To LSE: what does Ni PoLR personally mean to you? How does it influence your lifestyle and judgment?
To the rest: How does the Ni PoLR of the LSEs around you affect you?
Ni PoLR of LSE-ESTj
To LSE: what does Ni PoLR personally mean to you? How does it influence your lifestyle and judgment?
To the rest: How does the Ni PoLR of the LSEs around you affect you?
Ni PoLR, to me, is not caring about all the steps necessary to reach a long term goal. I wondered the same thing, so I asked someone if this was in fact Ni PoLR, and he/she said it was.
How does it influence my lifestyle? I'm not sure, whenever my INTp dad or my INTp friend go into critic mode, I tune them out. I don't like having to think about that stuff, I'm not good at it. It really annoys me when people criticize me about it. Having an INTp dad, I had to deal with a whole lot of "You're not thinking things through", "Don't rush into things" when I was growing up, which annoyed me to no end.Originally Posted by aut0
I got the same thing. "I'm gonna become a lawyer." "Concentrate on getting your A-Levels first."Ni PoLR, to me, is not caring about all the steps necessary to reach a long term goal. I wondered the same thing, so I asked someone if this was in fact Ni PoLR, and he/she said it was.
How does it influence my lifestyle? I'm not sure, whenever my INTp dad or my INTp friend go into critic mode, I tune them out. I don't like having to think about that stuff, I'm not good at it. It really annoys me when people criticize me about it. Having an INTp dad, I had to deal with a whole lot of "You're not thinking things through", "Don't rush into things" when I was growing up, which annoyed me to no end.
How do you LSEs act in regard to not knowing things about people? Or when someone doesn't tell you something?
Filatova:
I find myself playing detective with people and they usually don't like it, because I can easily uncover their experiences or secrets. It seems to bother people, and the more they hide things, the more I want to know. This quality is something I have to learn to hone, however, because while I use it for figuring out things about life, I suppose not everyone is as transparent as I am.Ni – LSE painfully experiences any type of uncertainty. It is desirable that everything be planned before-hand, to precisely know what will happen tomorrow, in the week, in the month, in the year. Uncertainty, for her, is the most severe vital problem, it makes her nervous and she attempts to surmount it with all her resources.
As someone else just said, "I am honest because I prefer to travel light."
And also, it is a way of forcing Fi checks. You can tell how much someone trusts you or where you are on their Fi totem poll by what they are willing to say to you, and how much your needs take precedents over others they call friends or relatives.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Can you please give up the idea that you're LSE? This is getting really annoying.
This is what she asked:
This is how you answered:
Then you went off on a tangent and started blabbering about Fi (which I think is your leading function). All I've seen you do thus far is paste texts and quote dichotomies. The last time you tried to explain what you thought was Ni PoLR, Elro pointed out that you were seeking Ni because you wanted people to plan things out for you. I really don't know how many more people need to point out that you don't have Ni PoLR, but I sincerely hope that that magic number gets hit soon.
Strawman, much, aut0? It is like you are trying to say that quoting profiles or outside resources automatically discredits you.
Why don't you actually show some skill and propose a possible situation where what I am saying could be construed as-based?
Or have you made up your mind that there is just no way I can be LSE?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
A straw man argument would insinuate that there's only one point being thrown around to discredit you being LSE, that's not the case as more than one person has pointed out why you aren't LSE and stated more than one reason for it. Heck even you yourself do it on a regular basis with your posts where you throw around Fi where you keep bringing up orphans in Africa whenever someone mentions that life is hard. I would "show some skill" and try and explain how what you wrote was Te based, but I doubt that even Houdini could accomplish such a task.Strawman, much, aut0? It is like you are trying to say that quoting profiles or outside resources automatically discredits you.
Why don't you actually show some skill and propose a possible situation where what I am saying could be construed as
Or have you made up your mind that there is just no way I can be LSE?
I don't know how this escaped you, but can you count the number of people who think that you're LSE, let alone Delta, and those that think otherwise? I'm going to wager that there are far more people thinking the latter. It really isn't a coincidence when people keep telling you that you're projecting every time you claim to be LSE. And no, everyone on the forum isn't out to get you, you really just aren't an LSE.
Reading your posts makes me want to break a cinder block with my head and fail.
The Ni polr of LSEs doesn't really bother me, though it can be frustrating at times. They tend to put so much of a work load on themselves that they don't really have time for "bonding" with people. I can't count the times that I have wanted to talk to them about things that are not "of the moment" but they are always in a rush, or they have to go somewhere. I find it hard to get to know them because of this.eunice Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: LSE and Ni PoLR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To LSE: what does Ni PoLR personally mean to you? How does it influence your lifestyle and judgment?
To the rest: How does the Ni PoLR of the LSEs around you affect you?
Also, they can get very touchy if you mention that they are late, or that they are going to be late somewhere. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is in being late, maybe they think that it's exposing their Ni polr? Sometimes I wish that they just tell me what it is that is painful about it so that I can avoid the topic altogether since I don't really care that they have that weakness.
A few observations regarding my boss:
1)He tends not to know the workload for the future. If I ask him "Do you know how much there is to do in 2 weeks, so that I can plan blah blah", he doesn't. Maximum is 4-5 days.
2)He tends to forget about the time of things ex. he'll tell me "Ill email you at 9 am" and he'll email at 2 pm. Now, this wouldn't be noticed by anyone except people that are very picky about timing (like me)
3)Many times he can be overloaded by work that he thinks appears out of nowhere. I generally see it coming from a mile away but, knowing socionics, I avoid giving him advice on the matter.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I know what you mean. I used to be more of a time freak than I am now though, and that's because I stopped wearing a watch on purposeFDG Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few observations regarding my boss:
1)He tends not to know the workload for the future. If I ask him "Do you know how much there is to do in 2 weeks, so that I can plan blah blah", he doesn't. Maximum is 4-5 days.
2)He tends to forget about the time of things ex. he'll tell me "Ill email you at 9 am" and he'll email at 2 pm. Now, this wouldn't be noticed by anyone except people that are very picky about timing (like me)
3)Many times he can be overloaded by work that he thinks appears out of nowhere. I generally see it coming from a mile away but, knowing socionics, I avoid giving him advice on the matter....
I am wondering if an ESTj here could explain what thepolr is in greater detail, since I am a little oblivious to it. I really would like to learn about it, though they might not want to talk about that issue in a public forum, which is understandable. Nonetheless, I am interested.
That's Ni PoLR? I have always thought that Ni PoLR means been present-oriented, and taking each challenge at a time and concentrating on the steps needed to attain a long-term goal. LSE always struck me as very systematic people.
lol. I'm working for an LSE boss as well and I know what you are talking about.
She always make sure that I use the calendar on MS outlook to list the appointments and deadline of tasks. Moreover, when I have been assigned a task, she wants me to list down the steps and procedures leading to the completion of the project and whether the method I will be using is the most efficient way available.
For me, I think it has to do with over-planning and trying to make everything predictable. I'm always 15 minutes early to everything. I've learned that when I try to be "on time" I end up being 20 minutes late, so I end up leaving 30 minutes before I need to be somewhere so that I have enough even if something unexpected comes up. I've learned that I'm absolutely terrible with predicting how long things will take so I need to overcompensate to make up for it by being incredibly early to things, or giving myself way more time than I probably need to finish tasks. I still end up taking on too many things sometimes so I end up timing things badly anyway. I have schedules for everything from class/important school dates/workouts/etc. I know that today, I have X at Y time, and after that I have to do Z, etc. I end up trying to make everything routine, but that's a problem since unexpected things are bound to happen, and it ends up catching me off guard anyway. That doesn't stop me from trying though.
I am wondering if an ESTj here could explain what the
What I was getting at was that I focus on what's going on now. What's going to happen weeks/months/years from now isn't as much as a priority as what's going on today. There's no point worrying about the future if present tasks aren't taken care of. If my goal is to go to Law School, I know that I need to get my Bachelor's, take the LSAT, etc. But my priority is whatever is happening at the moment. The fact that my goal is going to Law School is enough for me. I don't want to think about every step involved in something that's not going to happen for a long time, my priority is whatever I need to do during that day, or week at most. As long as I have a general idea of what I want to do, that's enough for me.That's Ni PoLR? I have always thought that Ni PoLR means been present-oriented, and taking each challenge at a time and concentrating on the steps needed to attain a long-term goal. LSE always struck me as very systematic people.
This could be completely unrelated to Ni or even type for that matter, so correct me if I'm wrong.
CuriousSoul posted a link to this in General Discussion, where it explains how Jung definedaut0 Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, I think it has to do with over-planning and trying to make everything predictable. I'm always 15 minutes early to everything. I've learned that when I try to be "on time" I end up being 20 minutes late, so I end up leaving 30 minutes before I need to be somewhere so that I have enough even if something unexpected comes up. I've learned that I'm absolutely terrible with predicting how long things will take so I need to overcompensate to make up for it by being incredibly early to things, or giving myself way more time than I probably need to finish tasks. I still end up taking on too many things sometimes so I end up timing things badly anyway. I have schedules for everything from class/important school dates/workouts/etc. I know that today, I have X at Y time, and after that I have to do Z, etc. I end up trying to make everything routine, but that's a problem since unexpected things are bound to happen, and it ends up catching me off guard anyway. That doesn't stop me from trying though.Sereno wrote:
I am wondering if an ESTj here could explain what the polr is in greater detail, since I am a little oblivious to it. I really would like to learn about it, though they might not want to talk about that issue in a public forum, which is understandable. Nonetheless, I am interested.
What I was getting at was that I focus on what's going on now. What's going to happen weeks/months/years from now isn't as much as a priority as what's going on today. There's no point worrying about the future if present tasks aren't taken care of. If my goal is to go to Law School, I know that I need to get my Bachelor's, take the LSAT, etc. But my priority is whatever is happening at the moment. The fact that my goal is going to Law School is enough for me. I don't want to think about every step involved in something that's not going to happen for a long time, my priority is whatever I need to do during that day, or week at most. As long as I have a general idea of what I want to do, that's enough for me.eunice wrote:
aut0 wrote:
Ni PoLR, to me, is not caring about all the steps necessary to reach a long term goal.
That's Ni PoLR? I have always thought that Ni PoLR means been present-oriented, and taking each challenge at a time and concentrating on the steps needed to attain a long-term goal. LSE always struck me as very systematic people.
This could be completely unrelated to Ni or even type for that matter, so correct me if I'm wrong.
[spoil:f07d41bb77]8. Intuition
[align=left:f07d41bb77]Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.
Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type.
The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive. To the one just as much as to the other, it is an ae[]sthenic problem, a question of perception, a 'sensation'. In this way, the consciousness of his own bodily existence fades from the introverted intuitive's view, as does its effect upon others. The extraverted standpoint would say of him: 'Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless phantasies'. A perception of the unconscious images, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential, this function, which to the outer world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.
Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates.
Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things.[/align:f07d41bb77] [/spoil:f07d41bb77]
What you write aut0 is what I have heard from the other ESTjs I've met. What I still don't know is what makes ESTjs "fear" time issues? I don't know if "fear" is the right word, but at least I see that it affects them a lot.
Re: LSE and Ni PoLR
I'm not sure an LSE would come to these boards. This stuff seems as far away from what an LSE would be interested in as possible. They might stop by and peak their heads in to learn the basics of what socionics says, but it has relatively little Te real world value at all right now. All Ti, Ni, Ne, Fe.
Suomea
[quote="Sereno"][quote]aut0 Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa. . . I have never read this before. Introverted Intuition seems really chaotic to me- completely disorganized. To me it seems strange that with introverted intuition you can separate yourself from the symbols and believe you are seeing them as objective and universal symbols. I have a close IEI friend. The closer we get the harder it is to understand each other's point of view.Sereno wrote:
CuriousSoul posted a link to this in General Discussion, where it explains how Jung defined
[spoil:e073364504]8. Intuition
[align=left:e073364504]Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.
Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type.
The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive. To the one just as much as to the other, it is an ae[]sthenic problem, a question of perception, a 'sensation'. In this way, the consciousness of his own bodily existence fades from the introverted intuitive's view, as does its effect upon others. The extraverted standpoint would say of him: 'Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless phantasies'. A perception of the unconscious images, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential, this function, which to the outer world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.
Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates.
Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things.[/align:e073364504] [/spoil:e073364504]
This passage has explained a lot to me. . .
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
aut0's going to be the moderator's pet pretty soon.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
The point is, you keep bringing up that I quote profiles and make it sound like that, therefore, means I am Fi, and weak in Te. Do most Fi types here on the forum constantly quote profiles? Not to my knowledge. The point is, it is not socionics related - what correlation are you trying to make? You have a fact and it has no real relevance to the situation, but you throw it out there like it is supposed to mean something - and that's what pisses me off about it.A straw man argument would insinuate that there's only one point being thrown around to discredit you being LSE, that's not the case as more than one person has pointed out why you aren't LSE and stated more than one reason for it.Strawman, much, aut0? It is like you are trying to say that quoting profiles or outside resources automatically discredits you.
Why don't you actually show some skill and propose a possible situation where what I am saying could be construed as
Or have you made up your mind that there is just no way I can be LSE?
(If you don't get it, what I just pointed out above is Te itself...)
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...roverted_logicSince TE perceives objective factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said, "Quality" to a type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made
Why can quoting various sources be described as
Because I am collecting data and using it to explain my point. Quoting a source to explain something about me makes more sense, because you can see where the source comes from. Furthermore, what is ultimately the difference? If everything is aligned, what I am saying and what the profile is saying is not any different.
Real Life Example: Today I was talking to Joy about a certain aspect of something, and she began quoting a profile. Right away I asked her to show me the source, and she did. Having the source to the information opens up a much larger store of knowledge, so even though I believe a person and what she is talking about - I want to find out what the source of the information of it is. It provides a much larger context than one person's perspective on that bit of information.
And that is why I have always used profiles, quoted descriptions and so forth.
...that you see this as "impersonal" seems very odd to me. It almost sounds like you want personal, subjective interpretation of the data, which is not really that important to me, especially when there is a more valuable reference point. I am not trying to twist my words to fit to data, I am trying to find data that accurately represents the truth of the situation. So when you ask me for my own personal words, it automatically reminds me of sources that say what I am thinking, but because someone or some thing else (that is respectable) wrote it, it has even more validity. It is the general nature of verification.
The fact that I care about people in Africa could just as easily be a link to Delta and Ne preference, as opposed to Ne polr. But again, here, it does not really mean much. I can argue that it shows Ne is a quadra value because I am interested in caring about other people.Heck even you yourself do it on a regular basis with your posts where you throw around Fi where you keep bringing up orphans in Africa whenever someone mentions that life is hard.
I can also argue, although I would not say it is a totally sound argument (but neither are your remarks about Fi and Africa...), that because I talk about Africa and the situation there, I am a caregiver. I want to protect the people there and better their situation. An ESI might be much more compelled to only care about his or her own situation, and say everyone is on their own. But that is stereotyping a bit, isn't it? Just like you with your Africa = Fi bit.
Excuses, and ad hominem attacks.I would "show some skill" and try and explain how what you wrote was Te based, but I doubt that even Houdini could accomplish such a task.
I don't know how this escaped you, but can you count the number of people who think that you're LSE, let alone Delta, and those that think otherwise? I'm going to wager that there are far more people thinking the latter. It really isn't a coincidence when people keep telling you that you're projecting every time you claim to be LSE. And no, everyone on the forum isn't out to get you, you really just aren't an LSE.You are awfully concerned about image and popular opinion, aren't you.Reading your posts makes me want to break a cinder block with my head and fail.
PS: To further clarify, the ultimate purpose of this post is that you can argue either way. Does this outrightly prove I am Te leading? No. But alternately, to say that it means I must have weak Te, and be Fi dom, would be just as incorrect. If anything it proves that I value Te, but even that is a stretch.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Um, UDP, I thought aut0 said he wasn't going to argue about your type anymore. In light of that...what are you doing?Do you enjoy combativeness and antagonism?
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Aut0 does not have to respond if he does not want to - this post is not about him, it is about socionics and me explaining my point.
If I wanted to dump on aut0 and antagonize him, I would have tore him up when I was feeling really pissed off. (This is actually why I waited to address this post, so I could handle this with a cool head). I am not pissed off any longer, but wanted to explain my point as to what I was talking about in terms of
So the bottom line is, I am addressing the socionics material, and not an individual. In fact, only the very last sentence of that post has to do with aut0 himself. The rest is just dealing with words and accuracy of what was said in regard to socionics.
I have no malicious intentions.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
lol
I thought I heard someone crack their knuckles.Um, UDP, I thought aut0 said he wasn't going to argue about your type anymore. In light of that...what are you doing?
Perhaps a hint at LSI. Perhaps your Conflictor, Minde.
Super-ego, don't you mean?Perhaps a hint at LSI. Perhaps your Conflictor, Minde.
Anyway, whatever type he or other people assign to him doesn't change what I think of him or how well I'll get along with him. Just like I'll treat you the same whether or not you have LSE or SLE attached to your signature. You're still the same person.
I'm sorry, I don't understand you. However, since you're laughing I'll assume it's some sort of joke and will therefore smile pleasantly in reply.I thought I heard someone crack their knuckles.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
I'm sorry, I don't understand you. However, since you're laughing I'll assume it's some sort of joke and will therefore smile pleasantly in reply.Haven't you ever seen a movie where bullies crack their knuckles and pound their fists into their hands before they beat someone up? Your post was sounding like you were being aggressive, so I was imagining you cracking your knuckles and pounding your fist into your hand threatening to beat UDP up.
Oh...
No, no knuckle cracking. Actually, when I wrote that, it would've been something closer to hand-on-forehead with a shaking of the head.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
You're terrible with jokes.
Auto, you sure you aren't ENTp? Your pic looks quite ENTp-Ti to me. This also sounds like something I would say. Seems kinda Ne.:8* Haven't you ever seen a movie where bullies crack their knuckles and pound their fists into their hands before they beat someone up? Your post was sounding like you were being aggressive, so I was imagining you cracking your knuckles and pounding your fist into your hand threatening to beat UDP up. :P
Suomea
I considered it during my original type thread, but it seemed pretty obvious to me at the time that I wasn't a perceiving type. My impression is that perceiving types like to keep their options open, don't like routines, are messy. So I ruled it out after reading the oldham descriptions and whatever else was on that page and not really relating to too much of it at all.
I'll read the ILE function & type descriptions, along with dual description and let you know if I identify with it. I don't really have a problem with being ENTp.
I'm just going to bump my original thread, I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I already have.
No. I was implying that he could be an LSI or an SLE.Super-ego, don't you mean?
Thank you. That means a lot to me.Just like I'll treat you the same whether or not you have LSE or SLE attached to your signature. You're still the same person.
You've made a few mistakes here.
Firstly, you've interpreted all socionics XXXp types as being messy. In MBTT, Perceiving is associated with this. However, in socionics, being messy is much more to do with poor Si than being a perceiving type. SLIs, for example, can have cleaner desktops than LIEs. On the other hand, you're right - perceiving types are flexible, and they don't like routine.
Secondly, you've mistaken Oldham for socionics type. Beware: so many of the Oldham descriptions that the original owner of this site correlated with their socionical 'counterparts' do not fit properly. For example, I am most suited to the 'Aggressive' type. However, does this make me an LIE? Of course not. I bet you anything that many Aggressives would call themselves SLEs.
That makes sense. Still, after reading all the descriptions (not Oldham) I didn't identify with much of it at all. I don't take Oldham descriptions at face value. I can identify with multiple types with Oldham's so it doesn't mean much to me if I can or can't identify with any specific type.You've made a few mistakes here.
Firstly, you've interpreted all socionics XXXp types as being messy. In MBTT, Perceiving is associated with this. However, in socionics, being messy is much more to do with poor Si than being a perceiving type. SLIs, for example, can have cleaner desktops than LIEs. On the other hand, you're right - perceiving types are flexible, and they don't like routine.
Secondly, you've mistaken Oldham for socionics type. Beware: so many of the Oldham descriptions that the original owner of this site correlated with their socionical 'counterparts' do not fit properly. For example, I am most suited to the 'Aggressive' type. However, does this make me an LIE? Of course not. I bet you anything that many Aggressives would call themselves SLEs.
An "Or" at the beginning of the second sentence would have made that clearer.No. I was implying that he could be an LSI or an SLE.Super-ego, don't you mean?
You're welcome.
I know. Sometimes I think it must be a curse.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Same here. I identify with both Aggressive and most of Leisurely. In fact, I'm going to make a topic about it now.
Hah! I doubt it's a curse, otherwise I wouldn't have so much fun messing with girls like you.
ESTjs and Ne HA / Ni polr
This is basically how it manifests:
I like the second video.. the guy is stupid it makes it funny. That's an ESTj for you
Last edited by crazedrat; 07-10-2009 at 09:21 AM.
Really all I see is a bunch of punk kids disrespecting authority.
probably cuz you're dual to these morons. Why do they deserve respect anyway? They're doing a fucking job, and getting paid. Enforce the law.. that is all the job entails. There's nothing about respect involved here. ESTjs take this as an opportunity to enforce their personal hangups which are all projections of their personal flaws. The result is police brutality. But what's annoying about it is the stupidity of the hangups.. the things which set cops off, which they consider violations. The second video is the best example. The kid is like .."i didn't hear you.. my dad is dead". The ESTj senses he doesn't have complete power over this kid, his ego can't handle it, he freaks the fuck out and tackles the kid who is 14 years old. Such a classic example of how truly fucking retarded an ESTj can be. I love the way the cops look around in paranoia in the first video as they're blatantly violating the law and beating the shit out of people. It's like a fucking kid stealing a cookie and looking over his shoulder to see if his mommy caught him. God ESTjs are fucking stupid, pathetic losers.
Last edited by crazedrat; 07-10-2009 at 09:36 AM.
Those kids were absolute tools they got what they deserved.
I will agree the officers did take it a little to far but at the same time we don't know the full story. How could we ? with only a few minutes of footage.
I know kids like that I was cheering for these officers.
Ni polr is probably related to misjudging the behaviors of 'off-beat' people in society, may even perceive natural shyness as some sort of threat because it's technically a social mishap that makes a few people uncomfortable. It also probably relates to a low tolerance of ambivalency and ambiguity. So it gets very wary of drifters/wanderers and those that like to take it slow.
Also I think it also relates to psychologically judging others wrongly. It kind of.....concerns me that the ESEs around me seem to judge the inner world of other people so poorly.
Another example, there was an episode of Charmed where the Avatars wanted Utopia by getting rid of the bad 'elements' but to do this it had to wipe out people who caused minor trouble but could be redeemed. Ni polr is so very much like this. It's unable to scan for any sort of depth, so basically it processes things very superficially.
Now before you get your panties in a twist, looking at things deeply isn't innately better (and it's not like I go around thinking that I'm better than other people just because I think deeper thoughts than most), it's just something some people do and others don't. I am just the type of person that looks at everything waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay deeply. lol
Although I think it's retarded to call ESTj's as a type "pathetic losers" over something that clearly isn't healthy/typical behaviour for any type, nothing pisses me off worse than this type of shit. I am seriously mad right now just from watching that shit.
ProcrastinateTomorrow: You really see no problem with the cops behaviour? Are you fucking kidding me? The kids may be a bit disrespectful but as long as you are abiding the law it is your fucking prerogative to respect who you want. These are just scrubs who became cops to get people to submit to them because no one shows them any respect, it's not at all about the law. Its one fucking cowards way of abusing the system to give himself a feeling of empowerment. It's his ego that is making the decisions not any law/morality. And what's worse is that this type of assault is way harder to bring to justice than just normal assault.
The kids are the tools even tho the police officers are the ones blatantly breaking the law and physically harming children? That makes sense.
weak response. whether the kids deserve it or not is irrelevant, because that implies the law is a matter of personal vendetta and retribution.. which is ridiculous, and is an abuse of power. on top of that the kids don't deserve it, because they're 14. not knowing the full story is irrelevant, because the guy is a cop and his only role in this situation is to enforce the law. cheering for the officers is absurd because the victims can't fight back. altogether ESTjs are stupid in the most grotesque of ways..
All of Ni-ego (writing) is, to me, is really trying to save the outcasts of society and those that feel different, make them feel more welcoming and loved and understood. That they're not so fucked up as they think, simply showing the 'quirkiness' in theater/shows/tv/writing, putting it down as an art-form, an attempt to get the world to kind of lighten up about it.
Daria, Buffy, Charmed, Angel... all those shows deal with those same topics. ie 'Billy was this weirdo emo fucked up kid that had a really hard rough life but he's been given a second chance at 'normal' by trying to get a job in the suburbs.' Or what-the-fuck-ever.
Ni has an innately redemptive quality about it because it synthesis multiple ideas and philosophies in a realistic context. So it's not too quick to punish socially destructive behavior, but instead it seeks to educate and uplift and second-chance. It still agrees that the behavior in question is definitely destructive, but it observes it from a safe distance by attempting to show people how they're really coming across to others. The limits this compassion extends to is pure sociopathy and annihilation of self or others. That's a line that even Ni can't cross, because you can't 'look deeply' into nothing. It's just nothing. Cause there is nothing to teach then when it's finished, so therefore- if the fringes fall through the cracks totally it becomes a sort of "Well, I tried to help....mebbe they are in a better place if heaven exists" sort of thing.
This is kind of taking Ni out too much in a vacuum now, so I'll stop, but you get the general gist I think.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
