View Poll Results: What type do I strike you as?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • ENTp

    0 0%
  • INFj

    0 0%
  • INTj

    0 0%
  • INTp

    0 0%
  • Other (please specify)

    1 14.29%
  • Uncertain

    6 85.71%
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: What Type do I Strike you as?

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What Type do I Strike you as?

    Please vote.

    Jason
    LII

  2. #2
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    before looking at your options, my vague impression may have been ENFp. but i'll start paying more attention.

    *i just noticed your profile pic. let me know if you want to discuss wittgenstein.

    i would also be interested to hear about your take on wittgenstein because, imo, that might be rather telling of your type.*
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  3. #3
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    NEI
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  4. #4
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Uncertain, but of the options you picked, I think INFj is least likely. INFp is more likely than INFj.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  5. #5
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    As I think I mentioned on your blog .. I think I suggested INTp, not really gave it so much thought though to have a 100% opinion, but I am pretty sure of INXp from what I have read of you.
    Last edited by Cyclops; 08-14-2008 at 02:33 PM.

  6. #6
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa View Post
    *i would also be interested to hear about your take on wittgenstein because, imo, that might be rather telling of your type.*
    I've been thinking about how I'm going to respond to this, and I've finally decided to respond. To me, the most important part of Wittgenstein's work is his later philosophy about philosophy and language. In particular, his ideas about "family resemblance" and how a lot of philosophical problems are not real problems in the sense that they have an answer. This really opened my eyes as to what philosophy is about. In fact, I was never certain about his claims about philosophical problems being loopholes in language until I really examined a bunch of different philosophical problems. Take the stereotypical question as to whether a tree makes a noise when it falls in the forest and no one is around. Different people, and perhaps different philosophers, have different answers to this question. The real problem, however, is that our understanding of what happens when a tree falls and no one is around is poorly defined; in our language, this is an open-ended question; some people think it makes a noise, some people do not, and some people aren't sure. There is no real answer to this; it only exists, like almost all philosophical problems, because our language can be ambiguous. Another example is the relationship between mind and brain. The concept of mind is open-ended enough that you could consider brain and mind to be the same (or different), but, once again, there is no real answer. And most philosophical answers to these types of questions are just hot air in terms of their truth value. Therefore, the real value of philosophy is not to find the "truth", but to allow you to look at something in a new way.

    As for the notion of family resemblance, that is a specific form of language loophole in philosophy. For example, when we ask, "What is art?", we often assume that there is one underlying feature that all art has. The problem is that art could be analogous to the features of a family; everyone shares at least some features with other family members, but that doesn't mean that all family members have one single feature that is the same for all of them. In the same way, pieces of art might have similarities with each other, but that does not mean that there is one single similarity amongst all art. I think you could even apply this idea to Socionics. Some people might think, for example, that there is one underlying feature to Ne, or that there is one single archetype for the ENFp type, when, in reality, there are a group of ENFps who all share similarities with each other, but, in fact, there is no single similarity amongst all of them. This problem might cause people, for example, to say that someone is not an ENFp, simply because they don't share the traits that they have in mind when they think of the "ideal" ENFp, when, in fact, they are wrong. The key is to know all of the different variants of each type. Then, IMO, typing would be more accurate.

    Anyway, in essence, Wittgenstein's work is a form of "meta-philosophy", IMO (i.e., philosophy about philosophy), and he has opened my eyes more than any other philosopher that I have read.

    Jason
    LII

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    2,916
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think INFp, imo.
    not too sure though.
    INTp
    sx/sp

  8. #8

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

    Default

    The structure and style of Jason's post about Wittgenstein's philosophy is a rather clear indication of what type(s) he is (not), but I would like to hear reyn_til_runa's conclusions before I comment on that.

Posting Permissions

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