important announcement

[aestrivex]

video of me rambling about socionics, ILIs, and charles darwin. 27 minutes long. made it 2 weeks ago.

had to upload onto google video since i just realized youtube hates videos 27 minutes long. had trouble uploading. used google's uploader program, which didn't appear to allow me to enter title/description/search tags.

consequently, this will be very difficult to find in the future. it will be bookmarked here. if something happens to this bookmark, ask me and i'll provide a new link.

[Elro]

Just watched it entirely, and it was indeed good. Are you planning on doing others in the future?

[Creepy-bg]

didn't watch it, but I'm sure it sucked

[aestrivex]

Just watched it entirely, and it was indeed good. Are you planning on doing others in the future?

probably, but i may lack the breadth to really do them well on specific topics.

[tereg]

I watched the whole thing. I thought it was quite informative. I have some thoughts about it that I won't get into here in this thread, but maybe I can share on stickam some time (preferably while the information is still fresh in my mind).

[JRiddy]

I watched most of it. I like your explanation style. I hate your presentation style. for life, cuz!

[Mariano Rajoy]

How do you understand information metabolism, and how has your understanding of information metabolsim influenced how you wrote the ILI profile on wikisocion?

[aestrivex]

How do you understand information metabolism

my understanding of information metabolism is my understanding of socionics. this is a primarily experiential understanding of what the IM elements refer to. i really am not sure what you're asking me.

and how has your understanding of information metabolsim influenced how you wrote the ILI profile on wikisocion?

i used my observations of myself and others in terms of what traits are displayed that are related to IM elements.

[liveandletlive]

seriously your is like crack to me.

[Ezra]

What I like about you niffweed is your style of communication. It's very straightforward, accessible and no-nonsense, and you get across abstract ideas well, quite simply because the most abstract bullshit that a lot of Alpha NTs like isn't even worth talking about.

[Phaedrus]

It's a totally correct (though of course not all-embracing) explanation of what it is like to be an ILI and to see the world through the eyes of . Niffweed's way of talking is also very typically ILI, and people could benefit from learning how to recognize this way of talking, because, for example, no LII talks like that. It's the "touch" that we are seeing in his speech, combined with an almost total lack of emotional expression.

An important point that niffweed mentions quite early in the video is about Charles Darwin being seen as an extraverted thinking type by Jung. This particular aspect of the types is one that I have talked about a lot myself in terms of the difference between Subjectivists and Objectivists. Listen to what niffweed says about the ILI's relation to facts and the outer world in general -- there you have a very clear example of a world outlook, that is, an Objectivist world outlook. And once you know how to recognize that particular difference in attitude between ego and ego types, you are also in a much better position to understand where they are coming from.

In his own writings Jung doesn't seem to make a clear stand between the Subjectivist and a Objectivist perspective, but in the parts about introverted thinking in Psychological Types one gets the impression that he favours over . But that would make it harder to see Jung as an ILI, which seems to be the most popular typing of him among socionists. Anyway, niffweed is a better example of an ILI than Jung.

[implied]

i liked the last part of the video where you talked about the pessimistic forecasts and to some degree never letting anyone down or disappointing people by not getting their hopes up. great video.

[theMime.]

It keeps cutting off around 16 minutes in. Lame.

[aestrivex]

It keeps cutting off around 16 minutes in. Lame.

if this is the symptom i think it is, this is a connection issue and i cant do anything about it.

[Brilliand]

Can you drag the slider forward to 16 minutes to pick up where you left off? That seems to work with youtube videos.

It's nice to see you made an announcement that is actually important. I watched some of the movie with the sound turned off, and your hairdo is interesting. I have no idea what you said, due to having the sound turned off.

[BLauritson]

I thought that video was really interesting, although I couldn't really find anything specific to comment on. Saying that though, the comment early on about hitta and his system almost had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Absolutely brilliant.

Can you drag the slider forward to 16 minutes to pick up where you left off? That seems to work with youtube videos.

That worked for me when I tried it.

[aestrivex]

[Elro]

I'm working on understanding the external/internal statics/dynamics of fields/objects right now. While I don't think it's a great way to discuss things in general (since the terms themselves are a bit confusing), I do think taking a good look at that terminology helps add to one's understanding of the IM elements. (I think some extra stuff is contained in the the XX of X stuff which helps one see where the general ideas of what IM elements are were derived from.)

[Brilliand]

There should be 7 element dichotomies...
*Static/Dynamic
*Field/Body (I/E)
*External/Internal (ST/NF)
*SF=Rational/Irrational
*SE=Beta/Delta
*FE=Alpha/Gamma
*SFE=NT/SF

[tereg]

I watched through the 2nd video.

So, while I agree with you about the abstract defining of things like external/internal statics/dynamics of fields/of objects, I think that there has been some effort to give a more meaningful definition of the IM elements. At least ones that helped me to understand the essence of the functions.

For instance

: "resonance"
: "induction"

I can look at those words and be able to picture what these functions are doing rather than defining them through the abstract defintions you described in the videos.

And interestingly enough, those that are using the abstract definitions to define these functions are also trying to describe the functions with these more concrete word associations.

I can look at a word like "resonance" and be able to see clearly the concept of being able to connect with ... well it can be a wide range of things, but an example would be (in my case, i.e. using ) making a connection with something that seems familiar to me, and then in eureka kind of moment be able to make that connection that was vague at first, but becomes more true.

I can look at a word like "induction" and think of the electrical principle of an inductor. You have an inductor and a nearby wire. Whenever you send a current through an inductor, the magnetic field created by the inductor causes a current in an unconnected, nearby wire.

And I can compare this as far as emotional engaging, and understand what's going on (a person doing something/engaging another person and getting some sort of response back from them)

Now, of course there's much more than just "resonance" and "induction" to these elements. The point that I'm making is simply that, there are efforts that are being made to not be so abstract when defining what a function is. But I do agree that looking at something like "external dynamics of fields" doesn't really convey a lot of information, and it is a bit abstract.

[aestrivex]

i think the critical point about those kinds of definitions is that they can be useful, but they're absolutely not a necessity.

[tereg]

i think the critical point about those kinds of definitions is that they can be useful, but they're absolutely not a necessity.

It's not a necessity, but descriptions like that did help get the ball rolling for me to understand the functions' essences. It at least gave me a good starting point/vantage point in subsequent material that I read about the different IM elements that I could lean on.

What works for me might not work for everyone, of course, and I see what you mean. But my interpretation of what you said was that in order to really understand the meaning of the functions (which are simple in nature), it needs to be done in a more descriptive way rather than giving it a definition that doesn't have more of a wider reach in general understanding.

[aestrivex]

But my interpretation of what you said was that in order to really understand the meaning of the functions (which are simple in nature), it needs to be done in a more descriptive way rather than giving it a definition that doesn't have more of a wider reach in general understanding.

yes. you got it.