Re: Wait a second! You're wrong too!

Posted by Morgan on December 29, 1999 at 04:08:25:

In Reply to: Re: Wait a second! You're wrong too! posted by Andy on December 29, 1999 at 02:50:42:

You said that she was an EXTJ, which reduces her two personality types to ENTJ or ESTJ. Since ESTJ is out of the question in regards to extroverted sensing, the only possibility left is ENTJ.

>
> You have reduced all but's, possebilleties and patterns, to the word WAS.

The only "was" in that message (I did a search string) is:
"You said in a previous post that bumping into things WAS (emphasis mine) a result of EXTROVERTED
sensing. If she is an ESTJ, she does not have that characteristic at all."

First, I was paraphrasing you. Second, if I change the word to "is", "would have been", or "would be", how would that change the meaning of the sentence?

> I does not write like that. I am always toying around with ideas, and
> I don't claim to be right. I am just showing a way things could be.

You mean, the deductive logic? No, you don't write like that. People usually don't. I was just attempting to translate your argument into a format I learned in a logic class. Hopefully, I translated it so I kept the basic meaning of what you are saying. And it's OK to toy around with ideas. However, if you do that, the risk is high that someone will challenge you thinking. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It can be a real learning experience.

> I don't care what people say about their type eighter, I trust my owm
> view anyway, just see on this board, people say all sort's of weird things,
> like myself *LOL*

:-) Good point. And you are definitely not the worst of the bunch.

> You seems to be more intrested in "winning" the argument, than producing
> any result's from it.

Perhaps I gave you that impression, and indeed, winning arguments is fun. However, it's not whether I win or lose, but what I learn from the debate. Plus, there are benefits to this type of thing. If people point out flaws in your theory, you can learn how to correct the flaws, or even better, explain that these are not flaws at all. That way, you can strenghten the theory and persuade difficult ENTJs who test the practicality of theories they come across.

But then again, you don't have to listen to me. I'm just an irrational 3. :-)

Follow Ups:

• Everything you say can be used against you in....*LOL* Did you get it Morgan ? Andy 05:09:35 12/29/99 (0)
• Everything you say can be used against you in....*LOL* Did you get it Morgan ? Andy 05:09:17 12/29/99 (0)

Post a Followup