saying that someone reasoning is magical without explaining how he fails to understand something is stupid. the accusation of me being "magical" have not a single fundation. I am probably the one who made the most researsch on socionics so if you want to criticize my method you will have to be more specific or shut your mouth on the future, Diobono.

0

why polls? we are talking about stirner's type

0

You said multiple times yourself that internet polls are not very accurate so i disagree

0

the internet. also it's not screenshotting it's copy pasting (from a public server!!!) which makes it perfectly okay

0

Tell me how i am supposed to get empirical data and statistical data from over here unless you count internet shit,  also stop screenshotting everything you manipulative retard

0

"Also socionics aren't supposed to be magical archetypes but i dont think fg got that

They like try to get empirical data like talanov

U start from personality and then up not viceversa"

- diobono 10 seconds before saying quadras are retarded

1

Just because i dislike how a system works doesn't mean i wont play by it's rules you big brain man

0

? I'm the only person who's identified as the same type since 2017, + this is shit u said very recently. didn't even put it in ur file yet

0

I'm Sure you are a completely incontradictory person as you can't even score consistently on basic psychology tests, i just don't keep info on people to use them against them later like you costantly do otherwise i would be having a laugh

0

"I can't stand alpha quadra people" - diobono 1 week ago

The duality of man

1

"Fucking basimg yourself all on quadras is so retarded

It's like here are 4 sociological structures that have existed since the dawn of time

Retarded meta-sociology"

- diobono 2 weeks ago

1

I can imagine that happening to a LII or an ILE too, he also wrote more than one book, theres Art and Religion, The Ego and It's Own, The False Principle of our Education and then then lastly Stirner's Critics, him not being assertive also could indicate Se polr! and again by his personal life there is the social relationship aspect I mentioned.

0

THe shit people write don't have a direct correlation with the way they live. this dude didn't even get a picture taken of him in his entire life and his only biography was written 50 yrs later after he died and only wrote one book and he was generally not very assertive. '

I basically typed him based on the quadra values and i see no alpha values and he just seems to deny 'socio ti' principles, but i can see how he could be seen as 'libertarian right' in a poltical compass which sort of is nu age alpha quadra people

1

Stirner: "all that matters is personal will, ownership is declared only through might, abolish any and all commonly accepted & established ideas regarding rights of property and others, individuals should serve only themselves (if "other people" make you happy that also counts btw, phsc isn't wrong)"

ILI Gulenko:

"When in good physical shape, he is confident in himself, assertive, calls for decisive actions, however, it rarely comes to implementation. He needs to be prodded from outside, requires strong support. Absence of such support leads to demobilization and laziness. Direct aggression is detestable to him; he opposes it in every way. He cannot endure protracted confrontation – simply leaves or even falls ill. For his physical well-being engages in athletic types of sports – tries to build stamina and overcome his natural weakness, toughens himself. But to engage in this regularly he usually does not have enough willpower."

"Does his work is accord with the established methods, slowly and scrupulously, going into all the specifications. Can be rigorous with details and meticulous to the point of pedantry. Professional activity and diligence are characteristic of him only within a formal system, where there is structure and regulation"

"Cautious when making decisions. His position is that you need to run a little ahead of the game. Always chooses the safest course of action."

ILI Stratiyevskaya: 

"The INTp respects strong, willful people, who know their goals and who do not cower before difficulties but rather act confidently, actively creating their path ahead. INTp's dual the ESFp (SEE) possesses precisely such qualities.

The INTp does not attempt to take the lead himself, preferring to remain a figure "number two" – a "shadow" leader and adviser who supports a powerful patron."

"Although making demands is precisely what is difficult for the INTp. He is a kind of person for whom it is difficult "to pull his will into his fist". The ILI doesn't know how to and doesn't like to subordinate someone else to his will. Neither will he suffer direct pressure applied to himself."

"A typical state of the INTp is one of constant semi-relaxation. He prefers not to make excessive efforts and tries to expend his physical energy very economically. He won't invest more effort and strengths in anything over what is dictated by objective necessities, not even into the most captivating work. The ILI is not the type of person who will thoroughly apply himself, "wholly put himself out", solely on basis of enthusiasm. The ILI always seeks respect for his own labor and a worthy payment."

ILI Reinin:

"form, action, movement; suggestible function. “Do something with me”. The ILI easily puts on that state that people around want of him/her. Sometimes he/she simply dissolves in that image or state, and with a frequent change of states comes the effect of losing themselves.
People of this type can hardly resist persuasion: when some activity is imposed on them, when they are pressed to do something, they are almost defenseless. It happens that Balzac 'unexpectedly' finds him/herself involved in a strange activity.
People of this type often need an external push in order to do something. And, on the other hand, they are unable to resist this pressure. If a person of the opposite sex comes to a Balzac and says: “I am moving in, I will live with you”. – “Well, OK”.
An ILI has even lower 'resistability' than an IEI. The latter at least pays attention to the aesthetics of the situation; the former does not manage to do even that. Perhaps, recognizing this trait in themselves, women of this type often produce an impression of being cold, aloof, difficult, and unapproachable. In this way they unconsciously create a maximum of personal distance."

ILI makes sense

0

First of all you're assuming my point of view - it is a right assumption I do consider myself as an extrememely individualistic person - but knowing about specific people's point of view does not make me an individualist or a collectivist or whatever, all you know about me is that I defend a free market which does not directly imply individualism, I didn't misunderstand individualism you just don't understand what I said, I said Stirner knows that possibility of the union of egoists, and also that most people aren't even egoists, I also don't mention fairness for everyone as collectivism too, what I said that Stirner knows is "if you believe that the collective > you, you're a collectivist, but that can happen in a individualist society because it is what you consider good", in individualism one itself can have collectivist beliefs and said collectivist beliefs can even come from individualistic beliefs, it is like picking a point from a line, one can consider it part of a line and another can consider itself as just a point that somehow is part of the line, unsure if I made that example very clear.

I didn't say that all LIIs are anarchists I just said that it doesn't exclude the possibility of LII as an anarchist, as it makes a lot of sense with Se polr, but I agree with what you said about Ti, I also believe many LIIs aren't anarchists because LIIs many times are not interested in said field, I myself still prefer mathematics, physics or computer science to political science, and a lot of LIIs do the same, as well as I prefer metaphysics of logic in philosophy over something such as ethics, as many LII philosophers also did, and maybe if more were interested in said field there would be more anarchists, but this is just a possibility.

Over Mises, I believe him to be accurate in many things, in my small conversation with you - which I will re-initiate after I read the work by Stiglitz you recommended which I didn't have the time to read yet - you mentioned how you don't believe that men are not guided by pragmatic rationality, if you did actually read Human Action, further on he explains what he means by that, about how we have different things we value, which fits as to what you said men follow which would be passion, also I am curious as to why you believe he is disconnected from truth, if you want me to explain what he means by that I can.

And may I mention you're going off-topic from the original topic being about Stirner's type and that if we are going to get into a conversation about economics or political science I would prefer to wait until I have the time to read said work by Stiglitz for a more serious debate.

0

you are so stupidly individualistic that you totally misunderstood what is individualism. the belief that the seeking of individual interest is the better way to achieve common happiness is what is the liberal individualist belief. wanting fairness for everyone is not equal to collectivism. collectivism/ individualism is antagonistic method to achieve it. anarchism is rare for LII because of white logic that is focus on organization/planification. but i would agree that black intuition increase the possibility of being  anarchist. i did't tried to type von mise yet because i finded him totally disconnected from any kind of truth or reality and not interesting at all.

0

Ludwig von Mises who was very likely LII achieves a similar result as to Stirner's, which is simply a not coercitive government which one can take part in or not, not a monopoly of force, yet competition betwen them in a way which one individual can leave one to go to another easily if he does not like it or create his own, he was very close to Hayek, then we get to people from economics who want the end of the state such as David Friedman or Murray Rothbard but then they are ILE though I know some other people who would like the end of the state and are for sure LII, the best example being Hans Hermann Hoppe.

Not only ILI-ESE but also LII-SLE being accurate too, as well as the fact they were close, not able to stay together in a room and don't kill each other yet that they were probably friends, may I mention that I do not see me as able to be close to a SEE at all mostly for long periods of time, and may I also mention that collectivism and individualism aren't neglected by Stirner, the general concept of the union of egoists is still a form of collectivism, which could turn into a government, the focus is on coersion, egoism also doesn't neglect collectivism by definition, it is just putting you > collective but then if you think about it, you can be an egoist who believes that things will be better or you will be happier if others are happy which achieves altruism trough egoism: I will be happy if others are happy.

Also there is another thing you're ignoring, time, I will use an example, the austrian school of economics, but you could probably also do it with the chicago one, if you take it's origins, and trace it to modern times, you will see that the liberty and individual freedom aspect of it grew with time, I don't really know any anarchists from Kant's time to be honest.

But then, let's think about functions, Se polr, who else had it? I believe Proudhon was an EII (in your articles you also say he was one too), and he was also an anarchist, and the very similar to LII type ILE is well known for being anarchists, Bakunin, Rothbard,  and then we have Chomsky who is LII, of course they are not similar to Stirner in their philosophy and how they achieve their results, also even then, why not ILE like Teru said? again I don't see how Stirner valued Se and Fi, and just because many LIIs didn't achieve something, it does not exclude the possibility that one did, I mean Stirner is also 5w4 which is a different thing from the 1w9 Kant and the 5w6 Hayek, etc.

0

socionics is a spook like the age of consent

0

all NT tend to be opposite to coercition, the intertype relationship argument is quite the weak point of socionics (in real life you can easily get along with polar opposite, intertype relationship work mainly in fiction but not in real life) so typing him as not ILI based on a relationship is not the best idea imo. ILI being extremly individualist is not a stereotype, it's like saying duck belong to the species of birds. it's an essential but not suffisent propriety of it. LII have an individualist part of course but most of time are balanced on collectivism/individualism. Even Kant who belong to the enlightment let an importance place towards the state. the most individualist LII i know is Hayek, but even him did not want to destroy state but only minimize it's influence.

0

Teru said that him not being moral is a thing that could be Fi polr!

not being moral implies that he does not have a moral value, right? thus he has to reject all moral values for himself, which is what I said.

I also mentioned you didn't read him but I didn't mention you didn't know him personally so I guess it's valid but it isn't a strawman, sophist.

0

I didn't say "being moral", I said rejecting moral values & in general the rejection of basic principles everyone accepts dubbing them as "distractions" or "social constructs" is the kind of selfish pseudo-autism u could expect from SLE and ILE. I also said I don't know much about him personally and still need to read more. Nice strawman, incult.

0

Why ILI? I'm genuinely curious towards arguments.

Teru and me had a small talk about Stirner's type, twice, Teru didn't read Stirner though, but then I told him about what Stirner said and with his previous knowledge on what he heard about him and what I told about him he achieved ILE and I LII, and here is why:

Also Diobono if you didn't leave the server you could've taken part on it, also does this still apply or did you actually read him?

As much as Ti ego seems quite ridiculous for a philosopher who isn't that rational or doesn't look for fairness, who isn't Descartes(didn't look for fairness but didn't focus on that) or Kant, while I believe Stirner does look for it in a interesting way, I think we should consider other functions too and don't go by stereotypes (ILI big individualistic dude), first of all, let's start with Se polr, I will use a few phrases from the following, I won't post the second link's description of Se polr which I find accurate because of how big it is but I might use small parts of Stratiyevskaya's description, but take a look at both, as much as he does use lots of Ni.

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LII_by_Stratiyevskaya http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_LII_composite

Stirner puts a lot of emphasis on how things should not be coercitive, quoting Stratiyekvskaya "the LII does not tolerate any abuse and coercion over himself", to an certain extent that can even apply to things which aren't pure force, such as religion, he was also agaisn't nationalism which is a typical LII trait, he solves the lack of the state problem with the concept of the union of egoists, he also is agaisn't moral systems which is well simply Fi polr one could say, but then he isn't agaisn't them, he isn't immoral, yet amoral, he mentions that people will probably still be moral under the union of egoists.

But a thing that makes me think ILI isn't accurate is maybe his relationship with people, his most famous drawing, was made by Friendrich Engels, as both of them and Karl Marx were part of the Die Freinen, and now we get to a interesting part: Stirner and Engels seemed to go quite well together, and Engels being an ESE, I do not really see how ILI and ESE would go together because their relationship doesn't go well because they don't value anything the other has and are good also in correlation with that making it the worst relation possible! another interesting thing is that Engels agreed with Stirner's egoism and that it could be used to achieve communism, but then we have critics to Stirner in The German Ideology, Marx criticizing him the most I would say, I find interesting that, his relationship with Marx could not be good because it could be a supervisor relation, one being able to say it is the second worst relation possible, Marx called Stirner a "petty bourgeois individualist intellectual".

We have this poem made by Engels on Stirner:

"Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint.

For the moment, he is still drinking beer,

Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.

When others cry savagely "down with the kings"

Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also."

Stirner full of dignity proclaims;

You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free.

You become accustomed to slavery

Down with dogmatism, down with law."

One could say that saying "Down with dogmatism" doesn't fit LII, but casual reminder Kant said this about Spinoza:

"Spinoza’s metaphysics was a prime example of dogmatic rationalism that lacked all justification as a valid metaphysical method."

For ILE,  Teru said that him not being moral is a thing that could be Fi polr! but I kind of explained how I could see role Fi working here, Stirner also talks about how what he writes is more of a point of view and not an absolute truth too, but I think this could also affect LII to a certain extent, or ILI too.

But I also see a few problems with Se polr, such as the fact a LII wouldn't really like this:

"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."

"What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing"

Which could indicate valuing Se? but I still believe that he didn't value Se because of how he talks about coercion being terrible, and to a certain extent indirectly arbitrariness, since the use of force does define who owns something, another thing is his obvious use of Ni, the earlier parts of The Ego and It's Own are very Ni-ish I would say, but then ILE has 4D Ni and LII's many times still use Ni I would also say. over Te use, I don't see him that much as an utilitarian, I don't remember well but I think he even criticizes utilitarianism, also he doesn't talk about how to achieve anything he talks about, which could be Te ignoring? he is also agaisn't the typical revolution for other ideologies, and he actually did really like Hegel, the start of The Ego and It's Own shows that but not only that, he mentions Schiller and Goethe, which Hegel made lectures on which Stirner probably did go to and I did read said lectures because I found said book which also has another work by Hegel which I forgot on a used book store for an extremely cheap price and bought it and Hegel does mention Schiller and Goethe more than once which makes sense considering it is a work on aesthetics.

May I mention that it has been a long time since I've read Stirner and of course it was in portuguese so some of it has been translated and said work might have been done poorly and some of it has been googled so I could see if what I was saying is actually true, fun fact, he translated The Wealth of the Nations by Adam Smith and Traité d'économie politique by Say.

Am I am completely open minded for Stirner as ILI I just don't see why.

0