Edward Snowden

[Kalach]

As opposed to your reasoning. Which is "hidden" (generously) or non-existent (likely). It's certainly not consistent.

It doesn't have to be. It is, as you note, just facts collected to make a picture. The only "consistency" if it can be called that is between collected facts and supposed type. The collection is supposed to prove.

You imagined something you said would support a conviction of mine which you claim is impossible for my type to have? Well. That makes about as much sense as anything else you've written in this thread.

See? "You imagined something you said would support a conviction of mine...." Finely warped, nicely coerced.

In fact you are just throwing "facts" and hoping they stick to your own convictions. Show your working, instead of just your blind prejudice, if you can, and we might listen.

pffft, you're coercing facts, I'm collecting them, eventually we meet in the middle, holding a very large number of bent facts.

Or else show how I have "coerced facts". Show me SOME DAMNED THING. Or don't. Just accept that you have your convictions and we have ours and never the twain.

To begin showing that facts get coerced is at least to insist that when you've reasoned from some presentation I've made to some conclusion you draw, you've handled the facts inappropriately. And for that, basically, pick any sentence you've written. However, to find out what "inappropriately" means, consider for instance, chosen largely at random:

"When you opened the thread, you apparently weren't sure yourself of his type. The only introverted thinker you wouldn't countenance is INTP, you wouldn't even put it on the table (despite your own intuitions that he might in fact be one)."

Four sentences/clauses, two of which are "coerced" - guess which ones - but as a clue, the worst coercion is inside the brackets. I have no such intuitions. I still don't countenance INTP. I do however hear my own voice too often saying this and I've grown wary of losing contact with "facts". I'd like to hear other reasonings. I'd like to know of different facts. It would satisfy a need to connect with truths outside me. I would love to be surprised. As humiliating as it would also be to be wrong, I'd love to be in contact with not just the facts we have, but a collection of facts that are known to be adequate in demonstrating type.

The coercion going on then is, at least, the removal of my context from my presentations. Whatever context you're adding to them is invented. Nicely invented. Reasonably invented. Invented with entertaining purpose. But invented. Were you to be "doing" extroverted thinking, whatever context you expected to use for understanding other people's presentations, it wouldn't be one you invented. You'd require them to tell you what their context was, and you'd run with that.

So, "coercion", or just not extroverted thinking? The unconscious decides.

 

[Salomé]

I'm sorry children, it's been resolved:

INTJ.

He was 18. If he was still into anime as a 30 y/o, you'd have a stronger case...

More INTPish stuff:

Androgyny / self-deprecation:

'I like my girlish figure that attracts girls,' he wrote, 'and I like my lamer friends. That's the best biography you'll get out of me, coppers!'
He joked that he 'got bullied' into being an editor on the website by a gaggle of artists and 'beautiful nubile young girls.'

Disdain for social media / paranoia over privacy:

As an adult, the former CIA employee has not left much of a digital trail on the Internet. Snowden, who turns 30 later this month, does not appear to be active on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter - at least not under his own name.

xkcd:

But the website of Ryuhana Press, a now defunct start-up that had sold anime art, offers a glimpse of Snowden as a youth.
As its web editor, Snowden's profile page is a mix of truth, sarcasm and silly jokes.

Game, set and match.

Also:
Failure to launch:

Snowden wrote on his profile that he liked online role-playing games (RPG). 'I always wanted to write RPG campaigns with my spare time, but I'll get about three missions in and scrap the world for my next, better, powergamin' build.'

Not an INTJ:

'He tends to spontaneously be a ray of sunshine and inspiration. He's a great listener, and he's eager to help people improve themselves.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...attract-nubile-young-girls.html#ixzz2d4IxrmIw

Oh hai INTJs, still want this guy?

 

[Kalach]

You're going to need his context before any of that works as proof. It works as statement of similarity. But you need his context before you'll know no unfortunate dissimilarity exists.

 

[Salomé]

See? "You imagined something you said would support a conviction of mine...." Finely warped, nicely coerced.

WTH are you on about? Are you incapable of following a line of reasoning? Let me spell it out for you in still simpler terms:

You said: INTPs can't have convictions.
I said: I has conviction.
You said: I thought so. (!)

Are you trying to impersonate a moron? If so, good job!

You just twist everything to support your pre-determined judgement. Talk about "coercion". Good word choice. In the event you just look idiotically unreasonable and absurdly blinkered. And inconsistent.

I have no such intuitions. I still don't countenance INTP.

Intuition schmintuition.

You: ""Might he be one of them?" I wondered."

Twisting twisty twister.
Wriggle out of that!

I may project.

No you mayn't. Stop that now.

 

[Kalach]

WTH are you on about? Are you incapable of following a line of reasoning?

I don't have to. I am the authority on what I imagine. Whatever I say I imagine takes precedence over whatever you've imagined I imagined.

I'm also, usually, the authority on what I've said. Barring cases where I lie or misrepresent, whenever I supply the context for whatever I've said in the past, that takes precedence over whatever anyone else thought I said. Or so it goes in the world of extroverted thinking. So for instance:

Let me spell it out for you in still simpler terms:

You said: INTPs can't have convictions.
I said: I has conviction.
You said: I thought so.

Are you trying to impersonate a moron? If so, good job!

I said INTPs don't appear to have convictions. In a context that I assert existed, that meant that when INTPs speak, it is uncommon to feel they believe what they're saying to the point that they will stand tall for it on their own. They don't speak as if they have concluded with particular finality nor with especial passion. They appear, in general, dispassionately disinterested, except for when it's possible to mock. In short, no inner glow of idiosyncratic felt judgment appears to animate them.

Now, why would this claimed context be unsuitable for understanding what I said? I might lie? But why would that context be unsought out? Why would it be better to take the original words dispassionately out of context and apply only somewhat depersonalised versions of meaning and content?

Because that's what you poor suckers with the Ti do. How do you manage to get facts straight at all?

 

[Kalach]

You: ""Might he be one of them?" I wondered."

Twisting twisty twister.
Wriggle out of that!

So it's true, the reason for not accepting a witnesses statement of the context of their expression is they might lie? This doesn't really speak well of the INTP version of truth. When INTPs speak, do they muddle their contexts? Do they change what they mean often enough that they themselves would rather not trust other people to speak truthfully? Why exactly should an INTP Snowden be believed? Or is he not?

 

[Salomé]

I am the authority on what I imagine.

That's all you're an authority on.
For which we may all be thankful.

I can do Te blindfolded, with my arms tied behind my back whilst juggling with my feet. In fact, that's the only way to make it fun. It's so god-awful B-O-R-I-N-G.

I'm disappointed in you, Kalach. I hoped you'd put up a better fight. Will no one in this damned joint give me a decent fight?
I've already pwned you so hard that to carry on would just be needlessly cruel.

 

[Kalach]

That sound actually a lot like a yes, INTPs muddle their context like nobody's business, the meaning of what they say is what they can get away with telling people it is. So... Snowden's making some of it up?

 

[Salomé]

I've already pwned you so hard that to carry on would just be needlessly cruel.

So...let's continue.

You:
Claim: Snowden must be INTJ because he has convictions.
Evidence: Snowden's wavering convictions - first pro-NSA, then anti-NSA. So, then what? Only INTJs have wavering convictions? Oh no, wait, you said that was something INTPs had, right?

Bit of an own goal there, Kal.

Out of interest which function are you using here? ( It's not Te, it's sure as hell not Ti.)
And can you please give it back to the loon you borrowed it from. Kthx.

 

[Kalach]

So, no to the knowing about coercing facts? Or yes, and it doesn't matter because truth is no longer the main concern? But whatever game this is, it's taken the place of the thread topic. Or this is how the thread topic, one day, is adequately determined?

And muddling the context this hard actually works in some way for something? The natural assumption would be you figure you've got it wrong. Or, you won because your arguments went mostly unanswered, like they were unanswerable, like winners arguments are?

Waaait, that's not how Ti works. There's always an argument under Ti. There's always some new objective invention of context or meaning you could try.



See, that's really very complex, and seems wildly unneccessary. Plato, as I recall, called it "the cloud of bullshit and therefore I pwnt". He was good with arguments.

 

[Salomé]

I think you're just continuing to flog this dead horse because you have such a hard-on for Pness and trying to be the bigger dick is the only way an INTJ knows to express sublimated desire.

/Freud >>> Jung

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

/Freud >>> Jung

Ah-ha! You were another one of the people on here I suspected to be a Freudian. Consider yourself outed.

 

[Salomé]

Ah-ha! You were another one of the people on here I suspected to be a Freudian. Consider yourself outed.

Nah, I'm no one's disciple.

They're both just dead white dudes limited by a nineteenth century European education, who nevertheless had some funky ideas. Let's not pretend anything different.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Nah, I'm no one's disciple.

They're both just dead white dudes limited by a nineteenth century European education, who nevertheless had some funky ideas. Let's not pretend anything different.

Yes, but:

An important distinction between INTJs and INTPs is that they have inferior Se, whereas we have inferior Fe. To me, that explains the weaknesses of both types far better than some stuff about us all wanting to fuck/kill our dads or moms, and many of the quirks of our self-images.

How often do you see INTJs try to pass themselves off as dude-bros with "presence", or INTPs as annoying hippies/hipsters with "causes" and "creativity"? I see it quite a lot. We both have tendencies to mold ourselves into something we see as more acceptable, but what we consider more acceptable is entirely different. Compare avatars, even. Ours tend to be "artsy."

It also explains why Snowden is a confirmed INTP.

 

[Salomé]

Yes, but:

An important distinction between INTJs and INTPs is that they have inferior Se, whereas we have inferior Fe. To me, that explains the weaknesses of both types far better than some stuff about us all wanting to fuck/kill our dads or moms, and many of the quirks of our self-images.

How often do you see INTJs try to pass themselves off as dude-bros with "presence", or INTPs as annoying hippies/hipsters with "causes" ? I see it quite a lot. We both have tendencies to mold ourselves into something we see as more acceptable, but what we consider more acceptable is entirely different.

It also explains why Snowden is a confirmed INTP.

The latter points more to Fi than Fe. So your theory "explains" nada.
It supports INTPs having Fi and not Fe though, as I have long argued.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The latter points more to Fi than Fe. So your theory "explains" nada.

About as much as the Electra/Oedipal complex and penis/womb envy does.

 

[Salomé]

Even less.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Even less.

More.

 

[Salomé]

You are even less fun to argue with than an INTJ.


Eta.^ Christ. What a disappointing 10,000th post...

Methinks my time here is done.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Truth is not always fun.

Seriously though, what is the basis for the Electra/Oedipal complex and penis/womb envy? If somebody is claiming I have secret urges I don't really know I have, and I can't see how that is applicable to myself, they're going to need to explain how they know that I have those.

Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that these theories are being used to prop up or support some other theory.. that the truth of them is irrelevant because they are too useful. Not that you're doing that. I just haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise.