNeFiSe

In regards to the questions you answered a while back, the results were inconclusive like I had initially stated they probably would be when I first posted the test to you. I still stand by the principle that the best typing method is IRL observation + interaction + interviewing. Here are the results of your answers

1) LII—indicative of Si hidden agenda
2) ILI
3) --
4) --
5) LII—indicative of Fi in the role function
6) LII—indicative of Ne
7) ILI—indicative of Ni
8) LII—IJ temperament + Si as hidden agenda
9) ILI—An LII wants to see more finite results, an ILI, open and continuous possibilities
10) ILI—Fi in the hidden agenda
11) --
12) LII
13) --
14) ILI—Se seeking
Total Results
ILI--5
LII—5

Also in full disclosure, this "acid" test wasn't all that great, possibly because I came up with the questions in like 30 minutes.

[IntjWurm]

Originally Posted by RSV3

Just to clarify:
LII: TiNeFiSe

In regards to the questions you answered a while back, the results were inconclusive like I had initially stated they probably would be when I first posted the test to you. I still stand by the principle that the best typing method is IRL observation + interaction + interviewing. Here are the results of your answers

1) LII—indicative of Si hidden agenda
2) ILI
3) --
4) --
5) LII—indicative of Fi in the role function
6) LII—indicative of Ne
7) ILI—indicative of Ni
8) LII—IJ temperament + Si as hidden agenda
9) ILI—An LII wants to see more finite results, an ILI, open and continuous possibilities
10) ILI—Fi in the hidden agenda
11) --
12) LII
13) --
14) ILI—Se seeking
Total Results
ILI--5
LII—5

Yes, here I used the INTj as opposed to LII notation and the reversed T/F S/N ordering so that I could expose the differences in MBTI and socionics more quickly. Thank you anyways for your classification attempt - I suppose that it is not unlikely that I possess a balance of qualities of both INTj and INTp.

[RSV3]

Originally Posted by IntjWurm

Yes, here I used the INTj as opposed to LII notation and the reversed T/F S/N ordering so that I could expose the differences in MBTI and socionics more quickly. Thank you anyways for your classification attempt - I suppose that it is not unlikely that I possess a balance of qualities of both INTj and INTp.

Oh, I wasn't pointing out the INTj-LII notation difference, either notation is fine with me. But now I understand your reasoning for how you ordered the INTj's functions.

[Vibration]

Originally Posted by kensi

I suspect there is some sort of a missing link which isn't recognized in whole but only in part, the likes of which ,too, is not discernable for evidential standards. Knowing of such a link could produce a more fluid system.

Fluids yeah! Meesa! (sorry but someone sent me this pm and I kind of reacted to your post (like a reptile (ehh was that my subconcious Te??? (who is programming me here???)) Being a cunning reptile, Prom, can you explain this phenomenon to me please?

Originally Posted by kensi

This psychological stuff is different, its an ongoing thing almost like research to verify the
research you already made.

I guess theory and humans must merge in order for the theory to make sense for humans. Is the theory alive now or what?????

[Kanerou]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

hi kensi, kan and I know Prom from another forum, so you won't find that thread here.

And here I almost asked you to convince him he didn't want to see such a thing. Anyway, thanks. You beat me to it.

Originally Posted by IntjWurm

I was talking about this theory.

I initially stressed my verbal score to reflect the action of the function as suggested by Prometheus, but I do not want to appear unbalanced with regard to language, mathematics, or any other logical systems.

Ah. OK. The others have covered the second part.

Originally Posted by kensi

Hun , how can you not know if she's ISFj or ESFj....there's quite a contrast there. The observation is purely external in comparison, unlike trying to type yourself. She's your mom too.

That doesn't mean I pay a lot of attention. Besides, she's not the person now that she was when she was younger. I know that her Se gets on my nerves, but that's all that's certain. And don't call me "hun". Please.

[IntjWurm]

Originally Posted by Vibration

Is the theory alive now or what?????

Life and theory are both subject to the principle of 'survival of the fittest'.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by IntjWurm

Life and theory are both subject to the principle of 'survival of the fittest'.

You will find that altruism is more concurrent with Darwinism, and not to the 'tooth and claw' of said relevately recently flawed premise.

Encylopedia

[IntjWurm]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

You will find that altruism is more concurrent with Darwinism, and not to the 'tooth and claw' of said relevately recently flawed premise.

Encylopedia

Altruism is an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy for genes that want to preserve copies of themselves in other hosts (according to Richard Dawkins). You should read The Selfish Gene, it has an entire chapter dedicated to different types of altruism in many different species, and is supported not only by statistical evidence, but also actual genetic mechanisms that accomplish this (demonstrated by knocking out individual genes).

[IntjWurm]

Prometheus and pandapanda seem to know a lot about his work, maybe they can explain it.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by IntjWurm

Prometheus and pandapanda seem to know a lot about his work, maybe they can explain it.

Explain what exactly?

[IntjWurm]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Explain what exactly?

The selfish roots of altruism.

[Vibration]

Originally Posted by IntjWurm

Life and theory are both subject to the principle of 'survival of the fittest'.

Life creates theory not the other way around. This means that both life and theory are compatible at least temporarily. Both will change though.

[IntjWurm]

Originally Posted by Vibration

Life creates theory not the other way around. This means that both life and theory are compatible at least temporarily. Both will change though.

Likewise, the fist 'conscious' life forms must have theorized about their environment (before they could be certain that other similar 'live' entities did indeed exist) such that they could test and confirm the exact association in their own minds. Alternatively, life is an iNtuitive byproduct of the theory you Think will describe it, and so to you, theory really does create life (I know that this is a very solipsistic assertion but it has immediate relevance). Many captive chimpanzees will not recognize their own reflection because they must theorize about any discrepancies in their experience before they can realize this and behave accordingly (in this way theory can also destroy organic life, and replace it with an inorganic mirror).

[Cyclops]

Prom, what do you make of intjworn being INTJ but being INTp?

intjwurm, was it good to have everyone talking about you?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Prom, what do you make of intjworn being INTJ but being INTp?

You know that I think that that is a logical impossibility. So it isn't the case. You absolutely cannot be a J type in MBTT and a p (irrational) type in Socionics. That's a contradiction because J (judging) is the same as j (rationality). INTJs and LIIs (INTjs) are rational/judging types. INTPs and ILIs (INTps) are perceiving/irrational types.

There is no escape from this. It is something that people just have to accept. It is a matter of inborn temperament described by the four dichotomies. The four dichotomies are identically the same in MBTT and Socionics. Those four dichotomies describe the behaviours and attitudes of the 16 types, and the four dichotomies also define which type is which. That's why it is absolutely nonsense to say that you can be a different type in the other model.

As a counter argument to this people usually bring up the functions and claim that an INTJ is the same as an INTp because their functions ordering are the same. But their functions ordering is not the same. It is clearly different, because the functions are not identical in MBTT and Socionics. And even if the functions were identical, it is obvious from a thorough reading of type descriptions that the role each functions is playing in the psyche of each type is very different in MBTT and Socionics. Many of the observable behaviours and the typical attitudes of INTPs that in MBTT are attributed to Ne (which they think is the second function in the INTPs psyche) are in Socionics attributed to (Ni). And the role of Ti in the psyche of the INTP in MBTT is in Socionics explained by (Te).

IntjWurm is most likely an INTJ and an INTj (LII). There seems to be no problem with that type hypothesis, so we have no reason to suspect that it is not correct.

@ IntjWurm:
By natural born temperament, when you can choose freely and are not tied by external obligations, you are more of an early bird than a night owl, are you not, IntjWurm?

[RSV3]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

You know that I think that that is a logical impossibility. So it isn't the case. You absolutely cannot be a J type in MBTT and a p (irrational) type in Socionics. That's a contradiction because J (judging) is the same as j (rationality). INTJs and LIIs (INTjs) are rational/judging types. INTPs and ILIs (INTps) are perceiving/irrational types.

There is no escape from this. It is something that people just have to accept. It is a matter of inborn temperament described by the four dichotomies. The four dichotomies are identically the same in MBTT and Socionics. Those four dichotomies describe the behaviours and attitudes of the 16 types, and the four dichotomies also define which type is which. That's why it is absolutely nonsense to say that you can be a different type in the other model.

As a counter argument to this people usually bring up the functions and claim that an INTJ is the same as an INTp because their functions ordering are the same. But their functions ordering is not the same. It is clearly different, because the functions are not identical in MBTT and Socionics. And even if the functions were identical, it is obvious from a thorough reading of type descriptions that the role each functions is playing in the psyche of each type is very different in MBTT and Socionics. Many of the observable behaviours and the typical attitudes of INTPs that in MBTT are attributed to Ne (which they think is the second function in the INTPs psyche) are in Socionics attributed to (Ni). And the role of Ti in the psyche of the INTP in MBTT is in Socionics explained by (Te).

IntjWurm is most likely an INTJ and an INTj (LII). There seems to be no problem with that type hypothesis, so we have no reason to suspect that it is not correct.

@ IntjWurm:
By natural born temperament, when you can choose freely and are not tied by external obligations, you are more of an early bird than a night owl, are you not, IntjWurm?

No no no: INTJ --> INTx. And intjwurm has concluded he is an INTp and has changed his user name to shadowpuppet.

[Cyclops]

Ok, I just think it's interesting because he identifies with INTp and he acts like INTp.I mean you can see also that there is lots of Te-ing in his post with Fe PoLR and it's the sort of Te you often see coming from Ni. I'm not disclaiming your theory but it must would mean he is also an INTP them, but he tests and identifies with INTJ, despite being INTp.

How can such a thing be rectified?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Ok, I just think it's interesting because he identifies with INTp and he acts like INTp.I mean you can see also that there is lots of Te-ing in his post with Fe PoLR and it's the sort of Te you often see coming from Ni.

A lot of bullshit and very little evidence. Where does IntjWurm say that he identifies with INTp?

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I'm not disclaiming your theory but it must would mean he is also an INTP them, but he tests and identifies with INTJ, despite being INTp.

It is not a theory that I have. It is the plain and indisputable truth. It's just a fact.

You cannot test and identify with INTJ if you are an INTp -- unless you are severely deluded. Where are the facts? Where is your evidence for the claim that IntjWurm is now an INTp?