Randomness

[redbaron]

What type appears to be the most random? I feel like I am saying random things all the time. I'll be talking to someone about something and then suddenly a thought will occur to me that is only slightly related to the conversation but I will follow that thread in my head (saying it out loud) and I can sometimes see the confusion on the person's face as in "where the heck did THAT come from" and they will try to follow me and then I'll sometimes jump back to the original topic or sometimes jump ahead to something entirely different. I also occasionally make comments on things that happened a long time ago such as "remember when we went to that party--I thought this or that and you were acting like this" and the person looks at me like I'm crazy. I have realized that some types don't appreciate this so I'm trying not to do it so much. Is this a thing?

So what are the types that do this more and what are the types that hate it when others do it?

[aka-kitsune]

What type appears to be the most random? I feel like I am saying random things all the time. I'll be talking to someone about something and then suddenly a thought will occur to me that is only slightly related to the conversation but I will follow that thread in my head (saying it out loud) and I can sometimes see the confusion on the person's face as in "where the heck did THAT come from" and they will try to follow me and then I'll sometimes jump back to the original topic or sometimes jump ahead to something entirely different. I also occasionally make comments on things that happened a long time ago such as "remember when we went to that party--I thought this or that and you were acting like this" and the person looks at me like I'm crazy. I have realized that some types don't appreciate this so I'm trying not to do it so much. Is this a thing?

So what are the types that do this more and what are the types that hate it when others do it?

I do this too!

Sometimes I do get the quizzical look from people, but there's always a clear flowchart in my head if I slow it down. I'll be in the midst of talking to someone, when some concept comes up that causes me to remember something else peripherally associated in quick steps of succession. But the A->B->C->D isn't always apparent to the person I'm talking with, and I tend to go from A-->D in a blip.

I've also noted that I don't always say the most tactful things. Sometimes I just blurt.

[Logos]

What type appears to be the most random? I feel like I am saying random things all the time. I'll be talking to someone about something and then suddenly a thought will occur to me that is only slightly related to the conversation but I will follow that thread in my head (saying it out loud) and I can sometimes see the confusion on the person's face as in "where the heck did THAT come from" and they will try to follow me and then I'll sometimes jump back to the original topic or sometimes jump ahead to something entirely different. I also occasionally make comments on things that happened a long time ago such as "remember when we went to that party--I thought this or that and you were acting like this" and the person looks at me like I'm crazy. I have realized that some types don't appreciate this so I'm trying not to do it so much. Is this a thing?

So what are the types that do this more and what are the types that hate it when others do it?

Typically , though it may related to process-driven stream of consciousness, so if you are a ego, you will have strong unconscious .

[reyn_til_runa]

"I roll on like a ball, with this exception, that contrary to the usual laws of motion I have no friction to contend with in my mind, and of course have some difficulty in stopping myself when there is nothing else to stop me....I am almost sick and giddy with the quantity of things in my head -- trains of thought beginning and branching to infinity, crossing each other, and all tempting and wanting to be worked out." -john ruskin

like this?

[XoX]

What type appears to be the most random? I feel like I am saying random things all the time. I'll be talking to someone about something and then suddenly a thought will occur to me that is only slightly related to the conversation but I will follow that thread in my head (saying it out loud) and I can sometimes see the confusion on the person's face as in "where the heck did THAT come from" and they will try to follow me and then I'll sometimes jump back to the original topic or sometimes jump ahead to something entirely different. I also occasionally make comments on things that happened a long time ago such as "remember when we went to that party--I thought this or that and you were acting like this" and the person looks at me like I'm crazy. I have realized that some types don't appreciate this so I'm trying not to do it so much. Is this a thing?

So what are the types that do this more and what are the types that hate it when others do it?

Typically , though it may related to process-driven stream of consciousness, so if you are a ego, you will have strong unconscious .

Perhaps the +- stuff should also be considered. As in INFps and ENTps (I think) use the same Ne and Ni. INTps and ENFps use the same Ne and Ni. ENTp/INFp differ from ENFp/INTp. I think the ENTp/INFp side is more "random". I'm pretty random too. Hah.

[PotatoSpirit]

ENTp appears to be the most random to me.

[Joy]

Se types who are fucking around appear most random to me. Especially ESI's... it's like their randomness is too random.

[redbaron]

"I roll on like a ball, with this exception, that contrary to the usual laws of motion I have no friction to contend with in my mind, and of course have some difficulty in stopping myself when there is nothing else to stop me....I am almost sick and giddy with the quantity of things in my head -- trains of thought beginning and branching to infinity, crossing each other, and all tempting and wanting to be worked out." -john ruskin

like this?

Yes.

[BLauritson]

Quite often I laugh at something that isn't even funny, because my mind makes some seemingly (to an observer) arbitrary link between what was just said and something else that IS funny, and so my mind follows that train of thought almost instantly (I don't vocalise this though; it happens too quickly to do so) and I think of whatever funny thing my mind linked it to and start laughing at that. This often confuses people.

[redbaron]

Quite often I laugh at something that isn't even funny, because my mind makes some seemingly (to an observer) arbitrary link between what was just said and something else that IS funny, and so my mind follows that train of thought almost instantly (I don't vocalise this though; it happens too quickly to do so) and I think of whatever funny thing my mind linked it to and start laughing at that. This often confuses people.

Yes, I do this pretty often.

[marooned]

Quite often I laugh at something that isn't even funny, because my mind makes some seemingly (to an observer) arbitrary link between what was just said and something else that IS funny, and so my mind follows that train of thought almost instantly (I don't vocalise this though; it happens too quickly to do so) and I think of whatever funny thing my mind linked it to and start laughing at that. This often confuses people.

Exactly. And often people don't get why it's funny (to me), or if I'm not actually expressing my amusement (via laughter or the like) and say something random connected with it, often people don't recognize it as humor. And I don't want to explain it, because then that sort of defeats the purpose.

I agree about being the most random.

But I don't know many ego types... (if any? I don't know very many people)

[XoX]

Quite often I laugh at something that isn't even funny, because my mind makes some seemingly (to an observer) arbitrary link between what was just said and something else that IS funny, and so my mind follows that train of thought almost instantly (I don't vocalise this though; it happens too quickly to do so) and I think of whatever funny thing my mind linked it to and start laughing at that. This often confuses people.

Yes, I do this pretty often.

I actually do something like that too. Sometimes I can start laughing pretty hysterically. I just can't stop it. It is rare but it happens. Sometimes in weird places like in a music concert. The singer might have a weird tone in their voice which reminds me of a muppet show character or something. Then I can't stop my laughter whenever the singer starts to sing as I see the muppet character on the stage instead of the singer. Other people might find this weird. Is this related to Ni?

[redbaron]

I actually do something like that too. Sometimes I can start laughing pretty hysterically. I just can't stop it. It is rare but it happens. Sometimes in weird places like in a music concert. The singer might have a weird tone in their voice which reminds me of a muppet show character or something. Then I can't stop my laughter whenever the singer starts to sing as I see the muppet character on the stage instead of the singer. Other people might find this weird. Is this related to Ni?

Once I get going on the laughing when I'm someplace where I'm not supposed to be laughing (such as church, concert, recital, etc), I find it next to impossible to stop. It's just very difficult because of the fact that I know I need to be quiet and then I start thinking about what a bad example I'm setting for the children and that makes me laugh even harder.

[Logos]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

[reyn_til_runa]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

not entirely, you're right.

but if a pattern emerges where certain types say they do that too and others, less so, she may be able to narrow her options.

[redbaron]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

yeah yeah...

Looks like so far, it's and who are most random? I'm still hoping to get more replies but whatever.

How about people who are annoyed by randomness?

[Logos]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

not entirely, you're right.

but if a pattern emerges where certain types say they do that too and others, less so, she may be able to narrow her options.

But the more people who say "me too" does not necessarily mean that the answer is right. If there was a math test with 2 + 2 = x: A) x = 4; B) x = -4; C) x = 22; D) B & C; E) x = a big jar of almonds, having a bunch of people saying "me too" for answering the question with E does not mean that E is the right answer.

[redbaron]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

not entirely, you're right.

but if a pattern emerges where certain types say they do that too and others, less so, she may be able to narrow her options.

But the more people who say "me too" does not necessarily mean that the answer is right. If there was a math test with 2 + 2 = x: A) x = 4; B) x = -4; C) x = 22; D) B & C; E) x = a big jar of almonds, having a bunch of people saying "me too" for answering the question with E does not mean that E is the right answer.

I'm just trying to hear people's experiences with randomness and see if anyone knows if randomness is connected to a particular type. I don't mind collecting random (he he) thoughts and experiences along the way. Who needs a "right" answer anyway? The fun is in the process. I don't much care if I figure it out definitively but it might be interesting to explore the subject.

[marooned]

@Logos

Well, it does provide some data (a lot of which is probably frivolous), but one person's trash may be another's treasure... that is such a lame cliche--I feel embarrassed for even using it. The point being, that we can sort through the data and look for patterns (of course evaluating it and figuring out what is useful and what is not--again, the trash/treasure analogy applies, as this may differ per person).

Also, I think F types may be more likely to give these sorts of subjective responses. Sigh. Sometimes I feel rather bothered by my consistently subjective and vague replies. (at self)

[redbaron]

Also, I think F types may be more likely to give these sorts of subjective responses. Sigh. Sometimes I feel rather bothered by my consistently subjective and vague replies. (at self)

No, I really like your replies!

[Logos]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

not entirely, you're right.

but if a pattern emerges where certain types say they do that too and others, less so, she may be able to narrow her options.

But the more people who say "me too" does not necessarily mean that the answer is right. If there was a math test with 2 + 2 = x: A) x = 4; B) x = -4; C) x = 22; D) B & C; E) x = a big jar of almonds, having a bunch of people saying "me too" for answering the question with E does not mean that E is the right answer.

I'm just trying to hear people's experiences with randomness and see if anyone knows if randomness is connected to a particular type. I don't mind collecting random (he he) thoughts and experiences along the way. Who needs a "right" answer anyway? The fun is in the process. I don't much care if I figure it out definitively but it might be interesting to explore the subject.

And it is here that the "me too" loses value. A greater and more meaning value can be found by trying to link the behavior in relation to the different functions and then looking at how this is exhibited in the different types.

[reyn_til_runa]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

not entirely, you're right.

but if a pattern emerges where certain types say they do that too and others, less so, she may be able to narrow her options.

But the more people who say "me too" does not necessarily mean that the answer is right. If there was a math test with 2 + 2 = x: A) x = 4; B) x = -4; C) x = 22; D) B & C; E) x = a big jar of almonds, having a bunch of people saying "me too" for answering the question with E does not mean that E is the right answer.

but having a bunch of people say A is correct does not mean that A is the right answer either. the point is that A is the right answer regardless of how many people say it's right or wrong. clearly, B, C, D, and E can be either wrong or right according to the people, but only wrong according to the objective standard (which are the axioms that make A true). Further, A can only be right, and that is because it's rightness is independent of the people's varying opinions.

if we knew there were a correct answer and could choose between such clearly defined options as you've shown, we'd be set. but this kind of problem lends itself more to probability. we have not yet mastered turning our lives into math problems.

[redbaron]

but having a bunch of people say A is correct does not mean that A is the right answer either. the point is that A is the right answer regardless of how many people say it's right or wrong. clearly, B, C, D, and E can be either wrong or right according to the people, but only wrong according to the objective standard (which are the axioms that make A true). Further, A can only be right, and that is because it's rightness is independent of the people's varying opinions.

if we knew there were a correct answer and could choose between such clearly defined options as you've shown, we'd be set. but this kind of problem lends itself more to probability. we have not yet mastered turning our lives into math problems.

Exactly. I don't even know IF the behavior is linked to a type. Might not be.

[Logos]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

not entirely, you're right.

but if a pattern emerges where certain types say they do that too and others, less so, she may be able to narrow her options.

But the more people who say "me too" does not necessarily mean that the answer is right. If there was a math test with 2 + 2 = x: A) x = 4; B) x = -4; C) x = 22; D) B & C; E) x = a big jar of almonds, having a bunch of people saying "me too" for answering the question with E does not mean that E is the right answer.

but having a bunch of people say A is correct does not mean that A is the right answer either.

Nor did I imply that.

the point is that A is the right answer regardless of how many people say it's right or wrong. clearly, B, C, D, and E can be either wrong or right according to the people, but only wrong according to the objective standard (which are the axioms that make A true). Further, A can only be right, and that is because it's rightness is independent of the people's varying opinions.

And?

if we knew there were a correct answer and could choose between such clearly defined options as you've shown, we'd be set. but this kind of problem lends itself more to probability. we have not yet mastered turning our lives into math problems.

Well there are choices; eight of them: Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Se, and Si. And we roughly know what concepts are supposed to be tied to these functions, so we should be able to link this behavior to the right function. Saying "me too" does not do anything towards this end, because you will have people saying that they do without explaining why that they do.

[redbaron]

I just want to say: is the root of all problems and stupidity.

(just joking :wink: )

[reyn_til_runa]

You know, just saying "I do that too" does not really solve your question about the nature of randomness in Socionics functions.

not entirely, you're right.

but if a pattern emerges where certain types say they do that too and others, less so, she may be able to narrow her options.

But the more people who say "me too" does not necessarily mean that the answer is right. If there was a math test with 2 + 2 = x: A) x = 4; B) x = -4; C) x = 22; D) B & C; E) x = a big jar of almonds, having a bunch of people saying "me too" for answering the question with E does not mean that E is the right answer.

but having a bunch of people say A is correct does not mean that A is the right answer either.

Nor did I imply that.

then using the example you did was pointless.

the point is that A is the right answer regardless of how many people say it's right or wrong. clearly, B, C, D, and E can be either wrong or right according to the people, but only wrong according to the objective standard (which are the axioms that make A true). Further, A can only be right, and that is because it's rightness is independent of the people's varying opinions.

And?

that is all.

if we knew there were a correct answer and could choose between such clearly defined options as you've shown, we'd be set. but this kind of problem lends itself more to probability. we have not yet mastered turning our lives into math problems.

Well there are choices; eight of them: Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Se, and Si. And we roughly know what concepts are supposed to be tied to these functions, so we should be able to link this behavior to the right function. Saying "me too" does not do anything towards this end, because you will have people saying that they do without explaining why that they do.

i think the phenomenological problem goes a bit deeper. if we can't agree on what this behavior is in some objective form, then your approach will not work either. makes no difference whether or not we can agree on what the functions are.

[Logos]

I just want to say: is the root of all problems and stupidity.

(just joking :wink: )

No it really is the root of all stupidity. It is just the most pointless function...ever. and all who use and value it would be better off dead. (and supportive ) is the only useful function.

[Logos]

then using the example you did was pointless.

No. Either way, no matter how many people say "me too" does not mean that the answer is right, I could have used A as the "me too" answer and my point would have still stood as valid. The answer is not validated by "me too" but by an actual understanding of the system.

i think the phenomenological problem goes a bit deeper. if we can't agree on what this behavior is in some objective form, then your approach will not work either. makes no difference whether or not we can agree on what the functions are.

But trying to link this behavior to functions is at least a step in the right direction, whereas the "me too" answer is stagnancy if not two steps backwards.

[reyn_til_runa]

then using the example you did was pointless.

No.

Either way, no matter how many people say "me too" does not mean that the answer is right, I could have used A as the "me too" answer and my point would have still stood as valid. The answer is not validated by "me too" but by an actual understanding of the system.

partially true, but there is still the problem of verifying whether or not one's understanding of the system is correct. a system in itself is not really judged on the basis of whether it is correct or incorrect. it's just an arrangement of objects for a particular purpose. so, even the system can't be totally objectified.

i think the phenomenological problem goes a bit deeper. if we can't agree on what this behavior is in some objective form, then your approach will not work either. makes no difference whether or not we can agree on what the functions are.

But trying to link this behavior to functions is at least a step in the right direction, whereas the "me too" answer is stagnancy if not two steps backwards.

ok, so have the OP create a scratch and sniff behavior chart.

[Logos]

then using the example you did was pointless.

No.

Either way, no matter how many people say "me too" does not mean that the answer is right, I could have used A as the "me too" answer and my point would have still stood as valid. The answer is not validated by "me too" but by an actual understanding of the system.

partially true, but there is still the problem of verifying whether or not one's understanding of the system is correct. a system in itself is not really judged on the basis of whether it is correct or incorrect. it's just an arrangement of objects for a particular purpose. so, even the system can't be totally objectified.

Oh no! Do I smell a subjectivist? ! Burn the witch!

i think the phenomenological problem goes a bit deeper. if we can't agree on what this behavior is in some objective form, then your approach will not work either. makes no difference whether or not we can agree on what the functions are.

But trying to link this behavior to functions is at least a step in the right direction, whereas the "me too" answer is stagnancy if not two steps backwards.

ok, so have the OP create a scratch and sniff behavior chart.

That would be awesome. Okay redbaron, could you start working on that?

[reyn_til_runa]

then using the example you did was pointless.

No.

Either way, no matter how many people say "me too" does not mean that the answer is right, I could have used A as the "me too" answer and my point would have still stood as valid. The answer is not validated by "me too" but by an actual understanding of the system.

partially true, but there is still the problem of verifying whether or not one's understanding of the system is correct. a system in itself is not really judged on the basis of whether it is correct or incorrect. it's just an arrangement of objects for a particular purpose. so, even the system can't be totally objectified.

Oh no! Do I smell a subjectivist? ! Burn the witch!

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

[force my hand]

I can identify with a lot in this thread. It's randomness because to an outside observer the result looks random, but it's the cumulative effect of several associations.

(Recent example concerning a study session trying to memorize minerals)

Person A: "What's this one again?"
Person B: "Chazabite."
Me: "...the Mexican mineral."

A and B: "???"

To me it's simple: it's a reddish-brown mineral -> desert -> Arizona -> near Mexico. ...PLUS "chaz" -> sounds Spanish. Two streams into a logical associative conclusion. I operate on all sorts of associations like this, however, I tend not to voice the result as it results in a) other party's confusion and b) me having to take the time to explain.

[Logos]

then using the example you did was pointless.

No.

Either way, no matter how many people say "me too" does not mean that the answer is right, I could have used A as the "me too" answer and my point would have still stood as valid. The answer is not validated by "me too" but by an actual understanding of the system.

partially true, but there is still the problem of verifying whether or not one's understanding of the system is correct. a system in itself is not really judged on the basis of whether it is correct or incorrect. it's just an arrangement of objects for a particular purpose. so, even the system can't be totally objectified.

Oh no! Do I smell a subjectivist? ! Burn the witch!

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

These are pointless meanderings which do not address the issue at hand: the value of subjective "me too" statements in the determination of functional and typological correlations.

[reyn_til_runa]

[quote="Logos"]

then using the example you did was pointless.

No.

Either way, no matter how many people say "me too" does not mean that the answer is right, I could have used A as the "me too" answer and my point would have still stood as valid. The answer is not validated by "me too" but by an actual understanding of the system.

partially true, but there is still the problem of verifying whether or not one's understanding of the system is correct. a system in itself is not really judged on the basis of whether it is correct or incorrect. it's just an arrangement of objects for a particular purpose. so, even the system can't be totally objectified.

Oh no! Do I smell a subjectivist? ! Burn the witch!

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

These are pointless meanderings which do not address the issue at hand: the value of subjective "me too" statements in the determination of functional and typological correlations.

we already determined that they do not effect the functional and typological correlations, but they can have value in defining/understanding the behavior (i.e. manifestations of these correlations).

[Logos]

You know what? I give up. So..."me too" redbaron, I am exactly the same way as you describe. My imagination just runs wild with randomness. Holy mudwrestling bi-polar donkeys, Batman! I have no idea if it is Esperanto salamander kidneys Frank Welker related or not, but it just has to Tide cleans better than Clorox the next best leading brand be on principle.

[reyn_til_runa]

You know what? I give up. So..."me too" redbaron, I am exactly the same way as you describe. My imagination just runs wild with randomness. Holy mudwrestling bi-polar donkeys, Batman! I have no idea if it is Esperanto salamander kidneys Frank Welker related or not, but it just has to Tide cleans better than Clorox the next best leading brand be on principle.

if you cut everything out before the wordy Holy, you have a valid description which can be presented to redbaron with the question: redbaron, in what ways is this like/unlike your experience?

at which time redbaron may reply:

here is my experience, which should demonstrate similarities and differences:

my donkeys were apes, and they wrestled in soup clearly on the unipole (north) only and it was flash gordon, not batman who we addressed for fun and all glory lizard honor roll upshine, updo, up so don't take me away from the dog! i do have an idea about Escondido and some red fish named Lima (whom we address while spooning chili over all our clean clothing) Knights who do not say Ni, but neigh. the combination of Tide+Chlorox should be considered as the penultimate finishing brand, also suitable for fisherman, which means 2nd to last where last is definitely worst, is (fuck peer pressure) resides on the principal's sideburn!

now we're cooking.

[Logos]

You know what? I give up. So..."me too" redbaron, I am exactly the same way as you describe. My imagination just runs wild with randomness. Holy mudwrestling bi-polar donkeys, Batman! I have no idea if it is Esperanto salamander kidneys Frank Welker related or not, but it just has to Tide cleans better than Clorox the next best leading brand be on principle.

if you cut everything out before the wordy Holy, you have a valid description which can be presented to redbaron with the question: redbaron, in what ways is this like/unlike your experience?

at which time redbaron may reply:

here is my experience, which should demonstrate similarities and differences:

my donkeys were apes, and they wrestled in soup clearly on the unipole (north) only and it was flash gordon, not batman who we addressed for fun and all glory lizard honor roll upshine, updo, up so don't take me away from the dog! i do have an idea about Escondido and some red fish named Lima (whom we address while spooning chili over all our clean clothing) Knights who do not say Ni, but neigh. the combination of Tide+Chlorox should be considered as the penultimate finishing brand, also suitable for fisherman, which means 2nd to last where last is definitely worst, is (fuck peer pressure) resides on the principal's sideburn!

now we're cooking.

Except, I lied.

[marooned]

Is this an example of a quasi-identical debate???

[Hitta]

then using the example you did was pointless.

No.

Either way, no matter how many people say "me too" does not mean that the answer is right, I could have used A as the "me too" answer and my point would have still stood as valid. The answer is not validated by "me too" but by an actual understanding of the system.

partially true, but there is still the problem of verifying whether or not one's understanding of the system is correct. a system in itself is not really judged on the basis of whether it is correct or incorrect. it's just an arrangement of objects for a particular purpose. so, even the system can't be totally objectified.

Oh no! Do I smell a subjectivist? ! Burn the witch!

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

So yea, you are INTj or ENTp.

[Logos]

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

So yea, you are INTj or ENTp.

Why?

Because what she said is very Kantian.