Actualized, a critique

[thisintegrated]

42 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

It is precisely that two people can think they converge by means of categories that they are confused and which makes the work required to deconstruct the confusion exponential than without it. 

Personality is not an intellectual construction (though it representation is), therefore it is impossible for the meaning of the 16 to be different from ones own manifold of potential, out of this manifold are everyone else created, and in disjunctive relation to others will some inner potential be carved from the manifold. The 16 are a fine metaphor for this manifold, but no two 16 converges, not in personality and I would argue even in theory.

It is impossible for two say INTPs to converge in personality, though they can seem similar based on coinciding references in a finite/scarce world, giving rise to under determined categories, for they are carved out of infinitely different potentials.

Your writing style makes me want to throw myself in front of a locomotive.

 

Quote

It is not, but is is one of the most important relations between thoughts, it is just far from adequate on its own, and a pure logic, which also is meaningless on its own. "The core" is also ambiguous, and itself a mere category that reveals little thought, though that is not the main point.

Would you say vocabulary is the "core" of language?  The fact your thinking is SOOOO rigid/inflexible confirms there's absolutely no way you're an NTP.  When you see "core" you don't see the possibilities of what I could mean by it, regardless of how obvious it is.  Like, if I said "helo there!" you'd go "wtf does helo mean? you're not making any sense!!".

 

Quote

No I don't seem that way, and the P is correct, I even put it in thick so you would not bring about faulty assumptions, that you did so kind of implies my whole point.

What's more judging: ISFP or ISFJ?  The answer is ISFP.  If you understood the functions this would be obvious, yet you're typing yourself as a P because you think it's less judging..

 

Quote

No, instead one call it similar when it is identified as the same type, which is rather different and also fine. But that does not mean there is any convergence going on, that you believe so is a curious assumption that you project into the model for it to feel valid.

dude.. what..

I swear almost all your arguments are over semantics, or seemingly intentional misinterpretations of other people's words.  If me and someone else are both "talkative" I might say we're similar in our talking tendencies.  Or I could also say we're identical in our talking tendencies.  They're both the same thing.  "Talking tendency" is a broad idea, so it's easy for two people to be identical in something so broad.  But even when two people are identical in speech, there will still be differences within that identical speech if you choose to subdivide speech into more specific elements.

So I can say two Ti users are identical in their use of logic, but I can also say they're similar.  On a macro level they're identical, on a micro level they're similar.  I've not specified how far I'm zooming in, so both terms are correct.

Edited May 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Reciprocality]

5 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I might say we're similar in our talking tendencies.  Or I could also say we're identical in our talking tendencies

 

6 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

They're both the same thing. 

not bad, I will redirect you to my post

 

6 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

yet you're typing yourself as a P because you think it's less judging..

 

another faulty assumption, Ive taken a few tests

[thisintegrated]

11 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

another faulty assumption, Ive taken a few tests

omg.. only people who know nothing about MBTI rely on tests like this.  The fact you're placing such importance on tests makes the extent of your knowledge clear.  You accuse me of making "faulty assumptions", yet give not a single reason for why this should be the case.  You've also not been able to refute a single point I've made, not even the one about P not meaning "less judging".  Should be easy to prove me wrong if I was.

Edited May 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Reciprocality]

?