Jim, when you go to paraphrase someone else's thoughts it is always advisable to be extremely accurate, wouldn't you agree?
I see you have completely lost the narrative. Let me do your legwork for you.
- mal present theory that child is autistic, hypersensitive ISTP for a few reasons especially that the child is introverted.
- I pointed out that hypersensitivity is more apparent in Ni doms than Ti doms due to Se inferior in Jungian terms and said 'although introversion and hypersensitivity correlate, they do not always correlate, nor indeed do they causate'
- mal provides a link which shows 'proof that introversion and hypersensitivity are the same thing'
- This link is a test with some questions which have nothing to do with hypersensitivity.
- I point out that it is a logical fallacy; again and that you are ignoring that.
- I'm glad you have now pointed out that your own behaviour is akin to stark raving madness. Good show.
Point one is way off base. But I'll let that one pass because I know you're driving toward a different point.
Point two: my argument was intended to show that hypersensitivity is not "correlated" with introversion, not always and not even at times. And inferior Se has nothing to do with any of this.
Point three: obviously the test is about introversion and that was the original point at dispute. That her son is hypersensitive was stated by the OP. Hypersensitivity
corresponds with an introverted trait. But even then, the test requires 15+ "true" responses to diagnose introversion.
And please try to quote me correctly. Nowhere did I state that the test was 'proof that introversion and hypersensitivity are the same thing.' Please try not to project your cognitive errors. What I said was,
Hypersensitivity to stimuli has to do with introversion.
Point four: The test contains a question concerning hypersensitivity, and by the way I knew you would go to all lengths to try to knock it down as a valid point on my side.
Point five: You never named any logical fallacy I may have committed. But you used some scientific language about "correlations" incorrectly.
Point six: thank you for granting me this opportunity to clarify your errors in more detail, Jim.