Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 104

Thread: Logos

  1. #1
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Logos

    It appears that it is my time for my trial by fire. My type as LII has come into question. I disagree with these assessments and I still think that I am LII, but I thought that I should entertain this possibility for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros
    I think Logos is LSI, for more than one reason:
    - he looks unable to understand some Intuitive concepts; it looks like he submits everything to strictly palpable and demonstrable reasoning from the beginning;
    - he has a long trail of reference to establishments (at least in what I dealt with him) and acceptance to argument; I never heard such arguments from LIIs.

    These are insightful:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logos
    Einstein is a well-accepted ILE amongst the Socionics community for a good reason. You may want to properly investigate the case.

    Establishment.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logos
    Just to let you know, this discussion has been had before with more knowledgeable people of Socionics, and Odysseus has been consistently typed as an LIE. This has far less to do with my own confidence as it does with the thoroughness of previous arguments of discussion from esteemed members, so your attempts to discredit his LIE type via an attack on my confidence is juvenile and fruitless

    Backing up with authority. He's trying to convince me with that .
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logos
    But I still want to know who these Russian Socionists that type Eastwood as an INTj are? I am not necessarily doubting, but such a truth-claim should not be made without being able to provide support.

    He keeps the tail between his legs while there is a possibility to contradict "the law" - the things which he values most. Somehow in opposition to LII - the law has to prove itself. Actually I almost have no doubt after a forum search.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logos
    Ne, as an external function, cannot operate without objects.

    Ne is internal. It's written in the canons of Socionics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops
    You could be right. I've often seen him (Logos) as all Ti, so much that the Ne doesn't seem to be there. It's like ego Ti-Ti makes more sense than Ti-Ne. Maybe it is really Ti-overly focusing on the minute issues, Ti-Se.

    Other reasons for considering LSI that come to mind: He complicates things unnecessarily, which is something ISTj intellectuals do, but INTj's do not. See all the other INTj's in socionics who's explanations are simple and concise. See Brilliands recent dissertation in comparison to Logos on this thread. I'm aware that Rick has also noticed this difference in the LXI's. I suppose there may be some LII's who aren't as easy to understand, like maybe Labcoat, but the abstraction of intuition is at least there more than Logos, among other things, he doesn't complicate the matter, more than is necessary for the difficulty involved.
    So what's my type?
    Last edited by Logos; 07-29-2009 at 02:43 AM.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  2. #2
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    His reaction to being typed LSI made me wonder - it struck me as a call for caregiving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Et tu Brute?
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    I'm not debating circles and squares. It was a misquoted example. I don't want to explain away circles. I like circles. I kinda love circles, especially concentric ones. Even my HA is a . Don't make the circles in my life disappear.
    His iron disposition went down fast.

    Logos, what's your take on each of the instances cited by Ephemeros (if you can remember)?



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  3. #3
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  4. #4
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    Now what? Who should respond to the arguments?
    I think I'll be taking both sides on this issue, since I did not like his reaction. Of course Logos is here to speak in his own defense.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  5. #5
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    You declare a lot for an ILE.
    Whaa?



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  6. #6
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  7. #7
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  8. #8
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Logos, what's your take on each of the instances cited by Ephemeros (if you can remember)?
    I guess I can break it down into case exhibits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    But I still want to know who these Russian Socionists that type Eastwood as an INTj are? I am not necessarily doubting, but such a truth-claim should not be made without being able to provide support.
    This is not an appeal to authority. It is actually quite the opposite as it should be apparent. Someone else was pulling the authority card regarding Russian Socionists typing Eastwood as INTj. I was calling the bluff and wanted sources. I would have preferred if the poster made his own argument in this case or avoided the claim if he did not have support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Einstein is a well-accepted ILE amongst the Socionics community for a good reason. You may want to properly investigate the case.
    This is not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to a previously reached consensus with an extended encouragement for E to seek out those previous arguments on his own.

    He is welcome to type Einstein as ILI, but E should first be aware of prior conclusions. If you pick a position that goes against the larger consensus, you will have to argue through the field. In upper level academics, you cannot just argue a case, you have to analyze the cases of people who have also talked about the same or a related subject. The same is true for typing well-known figures. You search the name and look for the prevailing attitudes, arguments, and opinion leaders. You may agree or you may disagree. If you disagree, you will need to argue against those prevailing attitudes, arguments, and opinion leaders. But in this case, I do think that evidence highly supports Einstein as an ILE. It was just largely an aside to main focus on the thread, which is why it was mostly sidestepped with "for good reason." Good reasons that exist to be delineated at another time and in another thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Just to let you know, this discussion has been had before with more knowledgeable people of Socionics, and Odysseus has been consistently typed as an LIE. This has far less to do with my own confidence as it does with the thoroughness of previous arguments of discussion from esteemed members, so your attempts to discredit his LIE type via an attack on my confidence is juvenile and fruitless. You can attempt to give all the reasons you want that Odysseus is an Si-seeking ILE, but at the end of the day, Odysseus is an Fi-seeking LIE with his ESI wife Penelope. Nevertheless, I will wait and listen to your arguments for why Odysseus is an LIE. Take your time.
    Esteemed members has less to do with authority than it does with being knowledgeable. Smart resources should never be discounted or dismissed, especially when again they are opinion leaders. This is another case in which I had the discussion on Odysseus' type before. Also, I had come back from a break from the board, and more importantly, E was a noob.

    - he looks unable to understand some Intuitive concepts; it looks like he submits everything to strictly palpable and demonstrable reasoning from the beginning;
    I find this part somewhat hilarious. I think that you tend to ramble and overcomplicate matters in posts lacking substance. I really wish that you would say more while writing less. I do not see our points of contention as a matter of me not understanding Intuitive concepts, but from me disagreeing with your interpretation of Socionics. My desire to move to the palpable and empirical is partially due to A) a science background as child, and B) I have learned to better balance my Ti with Te in order reach across quadras better. This is the real shame of how people use Socionics. Socionics informs us of how we frequently fail to communicate with others, but instead of expanding, altering, or adapting our natural language to others, we dig ourselves in a hole while yelling, "I can't understand you! Why can't you understand me?!"

    - he has a long trail of reference to establishments (at least in what I dealt with him) and acceptance to argument; I never heard such arguments from LIIs.
    My longest trails of establishments are in referencing restaurants and other dining locations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    In precisely what ways does Logos complicate things unnecessarily and how is this indicative that he is not an INTj? Have you considered factors such as age and educational experience in your comparisons of Logos' posts to the posts of others? (For instance, it was to my understanding that Logos is/was a religious studies grad. student and thus would have a greater knowledge base on such matters than many other posters here. For all we know, he could also have an advanced degree in circles and squares. Demonstrations of such knowledge are not necessarily type-related.)
    Well to be fair, so do Kant and Spinoza.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  9. #9
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  10. #10
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think LII are pretty conservative people as far as ideas and goals.

    Take Oppenheimer(LII), he some doubts about Freeman Dyson(ILE)'s physics, until Freeman Dyson basically beat him into submission and Oppie wrote a note to Freeman with the words "Nolo Contendere".

    Given that Wittgenstein(LII) wrote Tractatus(primarily a logical work) prior to changing his mind, wrote Philosophical Investigations(primarily a intuitive work).

    Quote Originally Posted by Wittgenstein
    "the clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear."
    Consequently it's often ILE that are conservative people as far as logic.

    I don't type Spinoza as LII but rather ILE. He was a rather prickly person and got into a lot of squabbles while young, including being stabbed and excommunicated by the age of 23. This is the sort of thing that is more characteristic of ILE then LII.

    His work is more imposing a rational order based on reason upon the natural world. Creative-Ti vs Accepting-Ti.

    Another example is Einstein(ILE not ILI), who had a hard time accepting quantum mechanics(althrough his criticism was influential and neccessary, and in many was more real) because in his conceptual world, the absurd anti-realism of the Copenhagen interpretation was untenable. There are now other interpretations which althrough have parts to be desired, still provide for a causal universe.

    Taking Karl Marx(ILE) who created a rational governing state based on reason and the prevailing economic and philosophical concepts of his time, Capitalism, Labor, Surplus value, brought Hegelian Dialectics into the material world(Ni to Ne) characterized as class struggle, a new concept of dialectical materialism(althrough he did not specifically organize this).

    He has a quote that characterizes ILE more so then LII. Call it agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marx
    The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways—the point however is to change it
    Where as Wittgenstein had a more agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wittgenstein
    "'What we find out in philosophy is trivial; it does not teach us new facts, only science does that. But the proper synopsis of these trivialities is enormously difficult, and has immense importance. Philosophy is in fact the synopsis of trivialities.' In philosophy we are not, like the scientist, building a house. Nor are we even laying the foundations of a house. We are merely 'tidying up a room'".
    I think Logos is probably LII, althrough his Ne yard is a bit empty. Intellectual authority is more (Objective qualifications) rather then (Political gamesmanship).
    Higher education tends to have a mind-numbing effect on people too, it provides a certainty of skills and qualifications that sometimes hinders intuitive comprehension.

    It's no surprise that many ILE, Dyson, Spinoza, Marx, Einstein wholeheartedly reject academics until academics could no longer reject them.

  11. #11
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    In precisely what ways does Logos complicate things unnecessarily and how is this indicative that he is not an INTj? Have you considered factors such as age and educational experience in your comparisons of Logos' posts to the posts of others? (For instance, it was to my understanding that Logos is/was a religious studies grad. student and thus would have a greater knowledge base on such matters than many other posters here. For all we know, he could also have an advanced degree in circles and squares. Demonstrations of such knowledge are not necessarily type-related.)
    Relatively meaningless as far as the quality of data being produced.

    Less study and more thinking tends to produce more original ideas, but it does make for a more risky and less stable life.

    Too much knowledge and explanation without comprehension and understanding also can turn your mind into abstract mush.

    I'm mostly a auto-didactic, but I don't doubt my philosophical knowledge against just about anyone.

  12. #12
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    Debate typings talk
    It's not really necessary to debate typing too significantly, often you will get attached to a unprovable conclusion. Better to study and interact with people to understand the nature of the multitude of humanity.

    Also you might have some more fun this way.

  13. #13
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    This would be debatable, but in any case not the opposite as you say. I ask you: does it matter what the Russians think? What were you discussing, Eastwood's type or something else? You showed your interest there.
    It does not so much matter what the Russian Socionists think, but the accuracy of the original poster's (hitta's) assertion that their thoughts matched his own. I do not believe that Clint Eastwood is an LII, but rather, he is an LSI. But that is not what interested me, because I had already formed my opinion of his type prior to the thread. What interested me was hitta's inability to support what he said or to back up his claims.

    Wtf are you talking about? Compared to you, I don't give a shit about everything is bold! Nothing, I think for myself.
    I'm glad that you think for yourself. Do you want a gold star? But it is not enough that you are capable of thinking for yourself, but you must be able to think well and correctly.

    YOU TALK AS IF I DID NOT BRING ANY ARGUMENT!!! What the fuck is this post? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post543661
    I don't know. What the fuck is that post? You tell me. That is a separate thread that I have not read before. Believe it or not, I do not spend my time stalking your posts. I did not doubt that you did not have your reasons in one thread, but I strongly suspected that they were questionable since the conclusion you reached did not match mine, and so I disregarded yours like any good LII should do.

    Ok, maybe you missed it, as long as the argue with me was in other thread, so you have an excuse. If you have something to add about it just tell me. I'm curious what will prevail in your opinion, the established type given by the "opinion leaders" or my arguments which don't match that typing. I'm extremely curious, because I'm almost sure about what type of answer you'll forward.
    Ephemeros, I majored in political science (with my primary interest being public opinion and quantitative analysis) and public relations. The idea of "opinions leaders" does not come from my sense of authority, but from being repeatedly exposed to this facet of communications theory. So my own language games and vocabulary was formed by that. I say that, because you keep quoting "opinion leaders" as if this is some indication that I am incapable of thinking for myself. I tend to analyze forum dynamics in this manner, because that tends to stick out like a sore thumb and it has proved an impediment in forum relations that I have had to overcome.

    But since you seem to think that my response to investigate elsewhere and check with other socionicists was somehow atypical of LII's let's look at the Einstein - ILE? thread. I am sure that this will satisfy your confirmation bias regarding my expected response.
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    idk, it's pretty scant evidence. There are plenty of other reasons
    why Einstein is ILE (see socionics.us + a billion past threads).
    I may post later when I have more time to gather the facts for my assertion of Einstein's ILE type.
    That's in your point only, your LSI point of view!
    If my type was determined by your ability to enlarge HTML, then I would certainly be an LSI.

    Every LII would discard such information if it doesn't make sense, do you want me to read you the descriptions to fall asleep? And if the LIIs don't understand the issue they don't get involved usually. But you, definitely a Se type, you quickly grasp the power balance and get involved with only the assurance of the establishment. Establishment means most of what you've written: leaders, prevail, academic, consensus, etc.
    You are unfairly misreading my actions and intentions.

    You're using your Se to scorn my opinion on Odysseus, you forgot that my first post about it was written on 03-19-2009 ( http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post500590 ) and I'm here since May 2007.
    You're not exactly using rainbows and sunshine yourself when talking about me or my type. You being registered since May 2007 does not exactly mean that you made your presence widely known; it just means that you primarily lurked until recently. I'm sorry if I did not notice you. But I can assure you that derision is not exclusive to Se-egos alone.

    Not only that, but I proved myself understanding, at least partially, the inner of Socionics, by numerous discussions about functions (Ti vs Te, etc) and other things. But yeah, as you did not deal with me, you could think that, it was impossible for you to conceive that a "newbie" is able to challenge an established typing. Actually I did not take note of you before that, which made me the impression that you are some kind of a forum police.
    That is debatable. It was not just that you were a noob, but more importantly, you had a conclusion and faulty reasoning, and an interpretation of Socionics that I personally disagreed with.

    You call this argument: "that's not Si but Se". Period. Is that one?
    The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
    Ni.
    Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
    Alpha NT > Gamma NT.

    Pot and kettle.

    What's my guilt because you did not answer the arguments? In the table example, remember that I change my opinion 2 times. But you vanished. [the above quote goes here]That's nothing, your worshiped "leaders" did not type the "rough table", what should I do, to wait for the Russians to come and have their say? That sentence was Si and come and argue about it if you can, all the sciences and academies and communities have built the opinions on simple discussions like that. But you were absent!
    You are becoming irrational now. I have no worshiped leaders nor am I waiting for the Russians to type the statement. Why was I absent? Because glam answered your question and having me post a similar statement would be redundant. Why post when someone else has basically said what you wanted to say? Seems like quite the LII thing to do. Reduce the amount of work that you actually have to do.

    But here would have been another more appropriate way to distinguish between Se, Si, and tables.

    Se: "the table has a rough texture." - Here rough is a physical property of the table, either by the contours or material used in making it.
    Si: "the table feels rough." - Here rough is defined as a dynamic sensory response to (presumably) the person's skin.

    Why are you an LII? Because you want to? No. You should prove it, without any appeal to others' opinion, except they are justified (BY REASON!). Only then I'll speak to you again.
    I have proven myself as an LII ad nauseum.

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I think Logos is probably LII, althrough his Ne yard is a bit empty. Intellectual authority is more (Objective qualifications) rather then (Political gamesmanship).
    Higher education tends to have a mind-numbing effect on people too, it provides a certainty of skills and qualifications that sometimes hinders intuitive comprehension.

    It's no surprise that many ILE, Dyson, Spinoza, Marx, Einstein wholeheartedly reject academics until academics could no longer reject them.
    I feel that this is largely an unfair criticism of me and my Ne, just because it does not meet your Ne-leading expectations. I do think that Spinoza is LII > ILE, but that is for another time.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  14. #14
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    I feel that this is largely an unfair criticism of me and my Ne, just because it does not meet your Ne-leading expectations. I do think that Spinoza is LII > ILE, but that is for another time.
    Maybe I don't meet your expectations of fairness.

    As for Spinoza, how about never.

  15. #15
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Maybe I don't meet your expectations of fairness.
    Touche. But I do not think that I am so much focused on generating Ne in the forum as I am focused on analyzing Ne concepts.

    As for Spinoza, how about never.
    Why not? Have I offended you somehow?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  16. #16
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    I see this in part addresses Carla's questions, i've left it without the quote as I see it as applying to the bigger picture of the thread.

    In regards to knowledge, factual information, I see that factual information is a stalwart of S types. In comparison of LSI with LII, the LSI typically relys much more on facts and knowledge in order to build up their Ti systemisation. The contrast with LII's is that they use some knowledge, facts in order to create new ideas, concepts, realised through their Ne vehicle, such is that their reliance on facts is not as necessary as LSI.

    An example Logos when confronted with the Ne discussion of the other thread referenced to here:

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    I included a way of having direct observation that the earth is round, via circumnavigation. It just took a second to think of it.

    It is a fact that it has not always been a fact that the world has been considered round.

    Because once there was no humans, and no roundness either
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Yes, but it has been considered round by most of the world longer than most people realize, since it was fairly well realized by the ancient Greek philosophers. The last statement is just ridiculous. The earth's roundness is not dependent on the existence of humans
    Here, instead of bringing foward into the concept of considering the earth as an intuitive leap of flat and round, he falls back on waht he knows, his knowledge, he's not grasping the N at all.

    To continue, he proves the point:

    I am talking about the history of science. I have no idea what you consider to be Ne.
    Why draw a conversation about viewing the earth in the context of an intuitive outlook with dogmatic history? Because this is what's natural to him. These are his securities, not the new-ness.

    Another example is when I posted a thread to draw a possible correlation between the law of social cycle theory, a concept in social psychology where society is put into four groups, where I drew a comparison with the 4 socionic quadras. The Ne types, ephemeros, Brilliand has something to add; they used the information to expand out with other ideas from their Ne. Logos simply dismissed it because it doesn't tie in with the existing facts, it's a new; a different idea.

    His actions on the forum are of one who cannot see the potential, he has not Ne.

    Overcomplication:
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    You are confusing concepts, namely square, circle, flat, and round. I never said that you could not imagine the earth as not being flat and round. Your floor being flat does not make it a square. I never in fact mentioned the earth in my original statement. I said "It is impossible for example to conceptualize or imagine a circle that is at the same time a square". You are incapable by the nature of the concept of a circle and a square of imagining the earth as both a circle and a square, or properly, as a sphere and a cube.
    Here he takes a concept and applies it to his own ego. Intuitively speaking, a circle can be a square, from an Ni point of view, it's the essence which makes them the same, all shapes blend into one. One can imagine these things, it is wrong of Logos to say other's can't, it is more appropriate to say he can't.

    Dogmatically arguing semantics is simply a way of not realising he doesn't intuitively grasp the concept.

    On another note, I suppose a crux of ILE supervision is that they are the stalwarts of the new. New things terrify the LSI's mode of existance and fills them with all sorts of fear. Contrast it with SLI's, they live a mode of sameness, however the Ne potential and new-ness of concepts awakens them and moves them on to other things. One is in waiting, the other is in hiding.

  17. #17
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    Are you serious? This isn't a valid argument.
    I suppose I could ask why not. Some further info might be useful.
    Do Logos' replies not simply seem like informed approaches to the topic at hand (eg: the comment about the ancient Greeks)?
    No, because it wasn't a history lesson, the point of the conversation was considering the idea of the earth being not flat but round before people were actually aware of it. It's, among other things, a pattern of behaviour that's been observed. The point of highlighting one or two examples of such things is to serve as a demonstration. If you've sort of followed conversations here and there, then it's easy to see for oneself, an overarching way. If you can't or don't recall/see it then there's maybe not a lot you or I can do. I'm not going to provide a dissertation of all his posts, would you? If you have something to bring to the table though, please do, it would be good to discuss/learn/be corrected.
    It seems as though he's supplementing Ti with Te, if anything, as opposed to Se.
    My point was how facts or knowledge is used. TiSe use it to protect, re-inforce, back up how things fit together in their world view, Te see knowledge and facts in terms of what they do with these tools. If there's Te there it's serving his Ti master so i'm not sure what point you make, or are you just trying to defend a friend? If so there is no harm in questioning his type; truth is truth, type is what we are not what we want to project to fit in.
    Why are you using that fact that he doesn't partake in the aggrandising, self-styled intellectualistic waffle that one or two of the ILEs here are fond of partaking in to retype him? Where is the real Se?
    You mis-understand me it would seem. I wasn't aware that Brilliand and myself type/are typed as ILE's, and the waffle you refer to was really just intuition on it's meandering course.

    In regards to the Se, there's been a few points already made through the thread and I don't see why the onus is being placed by you on me to do most or all of the work, at least it seems that way or it could go that way. It would therefore be great to see you make a case for his Ne, so there's at least more to bounce around with the thread, i'll try not to be lazy and sum up your whole post with "Are you serious? This isn't a valid argument" .

    Edit: until you present something of your own to the thread, I don't see the point in discussing with you.
    Last edited by Cyclops; 07-29-2009 at 01:46 PM.

  18. #18
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    Lol. You're no Einstein, hkkmr.
    Stop trying to diss me, since I was explaining why ILE often reject academia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    In most cases, I think that extensive study increases the likelihood of having better informed ideas and provides a greater pool from which to draw ideas from. I'm fairly certain that the Richard Bransons and the Donald Trumps don't invest in any old idea without thoroughly researching their market.
    I don't think I haven't been studying. If you understand a concept, you can either try and describe the concept in detail or understand it's relation to other concepts. One is quite easy to do in academics, the other not so easy. I'm not trying to be marketable, I'm just trying to understand some stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    You don't know what you're talking about in asserting that higher education necessarily puts more importance on objective qualification than intuitive comprehension.
    I don't think there is a known here in what I'm talking about because this is a opinion, a analysis of the current situation and many past situations thru history. But you're coming here with a authoritative statement here right off the bat. "You don't know...." For every person that succeeds, there's bound to be many that fail, this does not change the necessity and existence of the many attempts.

    I have some experience with academics, I know plenty of PHD grads and higher education grads. Academics is sometimes just another job...

    I think there is a necessity to have some paper so you can flash it like bling, I'll get it if I need it, but first I'm auditioning for pretty personal assistants.

  19. #19
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Why not? Have I offended you somehow?
    Why? What's the point?

  20. #20
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  21. #21
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    But it is necessary. The descriptions are limited and examples of other people are mandatory to understand the "red line" of one type, they are not hard traits. Not only that examples are mandatory, but mistypers use them already, and disciples take them for granted!
    I don't take socionics typing seriously enough to make conclusive arguments nor do I know people well enough. My typings is for my analysis and database of characters to sometimes evaluate others and sometimes re-evaluate.

    As a whole descriptions are typically poor and do not provide enough differentiation between types. Often the difference between members of a club is "prefers Fe vs Fi, or prefers Ne vs Ni". As this is the only important characteristic of people it's better to focus on true preference. As a whole the wikisocion descriptions have this flaw. The Russian descriptions often describe quite different people.

    As far as Einstein being ILI, I think you have made a mistake.

    Mystery relates more to Ne not Ni. Ni as a introverted function offers quite a bit of personal certainty. It is also dual of Se which is much more of a certain element.

    I think you have made the similar mistake with Vero, so I think perhaps the problems with some of your typings currently is a differing understanding of this functions which you've committed to.

  22. #22
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Mystery relates more to Ne not Ni.
    Oh please, I can't stand by. "Mystery" is related to Ne? Do you realize what a broad concept you're engaging here? I mean, make whatever correlations you like, but at least be specific about what you're talking about; you can't just correlate a whole WORD and the entire scope of its meaning to one function.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  23. #23
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Oh please, I can't stand by. "Mystery" is related to Ne? Do you realize what a broad concept you're engaging here? I mean, make whatever correlations you like, but at least be specific about what you're talking about; you can't just correlate a whole WORD and the entire scope of its meaning to one function.
    Why not?

    We do it all the time!

    Every symbol encompasses whole concepts.



    And here I place mystery more to to the unknown.

    comes from within us, and so my I do know although it may not be true and is not !

  24. #24
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    God, you're not even worth it.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  25. #25
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    God, you're not even worth it.
    COP OUT as usual.

  26. #26
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Were you even positing that rationale as a serious explanation? I thought you were trying to be ridiculous If not, I'll gladly make you look like a fool.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  27. #27
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Were you even positing that rationale as a serious explanation? I thought you were trying to be ridiculous If not, I'll gladly make you look like a fool.
    is a introverted function. You "know" it, you might not be certain of it, or think it might not be true, or may not like it, but it's definite. Even a fantasy you invent in your mind is very definite, although it's reality may only be in your mind. It is a personal function, personal visions.

    About the world external to us, we are less definite, concerning other objects, we are more uncertain, and there are aspects of it that we can change, control and know. But also there is incompleteness to the whole of what we perceive, which we do not know but know is there because the external world would not make sense otherwise.

    The attempt to comprehend and perceive this unknown is related to . Some call it mystery.

    And I was specifically commenting on some of the reasons why Ephemeros typed Einstein ILI vs ILE with mystery being one of the main points.

  28. #28
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    is a introverted function. You "know" it, you might not be certain of it, or think it might not be true, or may not like it, but it's definite. Even a fantasy you invent in your mind is very definite, although it's reality may only be in your mind. It is a personal function, personal visions.

    About the world external to us, we are less definite, concerning other objects, we are more uncertain, and there are aspects of it that we can change, control and know. But also there is incompleteness to the whole of what we perceive, which we do not know but know is there because the external world would not make sense otherwise.

    The attempt to comprehend and perceive this unknown is related to . Some call it mystery.

    And I was specifically commenting on some of the reasons why Ephemeros typed Einstein ILI vs ILE with mystery being one of the main points.
    Ok, this is the clarification I was asking for. But trying to analogize encompassing the word "mystery" with the functions being denoted by a shape is a wholly pathetic and fallacious comparison; I hope you realize that.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  29. #29
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  30. #30
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Higher education tends to have a mind-numbing effect on people too, it provides a certainty of skills and qualifications that sometimes hinders intuitive comprehension.
    I agree; I think that higher education has the effect of diluting one's natural type, whatever that might be (because of the many different types of professors that must be satisfied to get the degree). It is not possible to "live and let live" when taking a class from, say, your conflictor (though most students will probably not have to deal with anything worse than Extinguishment).



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  31. #31
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  32. #32
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,936
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree that 'intuition' need make things unnecessarily abstract - I think when used well at least, it can make things very clear and in a effective manner. I do agree though that Logos does avoid complicating things unnecessarily though.

  33. #33
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    What's stopping you from exploring relationships to other concepts in your own time though?
    I do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    Beyond the undergraduate classes, there are people that have diversified and/or switched fields entirely because they've followed through ideas relating concepts. There are research institutes that specifically focus on merging ideas from different fields.
    I want to avoid homework, most test taking, most publishing, most of all the bullshit which I am not particularly fond of in my life.

    I am more of a less working and more thinking person. I've done pretty good in my life doing this instead of what others do, but I do think I will need to prove some studies one day, I'm OK with getting some help to accomplish my goals which is why I'm auditioning for pretty personal assistants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    Yes, that's right. It's a matter of opinion and personal circumstance which renders comments such as these extraneous to anyone but yourself:
    I don't think what I said is wrong, because I think there is a great deal of indoctrination that exists in all education. And I value my personal opinion quite a bit, I just hope it's also true some of the time. Pardon me if I don't give a shit about yours.

    You definitely have some interest in defending higher education which I don't fault you for. I also value higher education, but I view higher education as a obstacle and challenge rather then a tool. The tool is my mind.

    I talk with post-grads and PHD's all the time, consider my parents have multiple degrees and my friends often have masters going for something more. I always find that my comprehension is never lacking, only some mundane detail which I can utilize their expertise in taming. Where I find a issue with comprehension, I address this with research.

  34. #34
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    Metaphorically, the Ne is not interested in the cave itself, but that it may contain something interesting, to enter it Ne needs to find a coin or spot of blood not far. Those strict objects which are hidden in the cave are the interest of Ne, the pile of gold or bodies, when those are uncovered than it's over.

    Ni's are interested in the cave as it can hide secrets, the whole idea of a cave, the fact that it hides something inside, unimportant of what it hides. The Ni is the explorer, the systematizer of caves, the speleologist, the unifier of cave exploration (especially crossed with Te).
    What is the Ego, what is the Id.

    Bohr's obfuscation of quantum mechanics was more a example of cave "hiding" with a predictable formula.

    A example of Ni leading, Ne ignoring.

    I think your ideas about Ni and Ne are often spot on, but you ignore the location of these functions within the mental and vital rings.

  35. #35
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,936
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ni types masy well be internal-seeking cave dwellers, but how does that make Ne types less likely to make intuitions about objects and engage in mystery?

  36. #36
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  37. #37
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,936
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    If you're asking me, that's not what I meant, I talked about a different approach on mystery. Do you understand the difference of the two positions in the "cave" example (even if you don't agree which is which)?
    I did not use that formulation ("intuitions about objects and engage...") so I don't know if you refer to what I've said earlier in thread.
    Yes, I somewhat get that cave analogy. But a definition of 'mystery' is: "something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained" - I think that could apply both to Ne and Ni in different ways...I don't think the fact that is an extroveted function neccesarily means it less to do with 'mystery' than . I could argue for example that an type is more likely to know how they derived their thinking than an type because they are introverted and can reasonably be expected to know the steps their internal thinking process followed than an type.

  38. #38
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained
    Nothing ( at least) cannot be explained... we just don't have an explanation yet. So I want to fix that...



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  39. #39
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,936
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Nothing ( at least) cannot be explained... we just don't have an explanation yet. So I want to fix that...
    But an attempt to explain absolutely everything may seem inexplicable, even to the types themselves.

  40. #40
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    But an attempt to explain absolutely everything may seem inexplicable, even to the types themselves.
    Eh? I'm well aware that I'll never explain everything, but that's due to quantity, not quality.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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