Fg actually made constructive criticism it is just not as easy to see, he is saying you got core aspects of socionics wrong, which I agree with him on, how is that Te? do you even know what Te is? read the information elements and descriptions of Te itself, not how Te is used by types or how types think, just Te, actually what you described also fits in as simply a form of Ti, it is not pure logic as some might believe, it is about structure and analysis as in a way that makes sense, logic as deductive is a form but inductive is another, while induction happens to be used more by other types it does not mean that it cannot be within a Ti framework of some sort, which Hegel clearly has, his general thinking is Ti and not Te, I really do not see how it is Te in any form, the Ni part I see but it can be explained by 4D unvalued Ni demonstrative since he uses it towards Ti but not it in it's purest form like most actual ILIs, but then I do not think you really understand much about Hegel, and you do admit to it, I recommend reading Phenomology of Spirit and then The Science of Logic so you get a better idea of where our thinking is coming from, also you probably should consider other core aspects of socionics, such as Fi or Fe value and Si or Se value, in Hegel's case I really do not see the Fi part and Se and Si arguments can be made about, really depends on how you view his works and what works too, and I disagree, Hegel is not hard to understand, he is just a shit writer, at least the portuguese translations I read are very redundant and overly complex in things that have no need to, but that is not uncommon for LIIs, take Kant and Critique of Pure Reason.

But towards what fg said, it seems like you have some very weird interpretations of some of the systems here that greatly differ from others, thus leading into your votes being very different and often questionable, so as I have asked many times, what sources do you use? what definitions? what socionics author? if it is yourself, I believe you should at least write about what you have achieved so people can get a general idea of what goes on in your mind because I really think nobody gets your thinking most of the time or agrees with it? same applies for functions in a general way, which is even more complicated author and definition wise, but as a source, I recommend wikisocion and you to try to understand what socionics author says what, and the generally accepted things, most discussions are because people disagree with basic things such as definitions or axioms and that only gets worse because of language (in your case specifically it gets even worse), and I think the first is your case.

0

it's simply that you don't know the system . Dialectic have nothing to do with socionics Ni, clash of different ideologies is the opposite of socio Te (Ideologies are related to socio Ti), you just apply a twisted understanding of CF function to a whole different system.

0

No, Tman's right. Hegel's system is all Ni-Te. There's nothing LII about it.

0

Gee, thanks for the construtive critcism. 

0

learn socionics before trying to type people in this system.

0

Hegel is one of the clearsist ILI's I think I've ever seen. This may just be my ingonrinice, but his grand sweeping idea of history, explained often through little algores like the master slave dialectic (Ni)  mixed with his idea of history as a dialsectic, where truth comes not from one, clear, unvsuraly recongizable line of reasoning, but form a dialectic that cames from clashes of difrent ideologes (Te), he strikes me as a clear ILI. However, he is infamisly hard to understand, and I have only really read a little of the "Phnominiolgy of Spirt," so the rest of what I know about him comes from second hand soruses. I wouldn't be suprised if I was misinterpeting him, so those who have more knowlge then me, feel free to corect me.

0

Actually in both these instances I appealed to functions before letters lel

1

you're problem is always that you type by letter instead of typing by function. MBTI cognitive stack or socionic that the reason of your fail.

0

Nah. The difference between these two was one of introversion and extroversion, not intuition and sensing. Both of them actually fail at sensing and represss it more than any other function of theirs due to their incredibly rationality. Marx had a complete lack of care for the sensations of the individual to the point that he had no issue with suggesting the destruction of all orders to which people would be intimately attached and had been engineered to afford the wealthy a sense of comfort. Hegel on the other hand denied any connection to external reality that he even considered art to be a failure and subordinate to philosophy. His folly lies in the notion that something had culminated and that the individual no longer needed to open themselves up to create something new and find a sensation in this that would liberate them and help to intensify the changing relation between them and forces outside them. 

1

Socionics typing:

Hegel is an LII-Ti and Marx an LSI Ti, both reason by intellectual categories (class for marx and spirit concept for Hegel), both made a systemic philosophy of history (dialectic), and englobe in their vision the entire world.but while Hegel think it's the spirit's moove who forge the world,in contrast to Marx who thinks it's material balance of power (Se).

0