Appeals to logic.
Appeals to emotion.
Well I assumed that you were, but I think there are two other options: either that or you're pretending not to understand, or you actually don't understand what I was saying, which was never intended as a criticism in the first place.Originally Posted by dolphin
How am I playing with semantics?
THANK YOU.
OK then, lets put everything in the bin and ignore Ashura and everyone else connected with socionics.
Are you an official source that should be ignored?Nope. We can only conceive of them as general conceptual constructs because of the constituent partswhich do existthat comprise them.
What is Fe good for then, iyo?
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Stupid argument. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I was pointing out that citing official sources doesn't matter, because what it comes down to is the veracity of what they think/say. That doesn't all-the-sudden mean to discard every knowledgeable person in a subject; it means to not believe anything until you've experienced it yourself. And in this specific case, unless you can provide specific ideas posited by any of the people you mentioned, referencing them as some form of support is useless.
Nope. There are no "sources," just people. All that matters is what they say, not what their credentials are.Are you an official source that should be ignored?
The guy in your avatar has it.
Do it! Do it!
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
I didn't say emotional appeals. Reread her post; it had to do with affecting the emotional dynamic or something. And I didn't say that internal processes necessitate emotions. But guess what? Emotional affect is typically generated and experienced "internally," as far as something not explicitly-defined. I am not directly correlating the behavior to the function; I'm providing a background as to why the mental process gets associated with the behavior. If you want to split hairs over the semantics of this, we'll get nowhere.
bleh, ok the wording was "emotional appeal" whatever. The point I was trying to make still stands, so I hope you can overlook the semantics and just get the gist of it.
It was because you italicized words, implying a possible connotation on your disposition towards their usage.
Christ, this fucking argument is turning into pedantic drivel.
NO CARLA NO
I try to consider the best option.
Yeah, and this is basically it. A psychic lens of perception isn't a behavior, talent, whatever. Just their usage and combinations typically generate patterns at specific frequencies, which get attributed to behaviors for efficiency or something.
Let's have sex.
I know. I was pointing out the reasoning.
Look, Dolphin, I am not sure what I did to irritate you so much, and I'm not asking [read: if there is a "mystery" here, I'm not interested in discovering what it is, much less solving it].
I felt like you were twisting my words - that is why I accused you of toying with semantics. If you weren't intentionally doing that, then I apologize for making an unfounded accusation. I listed the only two other options I see: 1, that you do understand but are pretending not to for the sake of arguing [I can't see why a person would do this, but then again I am perplexed by what has gone on in this silly little thread already], and 2, that you actually did not understand what I was trying [and apparently failing, through no one's fault but mine] to say. Are there other options available?
In case you did/do not understand what I was trying to say, please read what Strrrng posted - intentionally or not, he seems to have answered your questions about my meaning; my answers would be redundant at this point.
I'm aware of this. But we have to choose some words to use to proceed with any discussion. Do you want to be the semantics arbiter?
Good lord, this is a travesty of a thread.
As I said on PAGE ONE, I never should have made it. Wow.
Nah. Dolphin should never have entered it.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
You said it doesn't matter, so there is no point in providing you with specifics if you feel you need to experience it first, because on matter what they say, you will want to experience it before you believe it.
People provide sources. You therefore have people and those people are the sources that they provide.Nope. There are no "sources," just people. All that matters is what they say, not what their credentials are.
Generally people who have good credentials do so because they know what they are doing/talking about. This is why to be a doctor or an engineer you need credentials. But I agree that having good credentials doesn't automatically make a person right or that they will always do a good job. I never said it does. So if we're left with what someone says, go and read what they've said. You still have to make your own mind up wither you agree or not. So why provide you with the sources you ask for if I am a person and I can say it because the sources don't matter but you say the people matter but I am a people so I am a source but the source doesn't matter so go and experience things but don't be a source because the source doesn't matter but you have to be a people.
So Carla, how's the Si?
Yeah, and I have past experience to go off of, and reason. So, it's not like I can't think about what someone says and get a general read on it.
Way to fuck with semantics. Whatever.People provide sources. You therefore have people and those people are the sources that they provide.
Generally people who have good credentials do so because they know what they are doing/talking about. This is why to be a doctor or an engineer you need credentials. But I agree that having good credentials doesn't automatically make a person right or that they will always do a good job. I never said it does. So if we're left with what someone says, go and read what they've said. You still have to make your own mind up wither you agree or not. So why provide you with the sources you ask for if I am a person and I can say it because the sources don't matter but you say the people matter but I am a people so I am a source but the source doesn't matter so go and experience things but don't be a source because the source doesn't matter but you have to be a people.
strrrng,
you need to get laid
love
katrina
But then you become a source of your experience but the source doesn't matter but your still a people even though your a source but you as a source doesn't matter but then only your experience matters to you and everyone else's experience only matters to them so you as a source doesn't matter anymore because you've got experience as your source which doesn't matter.
You started it by saying the sources don't matter but you are a source so you as a source doesn't matter but you can still be a people you said.Way to fuck with semantics. Whatever.
Edit: You started playing with semantics so you can see you don't have to play with semantics unless you want to play with semantics which is what you started by playing with the semantics of my simple initial posts.
Actually, he doesn't know. He only experiences quadra valued functions.It's alright, I guess. A bit, erm ... mellow, but you know how it is.
This sort of thing is also what came to mind when I started reading the thread, which is my understand of logos and pathos. Honestly, the mere definition of pathos has a lot to do with Fe (imo). It's about using emotion as your means for expression. Someone inclined to use pathos is going to focus on the tone, use emotionally loaded language, etc. I think that thinking of it as logical vs. emotional is oversimplifying it. For instance, I can have an ethical discussion about euthanasia, global warming or animal rights or whatever and still approach it from a logical perspective. Basically, what I'm saying is that the topic of discussion is independent of whether one uses pathos or logos. I can also see how the same issues can be debated/approached from pathos perspective, as you pointed out with that global warming ad.An example I was thinking of is this:
It's taken from a global warming-awareness site, and the implicit argument is that polar bears are in danger because of global warming, and therefore we should do something about it. However, logical arguments regarding the existence/nonexistence of global warming, the level of danger actually posed to polar bears, or any other things are generally not presented. [Obviously images like this are usually accompanied by text with some facts, but at the heart of it is an emotional appeal.]
My understanding of logos is that it is not purely logical in the literal sense of the word, which is why it can also be effective when discussing ethical issues. It will also try to touch the audience's emotions, but it will do so by backing up arguments with facts (Te). I see it as capable of moving people by explaining what is right and wrong and why, while pathos aims to evoke certain feelings not really for the sake of right and wrong, but purely as feeling for its own sake. The feeling/emotion is its own reward. This sounds to me pretty similar to how I've heard Fe ego types describe their experiences and is one of the reasons they're more inclined towards artistic means for expression.
I do think there might be some correlation between one's preference in using one vs the other and valued functions.
Where does ethos enter into all this?
lol <3[If you are in an idiotic and/or argumentative mood, please read this DISCLAIMER: In this post I have no intention of making an argument regarding people of specific socionics types, global warming, the cuteness of polar bears, or anything else.]
Wow, I get distracted for a few minutes and all of a sudden there's 10 pages in this thread.
hmmm. I've been wondering this myself actually. The best conclusion I've come to is that it's correlated to intelligence/experience in intellectual environments.
I have noticed F types resort to more of the "emotional appeal" thing, but T types do other stuff that's equally invalid.
EII; E6(w5)
i am flakey
Note: I'm reversing the order of these because it just seems better that way imo -
Strrrng dismissed your point based on the same premise I would have.
Okay then, we disagree. That's okay with me, and I doubt you'll lose sleep over it either, so cheers. Here's to freedom of thought.If I am a) not twisting your words b) not "arguing for the sake of arguing" and c) understood what you meant, then maybe there's another option. call it d) and say I disagree. whatever.
Thank you for posting this - you seem to understand what I was getting at in the first place
I agree that generalizations wouldn't be wise or useful... and that's not what I was setting out to accomplish when I made this thread. Initially, I wondered if Fe-types would say they naturally found themselves infusing their arguments w more pathos, and whether Te-types would say they tended not to. I wasn't trying to prescribe anything; I was merely curious about a possible preference, especially since I know my arguments tend to be laden w Te but pretty devoid of Fe [at least as far as intentions go]. As you see, though, it turned into a bit of a mess
lol <3
EDIT: I just realized you asked about ethos... and I'm not really sure that one can be argued as correlated w anything socionics [and I realize it is still debatable whether logos and pathos are correlated either]. I have thoughts on it, but nothing concrete and nothing I feel is solid enough to post here, especially as conjecture is apparently unwelcome.
Last edited by female; 12-12-2008 at 12:45 AM.
When someone is using their T or F functions-that's Te Ti Fe Fi then they are all logical but different interpretations of being logical, as they are all rational functions that do something with information.
They can all use emotional appeal or not, but there is more of a tendency to form their logics using the nature of the function.
So it makes sense to say that F functions can use emotional appeal more so than T functions, but both are equally capable of doing logical things and intelligence can play a part in how good they are at doing logical things more than functions. IE you get maths teachers who are Fe or Fi, but at the same time I think it is less likely that a Ti or Te make good councellors but that depends on the person who is the patient because it depends on how you would like your councellor to be.
Sorry if I am wrong or offend anyone. It's just a post take it or leave it please but no need to get upset, it's simply an opinion, using socionics as a guide on a socionic forum and general trends which you might see in peoples behaviours which by no means are in each and every case of course.
Please copy and paste any disclaimer I may have missed out on. Sorry.
I didn't play with semantics. My whole initial point, which you missed, was that referencing the russians as a way to support your argument, without providing any specifics, was essentially moot.
How about you explain your position [briefly], instead of saying how everything else is wrong.
And note that I wasn't saying internal causality = emotional effect. I was giving a brief abstract of the correlation.
No you started by saying that the sources don't matter and that using sources is a delta thing but you are a source and I am a source so how is it a Delta thing. If you really want to see the sources and you think they do matter then that is fine but what is the point of making a big deal out of it when you use sources and I use sources and to say the sources are irrelevant but you know they are relevant your point was that using sources is a Delta thing and that they don't matter when obviously they do and to make a big deal out of it being a Delta thing was stupid and irrelevant itself because sources are important at least to some degree so you could have cut out the crap about it being delta and just had a discussion not a barny about attacks on quadra's and how they are irrelevant. You also started playing with semantics about functions and dichotomies making it out that you see dichotomies but you think they are vague, then agreeing with Dolphin that they don't exist, but saying you can see them but then saying again that you don't see them. So if you don't see them or you do it's fine it's not a big deal just please stop playing with semantics and we don't have to get into semantics because you were playing with semantics over this as well.
If you still want to do things like that then we can agree to disagree about how it is useful. Free country. No probs.
Basically to find out which Russian socionists use dichotomies you can go to socionic meets or speak to people who have been on them, or look at Lytov's information when he talks about dichotomies or they are on Ricks site at least last I checked who is Russian based. You could also look into Igor Weisband who uses dichotomies.
So apart from all the nonesense there you go! Use what you wish just stop arguing over semantics and maybe we all can.
Of course you can keep arguing over wither you used semantics at all, if you do we'll agree to disagree, but if you admit you did and apologise then fine. But you don't have to do any of these things either!
Dolphin, I used to think you were quite a bitter person for getting so worked up about things, enough to fly off the handle and call someone an idiot, as you do here. I can't imagine being inclined to call someone an idiot with so little provocation. But I now realize that this is you using your Fe to evoke an emotion, push people, test limits...as strrrng has similarly described before. Just an observation, which now that I think about it is not likely to go over well since you'll probably think I'm trying to analyze you when I should just "let you be you." Oh well, I'm Ne/Fi, I can't help it. Just thought I'd share this time.
You're welcome!Thank you for posting this - you seem to understand what I was getting at in the first place
I agree that generalizations wouldn't be wise or useful... and that's not what I was setting out to accomplish when I made this thread. Initially, I wondered if Fe-types would say they naturally found themselves infusing their arguments w more pathos, and whether Te-types would say they tended not to. I wasn't trying to prescribe anything; I was merely curious about a possible preferenoce, especially since I know my arguments tend to be laden w Te but pretty devoid of Fe [at least as far as intentions go]. As you see, though, it turned into a bit of a mess
Yeah, I know what you meant and like I said, I think it makes sense there would be a connection. Not sure why some people interpreted in such an absolute away, except that there might be a bit of paranoia and preference for arguing going on. Not to mention that some people's definition of a debate is to push their "opponent". Only then can they assess whether there's been some kind of breakthrough or not. I thought you made it clear that you were simply wondering if there was a preference based on functions, which shouldn't be such an insulting idea given that we're all aware that our functional preferences affect us in many ways.
Strrrng thank you.
I never said emotions were all of it. I said that having a precise control over the lens of internal causality can typically result in a natural propensity—meaning natural disposition, grasp of—with emotional dynamics, as they are at least "one facet," as you put it, no?
ugh. Just go back to socionix, for christ's sake. I wasn't making some absolute proclamation, just establishing common ground to proceed in the discussion. And did you ever consider that correlations aren't either 0 or 100%? You continue to harangue, yet when confronted about your own position, only spew some bullshit generalization, making it into something you can't deign to define. Classic ashtonian argument tactic.So? If the correlation is wrong, it's wrong. Correlating "natural propensity for said behavior" is innacurate imo.
You realize you just made one yourself with that quote?
starfall, embrace your hatred, learn to use the darkside... and your transformation will be kom-plete.
You may think he is a "semantics twisting idiot," without any emotion attached. But what is the point of bringing it up in a thread? Did you not say it as some retort to him? Yeah, it did seem out of place. So, while that doesn't necessitate any emotion on your part, it still is odd. Maybe you could explain your reasoning there, since you claim it wasn't emotionally-fueled.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
