Whoever types Phaedrus as Ne-INTj obviously doesn't speak socionics and deserves to be corrected, perhaps using pendrek.
Ne-Phaedrus
Whoever types Phaedrus as Ne-INTj obviously doesn't speak socionics and deserves to be corrected, perhaps using pendrek.
Last edited by Trevor; 11-13-2009 at 04:11 AM.
yes he is ILI-Ni. when was the last time phaedrus was even seen?
His last post. 10-15-2008, 01:14 AM. Then they banned him.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Isnt he admittedly autistic or something?
Are Ne INTj's always paragons of open mindedness or is it possible that they can be stubborn bastards also? I'm pretty sure Ti can manifest as extreme stubborness as it is subjective and gauged by the observer's viewpoint rather than objectively. So I'm really not seeing how his behavior shows Fi valuing nor am I seeing how he is Se valuing.
If you think his antics are Se related I think ass rapeage and death are coming for you.
The end is nigh
I'm really not seeing how his behavior shows Ne creative. For that look at Subt, Ritella and Brilliand. A bunch of brats(socionics infantiles), basically.
remember that Ne is "internal object statics"
That doesnt really have to imply "silly fucker who makes everyone laugh and is tolerant" lol
The end is nigh
Of course, Ne is "internal object statics". "Silly fucker who makes everyone laugh and is tolerant" is "Silly fucker who makes everyone laugh and is tolerant". IJ-Ne correlates really well with being "silly fucker who makes everyone laugh and is tolerant". ..Btw "internal object statics" is all about new possibilities and such. Phaedrus seems to be vaccinated against that.
no its not.
Its about seeing reality as a dynamic context where objects manifest abstractly. Meaning that static objects are not things which are concrete, but are instead conceptual bits and pieces which when combined create the many things in the world.
So Ne sees the internal forms and components of things. Like what concepts make up something. However, since its internal many of the abstract bits are not really things you can explain and dont necessarily have a label. they come to mind at lightning speeds often manifesting in strange behavior with lots of analogies and indirect associations, incongruity, etc (sillyness. However, I could easily see a 5w6 INTj who is not overtly silly such as Niffweed, Phaedrus, and Tcaud).
The end is nigh
OK. Could you please explain Ti in a similar manner.
Ti - external field statics
Okay Ti is subjective first off. Basically Ti creates a feeling of organized reality. Like that everything can be sorted and related to based on external and replicable criteria. Ti manifests almost somatically meaning that you feel it with your entire body. Wheres Te is detached and measures objective movements and processes, Ti comes from within. Its more like a web that you project outwards and sort the objects that come in your way. Ti is more concerned with the metrics of organization itself rather than the actual objects being organized.
Ti egos (especially Ti modes) feel as though they already know everything and when they learn something new its more just learning one manifestation of a mechanic they either already understood or now "remember".
Ti manifestation has a potentially arrogant behavior. Ti's often feel they are gods who lost/forgotten their supernatural powers long ago. Sounds odd, but its true. Ti has a serious god complex (especially Alpha NT's) just ask Hitta, Tcaud, Mcnew, Niffweed, Phaedrus, Yourself, Myself, Eldanen, etc (even Ti valuers like Strrrng, crazedrat, bnd).
So Phaedrus is prolly just goin on a Ti god trip like his type is prone to blah blah blah hope that helps.
Helpful Ti descriptions:
"This kind of awareness is not only impersonal: it's graphic, immediate, and wholistic. It prompts no predetermined categories of good and bad. Variables that have unusual or perverse potential are accorded the same consideration as variables that assure a socially appropriate outcome."
"As a right-brain function, Introverted Thinking is not conceptual and linear [contra Extraverted Thinking]. It's body-based and wholistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically."
Introverted Thinking (Ti) is the attitude that beneath the complexity of what is manifest (apparent, observed, experienced) there is an underlying unity: a source or essence that emerges and takes form in different ways depending on circumstances. What is manifest is seen as a manifestation of something. From a Ti standpoint, the way to respond to things is in a way that is faithful to that underlying cause or source and helps it emerge fully and complete, without interference from any notion of self. The way to understand that underlying essence is to learn to simultaneously see many relationships within what is manifest, to see every element in relation to every other element, the relationships being the "signature" of the underlying unity. This can only be experienced directly, not second-hand.
Introverted Thinking leads you to relate whatever you are doing to some larger principles that you have identified. Hence, Ti is like having some kind of book in your head, which describes the inner workings of things. When interacting with reality, you are constantly writing and re-writing your book. To deal with anything, you have to be able to understand in terms of the observations in your book (subjectivity!). Whenever you are dealing with any new system, you start writing a new chapter on it in order to attain complete understanding of it.
In contrast to other attitudes, especially left-brain and Feeling attitudes, Ti does not lead you to experience a sense of self. There is no "you" who is separate from the process in which the material takes on the form that is natural to it. Whether people find the way the parts want to arrange themselves into a harmonious whole offensive, whether you find it pleasant or painful, whether you personally like it or not--you see these as distractions. Your job is to get yourself in harmony with it. The Idea of the whole must become real, and it must be necessitated by the nature of the parts. What "you" create must already be there, as form latent within the material, already yearning to exist. You bring no notion of self to your work except perhaps that of midwife to Nature.
(^^ That is part of the god complex deal. When you are the executive of nature's righteous judgement you must be somewhat godlike)
The end is nigh
Phaedrus is an ISTj-Ti. How one cannot see Ne-PoLR > Se-PoLR is beyond me; he is the last person I would expect to have an open-minded opinion about anything and he displays tons of aggressive behaviour.
Jason
well seeing as Ne does not mean in any way "open mindedness" and Se in no way means "aggressiveness" you'd be wrong.
god dammnit.
Why do I even try?
The end is nigh
Not necessarily, but it might make observing his speech and behavior more accessible, obviously.
Uhg i dont even care, Im not gonna argue with everyone from here to zimbabwe about this.
The end is nigh
I remember Phaedrus saying that he despises the thought of applying lotions to his skin...I don't believe he's Si-valuing.
lol i guess not.
The end is nigh
I'm sorry. The only socionics I believe in is classical socionics.
Jason
thats sort of close minded and dogmatic lol
Great "Ne", right?
The end is nigh
One thing you people need to realize is that phaedrus wasn't autistic, but he romanticized ludwig wittgenstein to the point of obsession.. the famous autistic philosopher. he said he was autistic as a way of gaining superiority in his mind, of promoting himself to a level of personal authority. Autism was his excuse for having no life and obsessing over analytical philosophy until he was like 40 and living in his basement. I know this because I actually tried using the same excuse for about 2 years when I was obsessed with Wittgenstein. All of his behaviors are typical of ILI-Ni. He showed no autistic behavior, only overt rage. Have you ever met an autistic person? You need to meet one. On top of all this, he self typed as ILI-Ni. Where is the hold up? Are you people still this bad at socionics? God you're all worthless.
In a way, you're right. It's just that I've found that classical socionics works for my intertype relations. I would be open to learning about Model X, but I think it would be unlikely for my intertype relations to work if I had to adopt strikingly different definitions of Ne and Se.
Anyway, despite which one is more correct, you and I are clearly speaking a different langauge, so let's leave it at that. And if Model X works for you, more power to you.
Jason
God, is everyone obsessed with Wittgenstein?And I don't remember him being described as autistic anywhere. Where did you read that, crazedrat, if I may ask?
Jake, one of the reasons I left the forum originally was because people were starting to philosophize Socionics to the point of absurdity, resting against those definitions of "statics" and "objects" or whatever. They may have some validity, and they are undoubtedly useful in some way, but I felt that they took Socionics too much into left field, twisting the definitions of the functions until they were perfect, discrete blocks that had little to do with reality. Or rather, they lifted them too high up off of the ground until the actual manifestations of each function was gone. What are we supposed to do with a definition like "internal statics of objects", by itself? There's too much room to breathe with that definition, too much freedom to interpret that however you want to. Believe me, I know how much fun it is to try and fill in the blanks and try to create this totally awesome system that's so perfect and crystal clear and fits together logically and all that, but when you take yourself too seriously, you are going to run into problems, and you are never going to be able to convince anyone who sees it differently. I think all this systematization and personal interpretation is fine, but it should only be for fun. I think jason_m has got the right idea sticking to classical Socionics, especially (what I suspect) the version as purported by Rick. Rick's got mounds of experience beyond anything any of us have, and while he has stated himself that he shouldn't be seen as the authority of Socionics in the West, his ideas at least deserve more weight than anything anyone else has.
Also, because we all at least have some personal interpretation of Socionics (and many times we even have to fill in the blanks to understand classical Socionics, too), a statement like "I'm seeing a lot of Se in this guy" is not helpful by itself. A description like "I feel that he is quite aggressive with his opinions,.resistant to change, and does not put much weight into alternative interpretations that leave too much as open-ended. I think this shows a Ti + Se approach" is much better, as it makes clear what we have to argue about, how each of us sees someone's behavior, and how we interpret that behavior with regards to Socionics. For example, here's how Rick comes to a conclusion about Phaedrus' type: User:Admin/userlist - Wikisocion
Man, I just realized how figuratively I tend to speak. Meh...
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
obviously you dont read enough to know what the fuck you're talking about.
Autistic Symphony - The World as Wittgenstein Found It
brief quote from the page:
Ludwig Wittgenstein was almost certainly autistic. Several notable psychiatrists, such as Christopher Gillberg in A Guide to Asperger Syndrome, have written extensively about the evidence backing this assertion. We can content ourselves here with just the highlights:
* Wittgenstein did not begin to talk until he was four years old. He continued to display language difficulties and peculiarities—a slight stammer, odd prosody, persistent trouble with spelling—that eased slowly only as Wittgenstein gained adulthood.
* His childhood is described as one with essentially no close friendships. Away at school, he regarded his classmates as crude and alien, and they in turn thought him odd, in part because of his insistence on addressing them with formal speech.
* He took frequent pains to maintain a level of social isolation, both in the large-scale manner of long habitations in barren settings, and also in the day-to-day routines that served as miniature getaways, such as taking his meals almost exclusively in his rooms at Cambridge, avoiding the small talk at high table.
* The relationships of his adult years were often tense and fragile. Sudden breaks occasioned by perceived slights or by Wittgenstein’s brusque manner were a frequent theme. Although Wittgenstein maintained some contact with his family members, he never seemed particularly close to any of them and was often annoyed at their occasional intrusions.
* He required sameness in routine—a repetitive style of dress, the same meal served again and again, insistence on a particular form of American detective story or Western film genre for entertainment.
* His approach to work was compulsively focused. Over his lifetime, he displayed deep knowledge and ability in a series of narrowly defined interests—in engineering, mathematics, logic, music and architecture. He would return again and again to a favorite passage of literature or to a musical work that inspired him, but showed little interest in gaining a broad knowledge in any particular field, including philosophy.
Those who knew Wittgenstein personally, admirers and critics alike, almost unanimously describe him as atypical in manner and character. Much of Wittgenstein’s biography1 reads like the zigzagging journey of a man who both required and feared solitude, and his was certainly one of the more curious and uncommon lives from the annals of the twentieth century. His restless philosophizing, as much irritation as resulting pearl, comes across as an obsessive attempt to unearth the very root of mankind’s connection to its universe—a challenge, it would seem, particularly irresistible to this driven autistic.
Good points, Cone. This is beside the point, but, yeah, I'm in love with Wittgenstein as well. The greatest philosopher of this century, or perhaps of all time. [If anyone thinks I'm lying check out my profile picture (no, not my avatar, my profile picture). Wittgenstein has been posted there for several months now.]
Jason
Being a stubborn fucker who needs to coerce others is a sign of frustration, tactlessness, and poor communication skills.
That is not Se related.
The end is nigh
what?
The end is nigh
IMO this is (also) connected with Creativist vs Emotivist. What do you think? By "External" you're referring to S and/or T ??
Ah, but Ti is also external and a judging function.
Se is like a rocket going off.
WOOOOSH
BOOOM
"wow that was crazy"
/done
Se behavior is more about intensity and thrill seeking (kinda). The whole stubborn bastard who has a view of the world he isn't willing to alter thing is more like an unhealthy or abnormal Ti ego.
but of course I generalize.
The end is nigh
Sounds nice, but I don't believe this is true. I think an autistic INTj would come across as extremely stubborn.
I think any healthy person will entertain new POV. Open mindedness is not a trait monopolized by Ne.
The end is nigh
Agreed.
Inspired by smilingeyes' mathematico-mechanical thread.. If T=OOT*CD, F=OOT*NCD, P=I(p)-def(defines)-OOT, J=OOT-def-I, than TJ=OOT*CD-def-I, FP=I-def-OOT*NCD, FJ=OOT*NCD-def-I, TP=I-def-OOT*CD. TJ+FP=OOT*CD-def-I-def-OOT*NCD=T-def-P-def-F. FJ+TP=OOT*NCD-def-I-def-OOT*CD=F-def-P-def-T. Is this type of system-building correct? I don't know. According to Talanov: TJ+FP=T unbalanced, F balanced (unbalanced functions define balanced ones, T and F are in diferrent signal-strenght areas, each of those paired with perceptive function, therefore T-def-P in one signal-strenght area and P-def-F in another, this is in no contradiction with T-def-P-def-F). FJ+TP=F unbalanced, T balanced (unbalanced functions define balanced ones, T and F are in diferrent signal-strenght areas, each of those paired with perceptive function, therefore F-def-P in one signal-strenght area and P-def-T in another, this is in no contradiction with F-def-P-def-T). ..you could do the same thing for Tactical-Strategic. Interesting.
Another way of looking at Constructivist-Emotivist dichotomy. Constructivists are those type which creative function is T, and those types which creative function is closer(on a temperament ring) to T-function when compared with their base function. Emotivists are those types which creative function is F, and those types which creative function is closer(on a temperament ring) to F-function when compared with their base function. ...For Constructivists: distance between creative function and T function is 0 quadra or 1 quadra, distance between base function and T function is 1 or 2 quadra. Distance between creative function and F function is either 1 or 2 quadra, distance between base and F function is either 0 or 1 quadra. ...For Emotivists: distance between creative function and T function is 1 quadra or 2 quadra, distance between base function and T function is 0 or 1 quadra. Distance between creative function and F function is either 0 or 1 quadra, distance between base and F function is either 1 or 2 quadra.
Last edited by Trevor; 07-11-2009 at 04:45 PM.
Removed at User Request
I know not. Do you think he might be Ti-INTj. If you do, I will not punish you because I love you. I don't want to do harm to my loved ones.
Removed at User Request
To have done everything you have achieved so far is more of an achievement at 23 than at 24. Also, at 24 years of age, you are statistically closer to death than at the age of 23.
Ti is the most stubborn, vicious element there is.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Removed at User Request
Me too.
Well, I think Phaedrus is Irrational type. Look at this post. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...1-post135.html That's Rationality(Expat) vs Irrationality(Phaedrus). (Empowering Ti vs Limiting Ti).
Removed at User Request
I think there's an 8th level cleric spell but beware of his +10 savings throw vs Ne
Removed at User Request
agree with Carla. I didn't want him or Tcaud banned. I had alot of fun screwing with those two (Tcaud more, because the foaming at the mouth psychological evaluations and rants against his "politcal enemies" on the forum that I could work him up into were priceless@Carla & BG: admit you liked him. I'm sure you were not among the ones wanting his banning.
)
yeah Expat the great dumbass fucked that entertainment up real big for me
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote