Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: What relation is this?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What relation is this?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4kNvd5P_A

    Male - ENTp?
    Female - idk?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,101
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They are quite the interesting pair to watch.
    It's funny how she keeps, or tries to, keep him grounded. There's one part in the vid where she's just looking at him while he's talking and you can see that she's like, dude, wtf are you talking about...lol Then he rolls his hands around eachother for the next minute or so.
    For some reason I find the chick wildly attractive in an off sort of way.
    As for your question...no idea about anything.

  3. #3
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    maybe INTj for the girl? (I agree she's way attractive :wink: )
    I'm not so sure about ENTp for the guy

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah I agree INTj for the girl. I can tell he was annoyed in some points of the video.

  5. #5
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,614
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    cracka makes some good observations.

    She's really Tj. Also, at the beginning and end of the video he's consistently using Ni (not Ne), and she seems ok with it, though not completely comfortable.

    ENFj - ISTj. (Possibly INFp for him.)

    Some extracts:

    "We totally agree!" => Ti/Fe harmony.

    "I want to protect you, but I also kinda want to wise you up." => Se ego helping Se superid.

    Brilliant.

  6. #6
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    "I want to protect you, but I also kinda want to wise you up." => Se ego helping Se superid.
    I don't think she meant physically, more mentally - in other words, it might be an argument for Ti instead of Te - Ti/Fe would seek harmony and be more concerned with consistency than plausibility (I think), but Te would say, "that's bullshit and not how it actually is, how can you prove that?" Without worrying too much about harmony.

    I also am not sure an ISTj would be as openminded as this lady is. She really, REALLY is patient with his seemingly bonkers views. Which I associate with Ne. Anyway, my first impulse was INTj, but not certain.

    Not sure about the guy. He does remind me of a possible Ne-dominant guy I know, but... the one I know is a bit more reasonable.

    (That was an amusing video.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah he seems to speculate on reality's concept while Ni just seems to follow it and make some sort of abstract associations. I don't think they speculate much. They seem to want proof(Te/Fe?). Just my experience with Ni's I have met, so I'm not entirely sure.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elro
    Not sure about the guy. He does remind me of a possible Ne-dominant guy I know, but... the one I know is a bit more reasonable.

    (That was an amusing video.)
    Lol yeah maybe he's probably misinformed.. But I don't know which part of the video you think isn't reasonable? But yeah, his other videos are like this, he's trying to perpetuate some sort of video-social thing. Lol, his friends list on YouTube are some interesting people too.

  9. #9
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by posablethumb
    Lol yeah maybe he's probably misinformed.. But I don't know which part of the video you think isn't reasonable?
    Well... for starters, the whole thoughts tying into gravity thing. I can see how one would speculate about where thoughts reside. It seems to be somehow connected to the brain, but it's not clear yet how it works exactly. But tying it into gravity... There doesn't seem to be any reason for doing that (he doesn't give an explanation for why he thinks that, either - just that it's his theory). It sounds like he's trying to find some theory supporting telekinesis. I don't believe in telekinesis. I WISH it existed. Believe me, I've tried. But it seems unlikely. It sounds like he's wanting to believe it exists, and wanting to find some way that it would be possible, but it comes across as just wishful thinking. Not to mention he can't convey his thoughts well at all. He doesn't even seem to display much competence in the field he's theorizing in, which is a bad sign. Not in itself signalling doom, but the fact that it seems unlikely and he has no real evidence for it hurts his chances even more. And I'm not sure how his theory could be tested.

    The girl is quite cool about it - she's just trying to understand his position (and at the same time trying to get him to explain it better so people watching it can follow him too). Not really taking a stance on its plausibility or whatnot.

    Anyway... after watching that first bit I fazed out a little and fazed in long enough to hear the guy start saying something else similarly unfounded and fazed out again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  10. #10
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ENFj-INTj makes sense to me. (but my first thught was INFj for the girl)
    I remember when one time I tried to explain an extremely similar theory to an ENTp and he was redifining the word gravity. He was saying that maybe it's an electromagnetic pull in stead.

    Also, his theory is a combination of two different theories that I have. When I was 15 I started seeing that objects pull to one another on every level. Even in the vast universe the planets are all near each other and the planet systems are near other planet systems, even if they don't really share any gravitational pull... and why did electrons and protons come together to begin with, and why did molecules do that?... So there is some supernatural tendency of objects to pull near each other. After I had had years of interest for soul and spirit, and socionics, I formulated another theory about everyone radiating a certain kind of aura and in group situations the combination of the auras form the atmosphere. Everyone affects everyone nearby. Everyone radiates Fe and it can either pull or push another person who is nearby.

    PS! The girl sucks. "yeah, everyone looks at you and thinks, "what the hell are you talking about" and I look at them,"I know, exactly (what the hell is he talking about)!".
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    Even in the vast universe the planets are all near each other and the planet systems are near other planet systems, even if they don't really share any gravitational pull... and why did electrons and protons come together to begin with, and why did molecules do that?
    The first one, the planets get near eachother probably because objects or particles moving through space stay in motion until it is hit by another force and the result net force is zero. And what is near? In relation to what, the universe in it's entirety? Everything is near no matter how far apart. I'm thinking the universe is infinite. Electrons are negative and protons are positive so they attract eachother. Molecules are held together because of em force, also holds together electrons and protons. The nucleus is held together by the strong nuclear force. If you want to talk about quantum mechanics i don't know anything about it yet. I don't know chemistry in it's entirety either. But those are some basic things.

  12. #12
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    it's very simple... electrons think that protons are hot. In the atom the electrons are jealous of the protons and neutrons spending all that time together so they run around on the outside of the atom stalking them waiting for the neutrons to go out to a bar or something so they can swoop in and fuck the protons while nobody's looking.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    it's very simple... electrons think that protons are hot. In the atom the electrons are jealous of the protons and neutrons spending all that time together so they run around on the outside of the atom stalking them waiting for the neutrons to go out to a bar or something so they can swoop in and fuck the protons while nobody's looking.
    This is a way better explanation than mine.

  14. #14
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, I do know a little bit about electrophysics and such, but I think there is a general tendency of objects of the similar size to pull to each other that is so far not explained. Like for example - O2, and H2 are stable molecules, carbon (coal, etc) is stable on its own, but still we have water, sugars, fats etc. Living organisms are thought to have formed when RNA started to exist. Why did it start to exist? because molecules pull to each other to form other molecules. All in the ocean which is totally huge and diffusion should have made the different molecules drift apart and divide evenly in the huge body of water... I'm sure science explains some of it, but most of the explanations are reversed - solar system planets are close to each other, because they started from the same cloud of matter after the big bang. But we assume it happened like this because the solar system planets are close to each other. If there was a big bang and all of matter got scattered into the universe, we should have lots of lonely chunks of matter which are not effected by gravity (at least not a relevant amount), but there isn't, as far as I know. There's the planet systems and there is huge emptiness between and there are universes and there is even bigger emptiness in between. I don't oppose the big bang theory, I'm just saying that I think there is something that made the matter flock together, something, which can not be explained with "oh, it's just gravity!"

    Ok, enough of me and my stupid ridiculous theory. go back to typing those people! I had no intention of stealing the thread. And I really can't prove any of my theory. This theory is just one of the reasons I see myself as an intuitive rather than sensing. Just way too "original".
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Kristiina - Okay I see what you are trying to explain, I think. Correct me if I am wrong. What you just explained is the movement of particles through space and it's chance on hitting another atom, "Objects/Particles in motion stay in motion until a force acts on it". The other "force" could be another particle moving, gravity, em force, etc. The reason why they are moving closer together or farther apart is because of that simple law. It is just luck so to speak, that they happen to hit eachother and form molecules. That and man-made. But we are just particles that are moving too, right?

    Edit: Also-
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    I remember when one time I tried to explain an extremely similar theory to an ENTp and he was redifining the word gravity. He was saying that maybe it's an electromagnetic pull in stead.
    I don't think I would agree with this. I think the EM force in atoms are inert if the amount of electrons satisfy the amount that is needed for the protons. Also the carrier of EM force , photons, dont seem to have a gravity like affect on other atoms. It just hits other atoms em force enough for it to generate it's own photons.

    Don't worry about stealing the thread, you are welcome to derail it anytime. I don't mind.

  16. #16
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by posablethumb
    Kristiina - Okay I see what you are trying to explain, I think. Correct me if I am wrong. What you just explained is the movement of particles through space and it's chance on hitting another atom, "Objects/Particles in motion stay in motion until a force acts on it". The other "force" could be another particle moving, gravity, em force, etc. The reason why they are moving closer together or farther apart is because of that simple law. It is just luck so to speak, that they happen to hit eachother and form molecules. That and man-made. But we are just particles that are moving too, right?

    Don't worry about stealing the thread, you are welcome to derail it anytime. I don't mind.
    haha, you're very sweet.

    I have heard about objects being in motion all the time. There is always a chance of 2 objects meeting, but if the space is huge, the chance of collision is very small. For example, when there are a nucleic acids in the ocean, what is the chance of them colliding at exactly the right speed and direction so that they form a dimer? Very tiny. And if they do form a dimer, the chance of breaking up in the next collisions is bigger than the chance of getting one more nucleic acid attached. But yet we have RNA that was naturally formed. That can easily happen if the concentration of nucleic acids is high enough (so that the chance of attaching another nucleic acid would be greater than the chance of the existing polymer to break). But why would millions of nucleic acids flock together in the ocean? They shouldn't! Especially because of diffusion.

    And the planets... They are all moving, but if there was a blast (big bang), they are all moving apart from each other with nearly equal speed. This is not scattered movement where they could easily meet and start being affected by each others gravity. They should be scattered more evenly than they are.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  17. #17
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,614
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    And the planets... They are all moving, but if there was a blast (big bang), they are all moving apart from each other with nearly equal speed. This is not scattered movement where they could easily meet and start being affected by each others gravity. They should be scattered more evenly than they are.
    Actually, AFAIK, the anisotropy (unevenness) of the universe is a big problem in modern physics. To explain why it is what it is, we need to understand the initial moments after the Big Bang, and how the asymmetry got started in the first place.

    As for the origins of life, I recently read an interesting article that essentially says the RNA world is BS, i.e. extremely implausible, and that all it takes to start life is a few non-spontaneous reactions, which incrementally lead to more complex systems such as prions, viruses, etc.

  18. #18
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    And the planets... They are all moving, but if there was a blast (big bang), they are all moving apart from each other with nearly equal speed. This is not scattered movement where they could easily meet and start being affected by each others gravity. They should be scattered more evenly than they are.
    Actually, AFAIK, the anisotropy (unevenness) of the universe is a big problem in modern physics. To explain why it is what it is, we need to understand the initial moments after the Big Bang, and how the asymmetry got started in the first place.

    As for the origins of life, I recently read an interesting article that essentially says the RNA world is BS, i.e. extremely implausible, and that all it takes to start life is a few non-spontaneous reactions, which incrementally lead to more complex systems such as prions, viruses, etc.
    How and where could I find the article? The version that I know is the one where there was RNA which started to self-replicate, then there was self-relpicating DNA and then a membrane to cover the DNA. The self-replicating RNA seems pretty non-spontaneous to me.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •