Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 85

Thread: So me and Niffweed at a long debate about something on Aim

  1. #1
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default So me and Niffweed at a long debate about something on Aim

    I even came to the conclusion after this debate that the people here would agree with me(which would be unique). The reason being is this really requires a small amount of common sense AND a small amount of analytical logic to understand. I've came to the conclusion that Niffweed is just a bit slow. But anyways, here it goes.

    I was debating with him about Fi. I said that Fi was judgement, and he said no. By judgement I proceeded by say that love was a judgement, or an ethical evaluation of a person. This means that when you love someone you make a evaluation of that person, and if things come out to your standards you love the things about that person. Love is an ethical evaluation. To me this is blatantly obvious. Love is a subjective feeling about someone based on something(you can love people for different reasons). There is always a reason for loving someone(which is the connection between Ti and Fi). This has nothing to do with what I am asking though. I'm just asking for your opinion on love; is it an ethical evaluation. I say that love is a judgement or an ethical evaluation and he said no. I don't see what else love could be except a subjective realization about someone.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  2. #2
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what exactly is the point of this thread? niffweed or Fi or love or xyz?

  3. #3
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    love, I say that love is an ethical subjective judgement, meaning that there has to be a reason that you love someone, he says otherwise.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  4. #4

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX View Post
    what exactly is the point of this thread? niffweed or Fi or love or xyz?
    80% to be a prick to Niff, and 15% to actually ask about love and Fi... then the other 5% is to be an ass to anyone who doesn't share his views of all the above.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    NiffweedXVII (11:40:14 AM): regardless, simply "liking" something is not necessarily Fi
    NiffweedXVII (11:40:27 AM): it can be
    NiffweedXVII (11:40:36 AM): but that kind of an explanation of Fi is overall too simple
    NiffweedXVII (11:40:46 AM): liking cheese
    NiffweedXVII (11:40:48 AM): for example
    NiffweedXVII (11:40:50 AM): nothing to do with Fi
    anarchyintheus7 (11:40:59 AM): depends on what you mean by liking
    NiffweedXVII (11:41:03 AM): umm
    NiffweedXVII (11:41:05 AM): not precisely
    NiffweedXVII (11:41:13 AM): it depends what the object being liked is
    NiffweedXVII (11:41:19 AM): and what context it is understood in by the individual
    NiffweedXVII (11:41:27 AM): in essence
    NiffweedXVII (11:41:47 AM): it depends what aspect of reality that object lies in and what the frame of reference is to the subject
    NiffweedXVII (11:41:56 AM): the "liking" part
    NiffweedXVII (11:42:07 AM): is something that i would be loath to actually associate with any particular information element
    NiffweedXVII (11:42:21 AM): rather the surrounding environment is important
    anarchyintheus7 (11:42:40 AM): but T and F are connected
    anarchyintheus7 (11:42:53 AM): you can't use them individually
    NiffweedXVII (11:42:56 AM): what
    NiffweedXVII (11:43:00 AM): i dont understand where you get that from
    anarchyintheus7 (11:43:28 AM): ok i just kind of see it intuitively... but ill give it a shot to explain it
    anarchyintheus7 (11:43:59 AM): like you said F is the hiddens
    NiffweedXVII (11:44:05 AM): not completely
    NiffweedXVII (11:44:09 AM): thats an oversimplification
    NiffweedXVII (11:44:12 AM): ethics is internal
    NiffweedXVII (11:44:19 AM): dont try to make it anything more specific
    anarchyintheus7 (11:44:27 AM): ok
    anarchyintheus7 (11:44:47 AM): ethics has to be based on logic
    NiffweedXVII (11:44:51 AM): no it doesnt
    NiffweedXVII (11:44:54 AM): what the hell does that mean
    anarchyintheus7 (11:45:20 AM): its impossible to make an internal ethics ideology without using objective consideration
    NiffweedXVII (11:45:26 AM): no that isnt true
    NiffweedXVII (11:45:35 AM): that flies in the face of everything related to socionics
    anarchyintheus7 (11:45:46 AM): how do you make an ethical decision based on nothing then?
    NiffweedXVII (11:45:57 AM): its not based on nothing
    NiffweedXVII (11:46:07 AM): its based on ethical stimuli
    NiffweedXVII (11:46:12 AM): in terms of Fi
    NiffweedXVII (11:46:22 AM): static-ish connections to the outside environment
    NiffweedXVII (11:46:26 AM): now
    anarchyintheus7 (11:46:28 AM): like
    NiffweedXVII (11:46:31 AM): what is important about this
    NiffweedXVII (11:46:37 AM): is that Fi cannot exist without Te
    anarchyintheus7 (11:46:37 AM): making a subjective decision
    anarchyintheus7 (11:46:42 AM): thats right
    NiffweedXVII (11:46:43 AM): because Te is an aspect of reality
    anarchyintheus7 (11:46:49 AM): can't exist without Ti either
    anarchyintheus7 (11:46:55 AM): im trying to prove that
    NiffweedXVII (11:46:57 AM): and not because they are inherently connected in terms of information type
    anarchyintheus7 (11:46:59 AM): let me finish
    NiffweedXVII (11:47:01 AM): ok
    anarchyintheus7 (11:47:18 AM): you said earlier that an aspect of Fi could be likes and dislikes
    NiffweedXVII (11:47:26 AM): no
    anarchyintheus7 (11:47:27 AM): not fully
    NiffweedXVII (11:47:29 AM): thats not what i said
    anarchyintheus7 (11:47:30 AM): but an aspect
    NiffweedXVII (11:47:35 AM): in certain contexts
    anarchyintheus7 (11:47:38 AM): yes
    NiffweedXVII (11:47:46 AM): in people contexts mostly
    NiffweedXVII (11:48:00 AM): not completely actually
    NiffweedXVII (11:48:03 AM): but you can work with that
    anarchyintheus7 (11:48:11 AM): when people make subjective ethical judgements they have to base it on logical information
    NiffweedXVII (11:48:17 AM): umm
    NiffweedXVII (11:48:17 AM): no
    anarchyintheus7 (11:48:20 AM): yes
    NiffweedXVII (11:48:20 AM): thats flatly wrong
    NiffweedXVII (11:48:26 AM): let me explain my side of this
    anarchyintheus7 (11:48:28 AM): give me an example then
    NiffweedXVII (11:48:31 AM): which i think will get rid of yours
    NiffweedXVII (11:48:48 AM): basically Te and Fi are diametrically opposed in terms of the overall focus
    anarchyintheus7 (11:48:57 AM): wait
    anarchyintheus7 (11:49:03 AM): give me an example of Fi without logic
    NiffweedXVII (11:49:04 AM): but an individual has to be able to detect that kind of information in some fashion
    NiffweedXVII (11:49:06 AM): wait
    NiffweedXVII (11:49:08 AM): let me explain this my way
    NiffweedXVII (11:49:28 AM): the example is of types with weak Se
    NiffweedXVII (11:49:35 AM): say ILEs
    NiffweedXVII (11:49:40 AM): who by jung's model have no Se at all
    NiffweedXVII (11:49:46 AM): if they really had no Se
    NiffweedXVII (11:50:05 AM): they would not be able to make any perceptions of their outside environment

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    anarchyintheus7 (11:50:12 AM): exactly
    NiffweedXVII (11:50:12 AM): and they would consequently be running into walls
    anarchyintheus7 (11:50:17 AM): we're on the same page now
    NiffweedXVII (11:50:17 AM): because they could see nothing
    anarchyintheus7 (11:50:21 AM): exactly
    NiffweedXVII (11:50:25 AM): obviously this is absurd
    NiffweedXVII (11:50:30 AM): so all types must have Se in some fashion
    NiffweedXVII (11:50:47 AM): but that in and of itself doesnt mean that Se has to be related to Ni
    NiffweedXVII (11:51:04 AM): those two information aspects deal with very different kinds of information
    NiffweedXVII (11:51:13 AM): according to socionics, diametrically opposed information
    NiffweedXVII (11:51:19 AM): which has nothing to do with each other
    anarchyintheus7 (11:51:21 AM): they are related though
    NiffweedXVII (11:51:29 AM): well they are related in that they are unrelated
    NiffweedXVII (11:51:39 AM): now about Fi
    NiffweedXVII (11:51:47 AM): an Fi person has to be able to use other functions
    anarchyintheus7 (11:51:49 AM): if i were to say that i love my girlfriend
    NiffweedXVII (11:51:52 AM): including logical functinos
    anarchyintheus7 (11:51:56 AM): would you say that is an example of Fi?
    NiffweedXVII (11:52:00 AM): umm
    NiffweedXVII (11:52:03 AM): no because its too vauge
    NiffweedXVII (11:52:04 AM): vague
    anarchyintheus7 (11:52:07 AM): k
    anarchyintheus7 (11:52:12 AM): give me an example of Fi
    anarchyintheus7 (11:52:16 AM): i want to prove something to you
    NiffweedXVII (11:52:31 AM): umm
    NiffweedXVII (11:52:52 AM): i met a girl with whom i fostered a deep and personal connection based upon mutual trust and respect
    NiffweedXVII (11:52:56 AM): thats closer
    anarchyintheus7 (11:53:14 AM): ok lets consider that an ethical ideology
    NiffweedXVII (11:53:21 AM): all right
    anarchyintheus7 (11:53:53 AM): is the determination that you are in love consider Fi to you?
    NiffweedXVII (11:54:11 AM): in this Fi kind of scenario you mean?
    anarchyintheus7 (11:54:17 AM): yea
    NiffweedXVII (11:54:20 AM): then i guess so
    anarchyintheus7 (11:54:53 AM): you have to base that on logical ideologies....... to actually say you love something or like something you actually have to have objective ideals about the love
    anarchyintheus7 (11:55:02 AM): you can't just say
    NiffweedXVII (11:55:04 AM): uhh
    anarchyintheus7 (11:55:04 AM): i love this person
    NiffweedXVII (11:55:12 AM): what do you mean by "objetive ideals"
    NiffweedXVII (11:55:13 AM): about love
    anarchyintheus7 (11:55:37 AM): there actually has to be a reason you love that person
    NiffweedXVII (11:55:46 AM): i dont understand
    NiffweedXVII (11:55:56 AM): like
    anarchyintheus7 (11:56:01 AM): i love this person because they make me feel happy
    NiffweedXVII (11:56:08 AM): umm
    anarchyintheus7 (11:56:11 AM): thats a dual statement
    NiffweedXVII (11:56:20 AM): there doesnt have to be such a reason like that
    NiffweedXVII (11:56:25 AM): but regardless
    NiffweedXVII (11:56:32 AM): that doesnt have anything to do with logic
    anarchyintheus7 (11:56:33 AM): you have to have a reason to show ethics
    anarchyintheus7 (11:56:41 AM): or to feel ethics
    NiffweedXVII (11:56:45 AM): ehh
    NiffweedXVII (11:56:54 AM): the thing is that "you make me feel happy"
    NiffweedXVII (11:57:01 AM): is kind of universal in its application
    NiffweedXVII (11:57:12 AM): its also an ethical statement
    NiffweedXVII (11:57:18 AM): it hasnt got anything to do with logic
    anarchyintheus7 (11:57:24 AM): what im trying to say is, that to make a subjective ethical though, it actually has to be based on logic
    NiffweedXVII (11:57:28 AM): no
    NiffweedXVII (11:57:35 AM): i dont understand where you come up with that
    NiffweedXVII (11:57:36 AM): at all
    anarchyintheus7 (11:57:49 AM): theres a reason for everything
    anarchyintheus7 (11:57:57 AM): there has to be a reason that the person loves the other person
    anarchyintheus7 (11:58:04 AM): that reason is Ti
    NiffweedXVII (11:58:11 AM): lets say that there has to be some reason
    NiffweedXVII (11:58:15 AM): idk if i agree with that
    NiffweedXVII (11:58:16 AM): but
    NiffweedXVII (11:58:27 AM): how on earth do these reasons have to be Ti?
    NiffweedXVII (11:58:40 AM): lets say i love a person because i've gotten to know them and i trust them
    NiffweedXVII (11:58:48 AM): and i want to spend time with them
    NiffweedXVII (11:58:55 AM): and we have developed an ethical Fi connection
    NiffweedXVII (11:59:11 AM): what in the hell does that have to do with Ti
    anarchyintheus7 (12:00:26 PM): Ti has to do with understand, like Ti is how we see things
    anarchyintheus7 (12:00:32 PM): what we do with things
    anarchyintheus7 (12:00:38 PM): in a way
    anarchyintheus7 (12:00:42 PM): ok
    NiffweedXVII (12:00:44 PM): umm
    anarchyintheus7 (12:00:46 PM): im gonna try to explain this
    anarchyintheus7 (12:01:12 PM): im gonna use the +/- scale
    NiffweedXVII (12:01:17 PM): dont
    NiffweedXVII (12:01:22 PM): because i dont agree with any of it
    NiffweedXVII (12:01:33 PM): if you can't explain it to me without using that
    NiffweedXVII (12:01:39 PM): its probably based on your faulty assumptions
    anarchyintheus7 (12:01:59 PM): im not sure how to explain Ti in words... but i see it intuitively
    anarchyintheus7 (12:02:01 PM): its kind of like
    anarchyintheus7 (12:02:24 PM): how we view information
    anarchyintheus7 (12:02:29 PM): and what we do with information
    anarchyintheus7 (12:02:44 PM): we either -Ti break it down
    NiffweedXVII (12:02:55 PM): wait a minute here
    NiffweedXVII (12:03:04 PM): explain this again
    NiffweedXVII (12:03:08 PM): how we view information?
    NiffweedXVII (12:03:12 PM): what we do with information?
    NiffweedXVII (12:03:15 PM): what does that even mean?
    NiffweedXVII (12:03:24 PM): in very very oversimplified terms
    NiffweedXVII (12:03:33 PM): you could call Ti a structural organization of information
    NiffweedXVII (12:03:38 PM): but "how we view information?"
    NiffweedXVII (12:03:39 PM): no
    anarchyintheus7 (12:03:44 PM): thats not right
    anarchyintheus7 (12:04:04 PM): Ti is connected to Fi, im just trying to make it sound independent
    anarchyintheus7 (12:04:21 PM): +Ti is implication
    anarchyintheus7 (12:04:28 PM): common sense
    anarchyintheus7 (12:04:33 PM): logic
    NiffweedXVII (12:04:38 PM): shut up about Ti+/Ti-
    NiffweedXVII (12:04:48 PM): tell me what Ti vanilla is
    anarchyintheus7 (12:05:16 PM): Ti is like information processing
    anarchyintheus7 (12:05:24 PM): its like the processor in a computer
    anarchyintheus7 (12:05:38 PM): it reads and understands information
    anarchyintheus7 (12:06:04 PM): Fi makes the subjective ethical evaluation of Ti
    NiffweedXVII (12:06:09 PM): no
    anarchyintheus7 (12:06:12 PM): yes
    NiffweedXVII (12:06:17 PM): i disagree with your interpretation of Ti
    NiffweedXVII (12:06:18 PM): wholly
    NiffweedXVII (12:06:22 PM): and of Fi
    anarchyintheus7 (12:06:39 PM): why?
    NiffweedXVII (12:06:56 PM): because thats not the way that i understand it as an information element
    NiffweedXVII (12:07:13 PM): we appear to disagree on the very fundamentals of information here
    anarchyintheus7 (12:07:18 PM): im not referring to the information elements though independantly
    anarchyintheus7 (12:07:24 PM): im referring to functional dualism
    NiffweedXVII (12:07:25 PM): well you have to
    NiffweedXVII (12:07:31 PM): fuck functional dualism
    NiffweedXVII (12:07:40 PM): each information aspect is an independent part of reality
    anarchyintheus7 (12:07:44 PM): yes
    anarchyintheus7 (12:07:46 PM): i agree
    NiffweedXVII (12:08:04 PM): if you cant describe what the information elements are independent of each other
    NiffweedXVII (12:08:12 PM): then trying to connect them is meaningless
    anarchyintheus7 (12:08:17 PM): i agree
    anarchyintheus7 (12:08:38 PM): though
    NiffweedXVII (12:08:39 PM): basically i'm not inclined to argue with you about your interpretation of Ti
    NiffweedXVII (12:08:44 PM): because i think you're full of shit
    NiffweedXVII (12:08:52 PM): and it would be a long arduous argument that would go nowhere
    NiffweedXVII (12:09:00 PM): because we would find no common ground to speak of on that element
    anarchyintheus7 (12:09:09 PM): you tell me what Ti is?
    NiffweedXVII (12:09:21 PM): ok
    NiffweedXVII (12:09:24 PM): back to these definitions
    NiffweedXVII (12:09:34 PM): Ti is referred to as external statics of fields
    NiffweedXVII (12:09:45 PM): first of all we need to finish explaining these dichotomies in order for this to make sense
    NiffweedXVII (12:09:59 PM): in terms of whatever limited sense it might make to Ti-ize this problem extensively
    NiffweedXVII (12:10:36 PM): static/dynamic youve at least heard of
    anarchyintheus7 (12:10:45 PM): yes
    NiffweedXVII (12:10:46 PM): which refers to the differing rings of the psyche
    NiffweedXVII (12:10:59 PM): static dynamic is a dichotomy that i dont know i can explain
    NiffweedXVII (12:11:06 PM): but i almost sort of understand it intuitively
    NiffweedXVII (12:11:40 PM): its like some aspects focus on states and very particular constructs
    NiffweedXVII (12:11:46 PM): whereas others on processes or changing data
    NiffweedXVII (12:11:54 PM): i understand how this is manifest in certain elements over others
    NiffweedXVII (12:12:02 PM): better*

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    NiffweedXVII (12:24:24 PM): uhh
    NiffweedXVII (12:24:28 PM): can you elaborate
    NiffweedXVII (12:24:28 PM): ?
    anarchyintheus7 (12:24:46 PM): when you love someone
    anarchyintheus7 (12:25:05 PM): your making an evaluation of everything about the person
    NiffweedXVII (12:25:25 PM): i dont understand what you mean by that
    anarchyintheus7 (12:25:45 PM): this isn't hard to understand lol
    NiffweedXVII (12:25:48 PM): do you agree that love has something to do with an emotional connection?
    anarchyintheus7 (12:25:55 PM): im making a simple statement
    anarchyintheus7 (12:26:04 PM): to say that you love or like someone
    anarchyintheus7 (12:26:12 PM): you are making an evaluation of that person
    NiffweedXVII (12:26:18 PM): do you agree that love has something to do with an emotional connection?
    anarchyintheus7 (12:26:28 PM): what do you mean by emotional connection?
    NiffweedXVII (12:26:35 PM): umm
    NiffweedXVII (12:26:56 PM): i mean that two people just develop a sense of trust and mutual respect
    NiffweedXVII (12:27:00 PM): for each other
    NiffweedXVII (12:27:17 PM): like i might trust this person
    NiffweedXVII (12:27:22 PM): but not anybody else
    anarchyintheus7 (12:27:34 PM): maybe
    anarchyintheus7 (12:27:39 PM): but thats still estimative
    NiffweedXVII (12:27:48 PM): what do you mean by estimative
    anarchyintheus7 (12:28:06 PM): its an evaluation of that person and his character or whatever you love about that person
    NiffweedXVII (12:28:53 PM): what kind of an evaluation do you mean
    NiffweedXVII (12:28:56 PM): what are you evaluating
    NiffweedXVII (12:29:03 PM): and how does that contribute to a sense of love
    NiffweedXVII (12:29:12 PM): essentially how does "evaluating" someone make you love them?
    anarchyintheus7 (12:29:22 PM): because its a judgement of that person
    NiffweedXVII (12:29:29 PM): you are running in circles
    anarchyintheus7 (12:29:40 PM): oh dear god, its not that hard to understand
    NiffweedXVII (12:29:42 PM): judging somebody does not make you love them
    NiffweedXVII (12:29:46 PM): i am judging you
    NiffweedXVII (12:29:49 PM): i think youre a moron
    NiffweedXVII (12:29:51 PM): does that mean i love you
    anarchyintheus7 (12:30:25 PM): no
    anarchyintheus7 (12:30:30 PM): but you are judging me
    anarchyintheus7 (12:30:33 PM): you are using Fi
    NiffweedXVII (12:30:37 PM): umm
    NiffweedXVII (12:30:38 PM): no
    NiffweedXVII (12:30:41 PM): i'm using Te
    NiffweedXVII (12:30:47 PM): i'm looking at the arguments youre making
    NiffweedXVII (12:30:54 PM): and making a conscious decision that they are stupid
    NiffweedXVII (12:30:58 PM): i guess its not purely Te
    anarchyintheus7 (12:31:05 PM): its Fi
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:07 PM): but it has more to do with my ability to analyze your ideas
    anarchyintheus7 (12:31:09 PM): and Te
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:10 PM): than it does with Fi
    anarchyintheus7 (12:31:11 PM): and Ti
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:13 PM): and Ni
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:18 PM): and every other function
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:20 PM): sure
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:24 PM): but in practical terms
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:27 PM): its Te
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:32 PM): blocked with Ni
    anarchyintheus7 (12:31:33 PM): the actual judgement is Fi
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:37 PM): and disdain for having my time wasted
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:39 PM): NO IT ISNT
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:40 PM): GAH
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:51 PM): judgment itself is not Fi
    anarchyintheus7 (12:31:52 PM): Fi is the feelings or the estimation of something
    NiffweedXVII (12:31:56 PM): it has nothing to do with Fi
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:01 PM): no it isnt
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:02 PM): look
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:08 PM): Fi can deal with judgment
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:28 PM): in areas where Fi is the element which deals with the context of the situation it does
    anarchyintheus7 (12:32:35 PM): Fi involves what you think of things
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:35 PM): but this is a situation which is not related to Fi
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:39 PM): NO IT DOESNT
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:41 PM): YOURE A MORON
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:45 PM): listen
    anarchyintheus7 (12:32:47 PM): thats the only thing it could involve
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:49 PM): this is a discussion about ideas
    NiffweedXVII (12:32:56 PM): a very abstract such discussion
    NiffweedXVII (12:33:07 PM): i'm using Ni and Te to interpret your ideas and make responses
    NiffweedXVII (12:33:20 PM): fundamentally the reason that i dont agree with your ideas
    NiffweedXVII (12:33:27 PM): is a result of Te-related information
    NiffweedXVII (12:33:35 PM): that suggests to me that your ideas do not correspond
    anarchyintheus7 (12:33:35 PM): actually its Ti but go on
    NiffweedXVII (12:33:43 PM): to any other information that i've seen
    NiffweedXVII (12:33:49 PM): yeah this discussion is actually based a lot on Ti
    NiffweedXVII (12:34:03 PM): but i don't necessarily think that's my normal mode of discourse
    NiffweedXVII (12:34:11 PM): rather it has more to do with socionics is a Ti field
    NiffweedXVII (12:34:19 PM): in certain ways
    NiffweedXVII (12:34:25 PM): and since you dispute the legitimacy of information
    NiffweedXVII (12:34:31 PM): i have to really delve into the building blocks of it
    NiffweedXVII (12:34:41 PM): now i forgot what i was talking about
    NiffweedXVII (12:34:48 PM): yeah
    NiffweedXVII (12:34:57 PM): so basically the discssion is Ni and Te and Ti
    NiffweedXVII (12:35:09 PM): those are the elements prevalent in this discussion
    anarchyintheus7 (12:35:10 PM): Ti is thought, Ti is reasoning
    NiffweedXVII (12:35:14 PM): oh shut up and let me talk
    NiffweedXVII (12:35:31 PM): based on the fact that i dont think your ideas are correct
    NiffweedXVII (12:35:39 PM): and that they dont correspond with what i've observed in reality
    NiffweedXVII (12:35:51 PM): in terms of how Fi is manifest as an information element
    NiffweedXVII (12:35:55 PM): and an information preference
    NiffweedXVII (12:36:00 PM): i'm saying that you're an idiot
    NiffweedXVII (12:36:13 PM): and i'm saying so also largely because you've been touting this shit for months
    NiffweedXVII (12:36:21 PM): without responding to one rational call of dissent
    NiffweedXVII (12:36:42 PM): i think this is a fundamental example of where Fi has nothing to do with judgment
    NiffweedXVII (12:36:47 PM): my judgment is obviously not purely Te
    NiffweedXVII (12:36:52 PM): because pure Te doesnt make judgments
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:03 PM): but even so
    anarchyintheus7 (12:37:10 PM): if you think you haven't just made a judgement on me you need to reconsider
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:21 PM): oh of course i have
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:31 PM): but i think that the fundamental reasoning behind my judgment
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:34 PM): has mostly to do with Te and Ni
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:36 PM): and maybe Ti
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:44 PM): and that given the context of the situation
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:47 PM): this is appropriate
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:56 PM): and it shows a situation where Fi is irrelevant
    NiffweedXVII (12:37:59 PM): or largely irrelevant
    NiffweedXVII (12:38:17 PM): just an example of what i was talking about earlier
    anarchyintheus7 (12:38:37 PM): Fi is used in every situation
    NiffweedXVII (12:38:45 PM): to an extent yes
    NiffweedXVII (12:38:56 PM): but thats because everybody has Fi in some respect
    NiffweedXVII (12:39:01 PM): and because its an aspect of reality
    NiffweedXVII (12:39:08 PM): which is inherently impossible to totally ignore
    NiffweedXVII (12:39:12 PM): but in practical terms
    anarchyintheus7 (12:39:12 PM): every aspect of ideology requires Fi
    NiffweedXVII (12:39:19 PM): again, to some extent
    NiffweedXVII (12:39:22 PM): but in practical terms
    NiffweedXVII (12:39:23 PM): no
    anarchyintheus7 (12:41:01 PM): i still can't believe you can't see that Fi is the subjective ethical evaluations
    anarchyintheus7 (12:41:10 PM): i thought that was a given
    NiffweedXVII (12:41:11 PM): i dont see that because it isnt true
    NiffweedXVII (12:41:29 PM): thats an oversimplification
    anarchyintheus7 (12:41:38 PM): everything is an oversimplization
    NiffweedXVII (12:41:42 PM): no
    NiffweedXVII (12:41:43 PM): not actually
    NiffweedXVII (12:41:45 PM): for example
    NiffweedXVII (12:41:52 PM): calling Fi internal statics of fields
    NiffweedXVII (12:41:58 PM): is not an oversimplification
    NiffweedXVII (12:42:06 PM): which is also why its not a useful definition
    NiffweedXVII (12:42:10 PM): however
    anarchyintheus7 (12:42:11 PM): um if you don't see that thats an oversimplization you haven't thought it through
    NiffweedXVII (12:42:24 PM): that kind of an exposition doesnt actually help you understand anything about the function
    NiffweedXVII (12:42:33 PM): but it does prevent it from being broken down into something it isnt
    NiffweedXVII (12:42:37 PM): totally
    anarchyintheus7 (12:43:28 PM): you are calling Fi intangible, i just don't see why you don't consider this an oversimplization too
    NiffweedXVII (12:43:42 PM): that is an oversimplification
    NiffweedXVII (12:43:51 PM): Fi is sometimes tangible
    NiffweedXVII (12:43:55 PM): but first of all
    NiffweedXVII (12:43:59 PM): tangible is defined very vaguely
    NiffweedXVII (12:44:13 PM): what i mean by the idea thats Fi is intangible
    NiffweedXVII (12:44:17 PM): its that its mental in nature
    NiffweedXVII (12:44:32 PM): and cant be understood by a purely external understanding of the situation
    NiffweedXVII (12:44:46 PM): which is true for the most part

  8. #8
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cracka View Post
    80% to be a prick to Niff, and 15% to actually ask about love and Fi... then the other 5% is to be an ass to anyone who doesn't share his views of all the above.
    haha

  9. #9
    cunnilingus epilepsy inducer
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,429
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From looking at the AIM conversation I would say that Fi makes it's subjective assumptions (I have deep feelings of attraction for her) and Ti then tries to makes sense of it ("all of my ex-girlfriends have had blond hair and she believes in God so it makes sense that I feel that way").

    But your explanation wasn't the real reason you fell for her, you fell for because you fell for her and you really don't know why but you give yourself an explanation just so the world can make sense again.

    Anyway shows hittas preference for Ti > Fi?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by electric View Post
    But your explanation wasn't the real reason you fell for her, you fell for because you fell for her and you really don't know why but you give yourself an explanation just so the world can make sense again.

    Anyway shows hittas preference for Ti > Fi?
    yes. exactly.

  11. #11
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Um… not to me. You can choose whether or not to allow yourself to love someone else or to be loved by another, but love in itself is not a judgment. Love is not about people meeting your ethical standards. I’ve noticed that love seems to be a very complex matter that can’t be logically reduced (as you seem to be trying to do). For one, there are a great many different sorts of love, including but not limited to adoration, admiration, infatuation, sexual, physical, unconditional, emotional, romantic, platonic, maternal/paternal (or otherwise family related), protective, etc. I find that love generally seems to arise within me through empathy. When you see something in someone else that touches you because you understand it so well, you empathize with it, and then you feel compassion and love for that person. Love takes time to grow or to fade. I have also learned that love is something that can be taught and learned. In my case, I understood love much better after someone else loved me (outside of family)… this showed me more about what love is and how to love… there is always more one can learn about love. It is also something that everyone deeply needs… we thrive when in touch with it… we die inside without it.

    I think that your attempts to explain love through functions or IM elements aren’t going to be fruitful. I think that love is one of those things that is beyond the realm of information metabolism (as I’ve tried to say before when you include it in your +/- system descriptions of types). There are limits I believe to what can be explained by IM metabolism, and love lies beyond those limits.
    Um, so yea, its possible to love someone without actually loving them.... wait I'm confused?? To love someone, you actually have to love something about them. You can't just love someone without reason. Its not possible, there is a reason for everything.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  12. #12
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    Um, so yea, its possible to love someone without actually loving them.... wait I'm confused?? To love someone, you actually have to love something about them. You can't just love someone without reason. Its not possible, there is a reason for everything.
    Okay, in general there's a reason for everything... but why would that mean love is a judgment? (Btw, I didn't read that long im conversation.)

  13. #13
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Okay, in general there's a reason for everything... but why would that mean love is a judgment? (Btw, I didn't read that long im conversation.)
    Because you find someone that you like because of their characteristics and you decide:I love this person via judgment or evaluation. You can't love someone without loving their characteristics.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  14. #14
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    Because you find someone that you like because of their characteristics and you decide:I love this person via judgment or evaluation. You can't love someone without loving their characteristics.
    Liking someone may have more to do with their characteristics than loving them does. For instance, I once had a roommate who I didn't really like, but over time being in close proximity to her, I started to care about her and this eventually overcame whatever traits I didn't like about her in the beginning. Generally, I think if in close proximity with anyone for a length of time, you start to love and care about them. I think perhaps this is because we are all a lot more alike than we are different. And even if you can't love someone without loving their characteristics (at least some of their characteristics) that doesn't mean that you love them *because* of their characteristics. Also, the reasons for loving someone at first can be different than the reasons for loving them later. In order to love someone, I think you have to see them as a *person*, not as a set of characteristics or traits.

  15. #15
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Generally, I think if in close proximity with anyone for a length of time, you start to love and care about them.
    How many people here agree with the above?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  16. #16
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    How many people here agree with the above?
    Maybe if in close proximity and get along well I start to care, but definitely nothing to do with love...
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  17. #17
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    How many people here agree with the above?
    i really don't. some things are unacceptable.
    6w5 sx
    model Φ: -+0
    sloan - rcuei

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    Love is an ethical evaluation. To me this is blatantly obvious. Love is a subjective feeling about someone based on something(you can love people for different reasons).
    I can't be sure that I understand love the same way as others do, but I definitely believe that you are wrong about this. A feeling and an evaluation are not the same thing. I agree with you that love is a subjective feeling, but it is not an evaluation in itself. The ethical evaluation can be added to the feeling, but it is not necessary.

    Here's an analogy: I might like something very much, for example watching a certain film. But even though watching the film gives me satisfaction, I might at the same time believe that the film is not really that good. It is possible to like B-movies, and it is possible to like bad movies (I might even like to watch them because I know that they are bad). There is no necessary logical connection between my feeling (my liking or disliking someone or something) and my evaluation of the same person or thing. They often coincide, but they don't have to.

  19. #19
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    there is always a reason why you love someone though, you love someone because they make you happy in a lot of circumstances(you could break down the reasons they make you happy too). There is a reason for everything. This is where the Ti>Fi transition comes from. Ti allows you to understand what you are looking at, and Fi makes the ethical subjective decision.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    there is always a reason why you love someone though, you love someone because they make you happy in a lot of circumstances(you could break down the reasons they make you happy too). There is a reason for everything. This is where the Ti>Fi transition comes from. Ti allows you to understand what you are looking at, and Fi makes the ethical subjective decision.
    Maybe. But the love itself is not identical to your ethical decision.

  21. #21
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    I can't be sure that I understand love the same way as others do, but I definitely believe that you are wrong about this. A feeling and an evaluation are not the same thing. I agree with you that love is a subjective feeling, but it is not an evaluation in itself. The ethical evaluation can be added to the feeling, but it is not necessary.

    Here's an analogy: I might like something very much, for example watching a certain film. But even though watching the film gives me satisfaction, I might at the same time believe that the film is not really that good. It is possible to like B-movies, and it is possible to like bad movies (I might even like to watch them because I know that they are bad). There is no necessary logical connection between my feeling (my liking or disliking someone or something) and my evaluation of the same person or thing. They often coincide, but they don't have to.
    +1
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  22. #22
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    How many people here agree with the above?
    Nope. For me,if anything over time if I find their behaviour is not good for me I find myself even less capable of it.

  23. #23
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    How many people here agree with the above?
    As a first reaction no. Pretty much the opposite. If I dislike them in the beginning I probably dislike them more as time goes by (and vice versa). However, there probably exists a psychological theory which says that something like Loki says could happen under certain (abnormal) circumstances.

  24. #24
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Scientists have gone mad investigating the nature of love, so I don't assume we're going to resolve it here.

    When I was younger, I used to believe in the concept of Psychological Visibility as put forward by Nathaniel Branden. The idea here is that someone else mirrors you psychologically, which allows an individual to experience him- or herself in an objective fashion: the other is you objectified, and this causes feelings of love, be it friendship of romantic love. But this does not include the concept of love for ones children.

    Nowadays I tend to have a more Sartrian/Freudian understanding of love, that still echoes Branden's concept of love: the other is still yourself objectified, and you are in love with your own image, thus narcissistic love, or externalized self-love. If this kind of love is romantic, it is typically the attachment of the 'child inside' to the mother, transferred (as in the psychological concept of transference) to the new object of love. All too often, we see couples where people are psychologically largely the same as their partner, or their partner takes the place of a parent.

    There is another kind of love, which is so different in nature, that I don't dare to call it love. The individuals in the couple are different in psychological makeup, but still allow each other to be completely themselves. It is not the kind of strong, passionate romantic love that so often is the subject of romantic movies and love songs, but rather a strange form of attachment where the stereotypical violins are completely absent and you are completely relaxed. It causes a very strong kind of attachment, but like I said, I don't dare to call it love, because the passionate, narcissistic dimension is completely absent. This is what I'm sort of experiencing for the first time in my life with my new girl friend, who I think is SEI. From what I read here and there, I suspect what I'm experiencing in this relationship is semi-duality, because there still is a little friction every now and then
    Last edited by consentingadult; 02-19-2008 at 08:17 PM.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  25. #25
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you say that love isn't an evaluation you are basically saying that you can love someone without a reason. Things do not happen without reasons. I don't see how anyone can argue this. There has to be a reason you love someone. You slowly find things about a person that you like, so you slow start to love someone. You are evaluating that persons actions and ideals and how that person makes you feel. Love is an evaluation with a positive result. You have weighed everything about that person and you feel that that person makes you happy so you love them.

    Note: If you cannot see this you are just dumb, period.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  26. #26
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    If you say that love isn't an evaluation you are basically saying that you can love someone without a reason. Things do not happen without reasons. I don't see how anyone can argue this. There has to be a reason you love someone. You slowly find things about a person that you like, so you slow start to love someone. You are evaluating that persons actions and ideals and how that person makes you feel. Love is an evaluation with a positive result. You have weighed everything about that person and you feel that that person makes you happy so you love them.

    Note: If you cannot see this you are just dumb, period.
    Sorry for saying, but I do get a strong sense you have accepted Ayn Rand's concept of love? There are so many aspects to love, and some are quite dark and pathological. What Rand, and you, are describing, is passionate love, the kind of love that I consider narcissistic.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  27. #27
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Consentingadult to Hitta View Post
    Sorry for saying, but I do get a strong sense you have accepted Ayn Rand's concept of love? There are so many aspects to love, and some are quite dark and pathological. What Rand, and you, are describing, is passionate love, the kind of love that I consider narcissistic.
    This has taken an interesting turn. For some reason I didn't think Ayn Rand's concept of love was pathological... I thought it was interesting... hmm.

  28. #28
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Advice: it's better not to listen to anything negativists have to say about the concept of love.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  29. #29
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    This has taken an interesting turn. For some reason I didn't think Ayn Rand's concept of love was pathological... I thought it was interesting... hmm.
    I thought so too from age 23-39. Now I see how Rand spent most of her life still trying to gain the acceptance and recognition of (one of) her parents, who of course weren't around, and she transferred this need to people resembling her parents that, for one reason or another, weren't able to give her the love she wanted to have. Save Nathaniel Branden of course: he probably was the only one who had the capacity to provide her psychological visibility. But Branden himself would be the last to deny that this relationship was pathological, as we can tell from his accounts in Judgement Day.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  30. #30
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    If you say that love isn't an evaluation you are basically saying that you can love someone without a reason. Things do not happen without reasons. I don't see how anyone can argue this. There has to be a reason you love someone. You slowly find things about a person that you like, so you slow start to love someone. You are evaluating that persons actions and ideals and how that person makes you feel. Love is an evaluation with a positive result. You have weighed everything about that person and you feel that that person makes you happy so you love them.

    Note: If you cannot see this you are just dumb, period.
    You analyze love with highly abstracted concepts. It is possible yes but not really any better than to say "love is just a chemical reaction". In any case you are just missing the point of love. That there is no point. Just love.

  31. #31
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Advice: it's better not to listen to anything negativists have to say about the concept of love.
    Serious question here: what do the negativists say about the concept of love? The things that I am saying?
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  32. #32
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    Serious question here: what do the negativists say about the concept of love? The things that I am saying?
    And hitta's for example, and Freud (an ENFj), etc etc

    Not going to say that their advice is not useful, but leave to us positivists the things that are "beautiful" so that they remain such

    BTW on topic: you don't decide who you love but you can decide if you want to suppress the love or not.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  33. #33
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    And hitta's for example, and Freud (an ENFj), etc etc

    Not going to say that their advice is not useful, but leave to us positivists the things that are "beautiful" so that they remain such

    BTW on topic: you don't decide who you love but you can decide if you want to suppress the love or not.
    Well, I think from a procedural efficiency, Te perspective, you're might be right. But I, and many other people, are not inclined to follow such procedural advice without knowing how and why, and also aren't inclined to leave the subject to those who claim to be exclusively competent in the matter.

    A psychologist once said to me, when asked the question if love exists: "it exists, because people feel it that way." Now he was right, of course. But still, that doesn't say anything about the nature of love. For all we know, love just serves to make babies, and the end justifies the means, so love, pathological or not, serves a purpose.

    I fully agree with your statement that you can't decide who you love (contrary to Ayn Rand, who claimed reason should be the only guide to decide who you fall in love with or not). Love, I think, resides in the evolutionary older parts of the brain.

    HOWEVER (yes, there always is a HOWEVER), although who you fall in love with is outside your conscious control, who you fall in love with, is usually a reflection of your cognitions.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  34. #34
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is definitely a lack of intellectual ability and the skill to effectively analyze things amongst the people on this forum.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  35. #35
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    There is definitely a lack of intellectual ability and the skill to effectively analyze things amongst the people on this forum.
    You might be right, but it would be helpful if you would be more specific about it, instead of just declaring it.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    There is definitely a lack of intellectual ability and the skill to effectively analyze things amongst the people on this forum.
    Either you must believe that there is a fundamental difference between liking and loving (not just in degree), or you must explain why I can't like something that I believe is intrinsically worse than something else that I don't like that much (as in the movie analogy). You haven't presented a convincing argument yet. What is wrong with my reasoning?

  37. #37
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    There is definitely a lack of intellectual ability and the skill to effectively analyze things amongst the people on this forum.
    and what conclusion do you draw from that with your mighty intelligence?

  38. #38
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BTW, I thought I might add, I don't think it's generally the case that you could fall *in love* with anyone given that you're around them for some length of time... I mean if I was thrown into an arranged marriage (just for instance) with someone who I didn't like or didn't love, I would be pretty resistant, and unlikely (at least I think) to ever fall *in love* with said person. But I could come to care about them (in a platonic way)... and caring I think is love.

  39. #39
    liveandletlive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,290
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ hitta- i couldn't disagree with you more. i dont know what else was said in the thread but just reading the first post is more than enough. how does your idea of Fi explain why people fall in love with the wrong people? or bad timing? or wishing you loved someone but you can't?

    I've had all of the above experiences in which i WISH i could have just made a decision to love someone. being an Fi type, i must say that you're wrong.
    ESFp-Fi sub
    6w7 sx/so/sp

  40. #40
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't get how the people here can't understand that it's impossible to love someone without actually loving something about them. Love is a judgment or a conclusion that one comes to when there are things about a person that they like and enjoy to be around. The people here are implying that its possible to love someone while hating everything about them which is theoretically impossible within our context of reality. Love is an evaluation, the result of a test thats subject is on that your standards. You love people based on them fitting your standards of what you actually like. It is an ethical judgment. I do not see how you cannot see this, its very simple.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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