Anyone else here think that Phaedrus isn't an INTp. I just don't get that vibe from him.
Phaedrus
Anyone else here think that Phaedrus isn't an INTp. I just don't get that vibe from him.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Oh, boy... Here we go again.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
it might be a serious topic if not for the identity of the person starting (and perhaps controlling) the discussion.
Re: Phaedrus
What would the most typical INTp vibe be like in your opinion? Is there any person on this person that exemplifies a typical INTp based on the vibes he or she gives you? Who is the best example of an INTp among famous persons?Originally Posted by hitta
Re: Phaedrus
Re: Phaedrus
this is actually a very interesting question. i want to hear hitta's answer.What would the most typical INTp vibe be like in your opinion? Is there any person on this person that exemplifies a typical INTp based on the vibes he or she gives you? Who is the best example of an INTp among famous persons?
INTps have this slow gradual way about them. They tend to do things step by step systematically. They tend to reflect on past things and try to follow the path of what is trusted and true. They aren't the type of people that value originality(as Phaedrus has said before). This isn't saying that INTps aren't original, its just that they do not value it. INTps tend to value normal lifestyles and systematic lifestyles. They tend to attempt to serve society the best that they can. They love historical perspective. I'm not even sure what type Phaedrus is, I just don't think he's INTp. I don't see any of those qualities in him.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
please answer phaedrus' question.
How do you know that I haven't?
What do you know about my working style?
How do you know that I don't?
Maybe I have said something like that, I don't remember for sure, but taken out of context it is misleading. I have clearly stated in at least one post in the past that there is a difference between myself and an ENTp friend of mine, who values originiality for it's own sake, whereas I think that quality is more important than originality and independent of it, even though they can of course coincide in some cases. (I don't remember the thread, but I said it in a discussion where Jonathan was involved.)
In the sense I just explained I agree with that.
And you can tell that based on ... what?
Yes, please try to do that.
Really? So THAT's why working in retail, an extremely customer service-based field, made me mentally ill for a while. Gee, you've hit the nail right on the head there. In fact, you hit that nail so squarely, that wall felt a penetration more deep and intense than any other nail could possibly provide. There you go, the first instance of DIY porn.
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
I could see him as an ISTj... Didn't Gulenko characterize ISTj's as the archetypal cause-effect determinists...? That seems to be in line with his beliefs.
I agree with many things here. I mainly agree that Phaedrus isn't INTp.
Now to your type. I just can't resist commenting that only very few types get a "type vibe" from posts. Many people analyze the content of the posts and comment on the socionics type of the poster, but only NFs (especially NiFe NFs) have reported that they actually get a "vibe" from reading someone elses post. It was discussed about a year ago in the forum. Also, I bolded a few phrases in your text which are typical for people with strong Ni and weakish Te, more specifically, phrases that come from a generalized sense of the way the world works. (Te would work case-by-case, and Ni is just meant for sensing the general patterns.)
PS! sorry for the off-topic. It might seem rude to you. But it all balances out considering how many fun threads have turned into Phaedruses never-ending-type-discussion.
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/
ENTps also belong to Gulenko's Determinist group in his article on thinking styles. And INTps are always described as observers with a typically stoic, deterministic world outlook in the type descriptions. To be a determinist is most often associated with cynicism, pessimism, and a certain passiveness, which are typical INTp traits. Of course you can also have a more positive outlook and still be a determinist (for example as a Muslim), but that is not as common. And ISTjs are usually optimists that are more inclined than INTps to believe in a free will (which means that I suspect that Gulenko's claim that the algorithmic-synthetic thinking style leads to a teleological world view is not correct in relation to INTps).
I am still waiting for an example of a person with INTp vibes and a famous INTp that exemplifies hitta's view of INTps in general.
I'm playing devil's advocate here and arguing solely by the merit of the argument without any vested beliefs or intentions...
Gulenko also says that the algorithmic-dialectical mindset has a strong association to fluidity and absence of a fixed framework by which matters are evaluated. You propone the position that we should evaluate everything according to a rigid framework, namely that of the classical definition of truth and the externalist view on the nature of phenomena. You have to admit there is a slight dissonance here. Also he specifically noted that dialectical thinkers are "likely to come to the faith", while you are a staunch opponent of all things religion.
By starting with this clause, you have lost your credibility in the eyes of your audience. If people know that you are arguing for something you do not believe, it is hard for people to take what you say seriously.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
No. There is no dissonance. The classical definition of truth and an externalist view on the nature of phenomena is almost a prerequisite for fluidity and absence of a fixed framework by which matters are evaluated, because then it is possible to be wrong. And those who believe in objective truths are in the minority these days. I requires a willingness to stand apart from current popular opinions and an ability to think for yourself to be interested in scrutinizing the arguments for relativistic doctrines (which I have done for years) and realize that they are not valid.
He might be wrong about that. The problem must be investigated further.
By starting with this clause, you have lost your credibility in the eyes of your audience. If people know that you are arguing for something you do not believe, it is hard for people to take what you say seriously.
Yes, and that is your dumb fallacy.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
ifmd95, what's your type?
I made a search for "type and vibe" and the first result was from ScarlettLux's post "IxTjs give off a "vibe" that screamsdominance", then there's from ENTj guynoir, then implied, then Courage. I didn't find any clear references to post vibe though. We'll know soon enough (new thread in general discussion).
I sometimes get false "vibe" but if I keep seeing the same type behavior for long enough, I start to trust my judgement. The things that I say can never be taken literally. I know that many people use the phrase "tend to", but the way hitta used it told me he's seeing a general image of what behavior he would expect from phaedrus. He already has a generalized image and he's trying to fit Phaedrus in it. That's how it felt to me. I do the same thing. That's why I recognized it.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
labcoat:No. There is no dissonance. The classical definition of truth and an externalist view on the nature of phenomena is almost a prerequisite for fluidity and absence of a fixed framework by which matters are evaluated, because then it is possible to be wrong. And those who believe in objective truths are in the minority these days. I requires a willingness to stand apart from current popular opinions and an ability to think for yourself to be interested in scrutinizing the arguments for relativistic doctrines (which I have done for years) and realize that they are not valid.
on a grand scale, matter is inexhaustible, yet can still be dealt with dialectically. the part that you're missing, it seems, is that certain conditions (deterministic) can mandate changing conditions (indeterministic). further, ones view of these conditions continually changing (or changing in step-wise trends), will determine whether or not it is possible be be both "rigid" and "fluid."
approaching matter and the evolution of matter dialectically requires a paradoxical vision of the object world -- on one hand, to be aware of an object's consistency with itself and the conditions which account for its existence, and on the other, to be aware of its dialetical nature which makes it possible for an object to exist/evolve according to the condition that: increasing parts:whole increases fluidity of the object itself, and also serves to introduce a new set of conditions (rather than think of conditions as ever-changing and indertermined, think of them as "potentially changed conditions" and "changed conditions"). if you add enough steps to the process (which is, in itself, an extension of dialectics), you make the dynamic seem static, but also, the static seem dynamic.
think about a stationary plastic decorative snake, on one hand, and a plastic "toy" snake consisting of several connected segments, on the other. the latter is movable on a different level than the former. we can pick it up all at once or we can make it slither across the floor in a variety of designs. yet, in essence, the changes were brought about by something similar to hegel's idea of being-not being-becoming, which is to say that the changes were brought about by giving every part, including the whole itself, it's logical counterpart.
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
How so? Starting off by saying "Now I'm just playing devil's advocate here" is an argumentative fallacy of credibility.By starting with this clause, you have lost your credibility in the eyes of your audience. If people know that you are arguing for something you do not believe, it is hard for people to take what you say seriously.
Yes, and that is your dumb fallacy.
What do you mean?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
That tag is actually the only thing standing between this forum and another full-out "War on Phaedrus' type". Sue me for using a popular phrase. I think you're just projecting the effect human dynamics have on your appraisal of arguments in discussion on that of others, and unjustly so. Most don't seem to have difficulty maintaining their objectivity.How so? Starting off by saying "Now I'm just playing devil's advocate here" is an argumentative fallacy of credibility.
Code:import java.awt.*; import java.io.*; public abstract class superfun extends Object implements Comparable { int 33 = 41; 207.9 = new do_nothing(); return new Boolean(88); do this; public break; }
Doubtful.That tag is actually the only thing standing between this forum and another full-out "War on Phaedrus' type". Sue me for using a popular phrase. I think you're just projecting the effect human dynamics have on your appraisal of arguments in discussion on that of others, and unjustly so. Most don't seem to have difficulty maintaining their objectivity.How so? Starting off by saying "Now I'm just playing devil's advocate here" is an argumentative fallacy of credibility.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
hitta, do you think a member on this forum matches this INTp vibe you are describing?please answer phaedrus' question.
Uhh if I'm thinking of the same person, he's always been an ENFp to me.
He basically needs somebody to say 'I don't give a shit' in the nicest way possible. (ie his dual, ISTp)
You guys always getting into debates with him and making fun of him or giving him a little quip thinking you're being clever, I don't think he meshes well with that atmosphere at all. Not that it hurts his feelings, just...he needs to have somebody that is just 'whatever' to him when he starts his long-winded psychological rants about nothingness.
Maybe you are thinking of someone else but me, because even though it is always interesting to hear people's interpretations of your behaviour, your guess here is not even close. There is another, much better, explanation for this phenomenon in my case.
Let me just point out that you have to use that idea very loosely. hitta may well be sufficient in both Te and Ni, but ask Expat, Thunder, Joy, reyn_til_runa, Jonathan or any other Te dominant figures on this forum if they would happily write out why they think what they think after having made a non-backed-up statement about something. For example, if someone said to me "SLE, without question", and I asked them to explain it, the chances are, if it was an:
NF: they'd come out with loose bits of information. Their arguments would either be scattered, weak, vague or simplistic.
NT: good arguers; if they wrote it out, it would be very good. But the chances are, they won't. Does niffweed care that you disagree with an attack made by him on something you say? Of course not.
ST: they would probably have a decent argument, but would size it down considerably, to a short, crisp (and thus an) argument (lacking the punch a longer one could have). Otherwise, they might just not be arsed with it.
SF: their argument would be slightly better than the SF. They might have firm facts, but these might be inconclusive or minor.
If an NT would gladly write out a lengthy reason as to why they believe something i.e. if you can confirm that any of the above mentioned would do so, I stand corrected.
Also, perhaps hitta would explain to you why he doesn't get an ILI 'vibe' from Phaedrus if you asked him to.
Alternatively, labcoat may have gained an audience by showing that he has the power to consider both sides of the argument.By starting with this clause, you have lost your credibility in the eyes of your audience. If people know that you are arguing for something you do not believe, it is hard for people to take what you say seriously.
As am I. As is niffweed, I believe. hitta, please answer Phaedrus' question.
Can you not see how this is laden with Ti?
May I also point out that the first bolded statement is ironic, because you say their is absence of a fixed framework, which is what Ti dominants rely on, but the very way in which you describe how you operate is a system itself; do you understand? Or am I completely misinterpreting what you are saying?
Please explain in what way it is laden with Ti.Can you not see how this is laden with Ti?
No, I don't understand your point. And how does what you say about "system" in this context relate to what Smilingeyes says about different types of systems, or FDG's comment in Joy's systems thread that "[e]very introverted function is a system"?
I don't know. Hard to tell actually.
I understand phaedrus point, being that if you have a fluid framework you have to fix the facts whereas if you have a fixed framework you can adjust the facts and leave more room for them (isn't this the commonly held distinction between Ti and Te afterall? Even though it would be better modified for hologrammers and linears). If you don't fix any you can't decide whether the change in facts causes a change in the result or whether a change in the framework is the source; it's similar to the standard procedure of basic statitics research
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
That's how I see it anyway (if I understand you correctly here). I don't see my framework as fixed, at least not until I have fixed the facts first. When you look at a huge amount of facts, you may sometimes reach a point where you become so sure that you have got them right that you can allow yourself to sound more dogmatic about the overall framework in which those facts can be explained. But any new evidence can make me throw the entire framework away, if the new evidence is strong enough. If that happens (and it has more than once), I will have to redo the "big puzzle".
The bold does this job for me.
Forget it; misconstrued point.No, I don't understand your point. And how does what you say about "system" in this context relate to what Smilingeyes says about different types of systems, or FDG's comment in Joy's systems thread that "[e]very introverted function is a system"?
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
Reply With Quote
