Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Difficulty in Typing Oneself And Others

  1. #1
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Difficulty in Typing Oneself And Others

    I was thinking that people who are weak in Ti probably have the most trouble typing themselves. I don't think it's about some people just not knowing who they really are - because let's face it, you'd have to be quite a simpleton if you don't, after so many years living within yourself. It seems to be more about arranging your knowledge of yourself into patterns and categorising everything correctly and orderly. Filing that under Ni, this under Fe etc. Like to me, I'm just a whole bunch of miscellaneous details in a big heap, sort of like my room. Does this detail go with that one or with this other one? I guess it could work with either really. Should I group things according to their different colours, to how much I use them, or maybe according to their different shapes? Am I an introvert or an extrovert? Well, depends really. Sometimes social activities infuse me with energy like you wouldn't believe - but many times, I just want to get away from everyone. But then, I have to consider the reasons for wanting to leave ... which come to think of it, shed a strange-coloured light on the situation .... uh, what was the question? There's just so many variables to take into consideration.

    And I know that we can only really type each other based on behavioural patterns ... but that's disturbing to me being that I can have entirely different reasons for doing an identical thing twice. And being that some incident can cause me to completely change how I act - not that my thought processes have changed, but people can't read my mind, so they're not really relevant to the typing process. All people can see is how I act, what I say. They don't know that I was acting one way 'til I encountered this problem which caused me to alter my behaviour thusly until I met with this incident which made me start acting like this, then etc etc. until I'm virtually unrecognisable to 'who I was' originally. If someone actually sat down with the person they were trying to type and questioned them in detail about their life story, how they think, about their whys and wherefores ... then a plausible typing may result. But it seems that none of us do that. To the point that we butt in with type hypotheses while people are in the midst of explaining themselves - trying to be open and honest about their motivations! If we really want to type someone, we should be listening with both ears pricked, not breathing for fear of missing something of importance! lol Because all we can do is go by what the person is telling us, not by patterns in their posts or the way they act. It's easy to form an internally-consistent persona that doesn't stem from intrinsic personality traits. Patterns in someone's behaviour doesn't necessarily point to what their motivations are. Maybe it does - but most probably it doesn't, being that none of us have grown up in an opposition-free environment. Most of us have been spun in circles so many times that we don't know which way is up anymore. Some major occurrence can change us for life in an instant, an annoying drip, drip, dripping over time can slowly mold us into completely different people, or even just a gentle prod can send us off in another direction.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can only really type ourselves and those we know inside and out, and even then it can be a dubious process. lol
    Last edited by Rubicon; 07-22-2008 at 06:31 AM.
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  2. #2
    xyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jem View Post
    I was thinking that people who are weak in Ti probably have the most trouble typing themselves. I don't think it's about some people just not knowing who they really are - because let's face it, you'd have to be quite a simpleton if you don't, after so many years living within yourself. It seems to be more about arranging your knowledge of yourself into patterns and categorising everything correctly and orderly. Filing that under Ni, this under Fe etc. Like to me, I'm just a whole bunch of miscellaneous details in a big heap, sort of like my room. Does this detail go with that one or with this other one? I guess it could work with either really. Should I group things according to their different colours, to how much I use them, or maybe according to their different shapes? Am I an introvert or an extrovert? Well, depends really. Sometimes social activities infuse me with energy like you wouldn't believe - but many times, I just want to get away from everyone. But then, I have to consider the reasons for wanting to leave ... which come to think of it, shed a strange-coloured light on the situation .... uh, what was the question? There's just so many variables to take into consideration.

    And I know that we can only really type each other based on behavioural patterns ... but that's disturbing to me being that I can have entirely different reasons for doing an identical thing twice. And being that some incident can cause me to completely change how I act - not that my thought processes have changed, but people can't read my mind, so they're not really relevant to the typing process. All people can see is how I act, what I say. They don't know that I was acting one way 'til I encountered this problem which caused me to alter my behaviour thusly until I met with this incident which made me start acting like this, then etc etc. until I'm virtually unrecognisable to 'who I was' originally. If someone actually sat down with the person they were trying to type and questioned them in detail about their life story, how they think, about their whys and wherefores ... then a plausible typing may result. But it seems that none of us do that. To the point that we butt in with type hypotheses while people are in the midst of explaining themselves - trying to be open and honest about their motivations! If we really want to type someone, we should be listening with both ears pricked, not breathing for fearing of missing something of importance! lol Because all we can do is go by what the person is telling us, not by patterns in their posts or the way they act. It's easy to form an internally-consistent persona that doesn't stem from intrinsic personality traits. Patterns in someone's behaviour doesn't necessarily point to what their motivations are. Maybe it does - but most probably it doesn't, being that none of us have grown up in an opposition-free environment. Most of us have been spun in circles so many times that we don't know which way is up anymore. Some major occurrence can change us for life in an instant, an annoying drip, drip, dripping over time can slowly mold us into completely different people, or even just a gentle prod can send us off in another direction.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can only really type ourselves and those we know inside and out, and even then it can be a dubious process. lol
    Some times do better at figuring out who they are subconsciously than consciously.
    "Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."

    - Voltaire

  3. #3
    Suomea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    TIM
    ILE-Ti
    Posts
    1,054
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...
    Last edited by Suomea; 09-28-2008 at 12:17 AM.
    Suomea

  4. #4
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    2) On the basis of associating the person's idealized cognitive structure (way of thinking) to an idealized type (Ne) - allowing for "acceptable" variations from the ideal. Basically using the functions, and Gulenko's theories of thinking, etc.

    That's how I do it... I think.
    But say you were attempting to type a celebrity or someone from a video - how do you know what their "cognitive structure" is?
    4) But in my opinion, since this is a psychology of relationships anyway, the most accurate approach is whether you instinctually believe that you and the person being typed are identicals or such (Fe). But don't let it get around that I said this.
    I guess this is my 'method' (o:, but the problem with it is that I start with an impression of the person which may or may not be right .... then as I get to know the person better all their various quirks come out that I try desperately to explain away or put in various boxes, until all the boxes come tumbling down on top of me because of their precarious positioning. Bleh, so I start again with a new type .... Maybe I should just go with my first impression, then run away quickly. (k:
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  5. #5
    diljs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    348
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    very interesting thread.

    I think part of the problem is the classic scientific dilemma that by observing, we have an effect on the subject being observed.

    Everyone we interact with is at the same time interacting with us, which changes their behavior. When we try to type ourselves, we can want to see or not want to see a certain think, and so act differently as well.
    ILE - Ti.

  6. #6
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jem View Post
    I was thinking that people who are weak in Ti probably have the most trouble typing themselves. I don't think it's about some people just not knowing who they really are - because let's face it, you'd have to be quite a simpleton if you don't, after so many years living within yourself. It seems to be more about arranging your knowledge of yourself into patterns and categorising everything correctly and orderly. Filing that under Ni, this under Fe etc. Like to me, I'm just a whole bunch of miscellaneous details in a big heap, sort of like my room. Does this detail go with that one or with this other one? I guess it could work with either really. Should I group things according to their different colours, to how much I use them, or maybe according to their different shapes? Am I an introvert or an extrovert? Well, depends really. Sometimes social activities infuse me with energy like you wouldn't believe - but many times, I just want to get away from everyone. But then, I have to consider the reasons for wanting to leave ... which come to think of it, shed a strange-coloured light on the situation .... uh, what was the question? There's just so many variables to take into consideration.

    And I know that we can only really type each other based on behavioural patterns ... but that's disturbing to me being that I can have entirely different reasons for doing an identical thing twice. And being that some incident can cause me to completely change how I act - not that my thought processes have changed, but people can't read my mind, so they're not really relevant to the typing process. All people can see is how I act, what I say. They don't know that I was acting one way 'til I encountered this problem which caused me to alter my behaviour thusly until I met with this incident which made me start acting like this, then etc etc. until I'm virtually unrecognisable to 'who I was' originally. If someone actually sat down with the person they were trying to type and questioned them in detail about their life story, how they think, about their whys and wherefores ... then a plausible typing may result. But it seems that none of us do that. To the point that we butt in with type hypotheses while people are in the midst of explaining themselves - trying to be open and honest about their motivations! If we really want to type someone, we should be listening with both ears pricked, not breathing for fear of missing something of importance! lol Because all we can do is go by what the person is telling us, not by patterns in their posts or the way they act. It's easy to form an internally-consistent persona that doesn't stem from intrinsic personality traits. Patterns in someone's behaviour doesn't necessarily point to what their motivations are. Maybe it does - but most probably it doesn't, being that none of us have grown up in an opposition-free environment. Most of us have been spun in circles so many times that we don't know which way is up anymore. Some major occurrence can change us for life in an instant, an annoying drip, drip, dripping over time can slowly mold us into completely different people, or even just a gentle prod can send us off in another direction.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can only really type ourselves and those we know inside and out, and even then it can be a dubious process. lol
    awesome post. don't hate me for this but very SiFe. dynamic to the max.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  7. #7
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    Maybe this is why I am SEE and not SLE.

Posting Permissions

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