Can you make a post describing yourself? Feel free to include a description of how you see ILEs in general; or ILEs that you've known.
ENTps: can you describe yourselves?
Can you make a post describing yourself? Feel free to include a description of how you see ILEs in general; or ILEs that you've known.
They're incapable of taking responsibility. This is what their PoLR is all about. When you put in clear light in what way their influence is destructive/negative/misdirected they go out of their way to make up an alternative interpretation of events in which they are the heroes and saviors again. The option of taking a step back and admitting guilt is impossible to conceive for them.
INTjs hate taking responsibility too, but they understand to a larger extent that it's the necessary thing to do sometimes.
New angle!
I'd like a collection of adjectives.
"Adventurous, kooky, ravishingly handsome", things like that. Preferably things you personally identify with.
Externally spontaneous, internally linear.Originally Posted by Brian
That is to say I may think something through in my head and then only impart the finished conclusion or question to the people around me. Though it may be random to my best friend when I ask, "Isn't it weird how blah blah blah" while we're driving, in reality this whole train of thought was triggered by something I saw out the window and a whole series of subsequent analysis has led me to this seemingly spontaneous question or statement.
Socially playful, Intellectually serious
Not to say that we're necessarily serious-face about intellectual matters, but we can get rather involved in what we're interested in and we like to dig down to the truth of that subject. Sometimes we can get a little stubborn, but mostly we want to keep the personal and emotional out of discursive analysis. That said, if you ask a question, be prepared for an animated answer.
Animated highs, Lethargic lows
Our energy levels are not particularly stable. We can be excited and expressive one minute, then mellow and lazy the next. Not to say that we're bi-polar or anything, but we tend to ride the highs and lows of whatever stimulus we have or find.
Comfort Slut
I can easily disregard my own well-being for extended periods. I can forget to eat, put off sleep in the excitement of an interest, etc. But when good food is in front of me or I settle into the comforts of my nest-bed I'm wallowing in the pleasure of it. I have a hard time resisting my own indulgences. Either I'm too distracted to indulge, or I'm whoring up all the comforts and pleasures I love. Additionally, I much prefer something like relaxing at home with my boyfriend to getting wasted at a party. I like being around all the people, but I prefer the comfort of home.
Fun = Creative, Open, Light-hearted, Accepting
My room mate would think that going to a party with an apartment literally filled with balloons is retarded. He would probably only enjoy it to destroy all the balloons. "Being ridiculous," as he calls it. I don't understand this. I go to a party filled with balloons because I love the creativity and adventure of it all. I like the fact that it's essentially a giant ball pit. I like the fact that those people create a relaxed and hilarious social environment with no demands or expectations, unlike aforementioned roomie who pressures you into doing what he thinks is fun (getting stupidly drunk and acting like a belligerent asshole). In May my balloon-party friends are having a going away party for a friend who loves lego. As a by-product we're making a lego party with life-size lego blocks made of paper boxes. Yes, we even took the time to design them so they could be inter-locking. Yes, this will also involve fortress-building and nerf-gun fights. Yes, we're painting our faces yellow and pretending to be lego people. Yes, we're all above the age of twenty. No, we will never grow up
There are more things, but I'm feeling motivated to continue working on my project that I need to hand in in 9 hours...
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
Can you please provide me the blueprints for aforementioned lego blocks? I think I could have a lot of fun with this...Externally spontaneous, internally linear.
That is to say I may think something through in my head and then only impart the finished conclusion or question to the people around me. Though it may be random to my best friend when I ask, "Isn't it weird how blah blah blah" while we're driving, in reality this whole train of thought was triggered by something I saw out the window and a whole series of subsequent analysis has led me to this seemingly spontaneous question or statement.
Socially playful, Intellectually serious
Not to say that we're necessarily serious-face about intellectual matters, but we can get rather involved in what we're interested in and we like to dig down to the truth of that subject. Sometimes we can get a little stubborn, but mostly we want to keep the personal and emotional out of discursive analysis. That said, if you ask a question, be prepared for an animated answer.
Animated highs, Lethargic lows
Our energy levels are not particularly stable. We can be excited and expressive one minute, then mellow and lazy the next. Not to say that we're bi-polar or anything, but we tend to ride the highs and lows of whatever stimulus we have or find.
Comfort Slut
I can easily disregard my own well-being for extended periods. I can forget to eat, put off sleep in the excitement of an interest, etc. But when good food is in front of me or I settle into the comforts of my nest-bed I'm wallowing in the pleasure of it. I have a hard time resisting my own indulgences. Either I'm too distracted to indulge, or I'm whoring up all the comforts and pleasures I love. Additionally, I much prefer something like relaxing at home with my boyfriend to getting wasted at a party. I like being around all the people, but I prefer the comfort of home.
Fun = Creative, Open, Light-hearted, Accepting
My room mate would think that going to a party with an apartment literally filled with balloons is retarded. He would probably only enjoy it to destroy all the balloons. "Being ridiculous," as he calls it. I don't understand this. I go to a party filled with balloons because I love the creativity and adventure of it all. I like the fact that it's essentially a giant ball pit. I like the fact that those people create a relaxed and hilarious social environment with no demands or expectations, unlike aforementioned roomie who pressures you into doing what he thinks is fun (getting stupidly drunk and acting like a belligerent asshole). In May my balloon-party friends are having a going away party for a friend who loves lego. As a by-product we're making a lego party with life-size lego blocks made of paper boxes. Yes, we even took the time to design them so they could be inter-locking. Yes, this will also involve fortress-building and nerf-gun fights. Yes, we're painting our faces yellow and pretending to be lego people. Yes, we're all above the age of twenty. No, we will never grow up
There are more things, but I'm feeling motivated to continue working on my project that I need to hand in in 9 hours...
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Get back in your box, be it coloured and interlocking or otherwise.The confession:
I am no longer perplexed at your hypocrisy. A sample of reality:
The totally opposite thing and this is the n-th time this happens! Hello! Dos anybody hears out there? Are you people brainwashed?
---
I personally contrast (and probably Vero will write down this too for the future) in respect of interests. The interests make me both get messed-up or tired, or more than anything - refuse parties. I'd like to go party but most of the time I have something much more interesting to do and this is why I miss them all (almost).
This may not be type-related, but how could I gather the socionics users themselves and not talk about Socionics?
She talks big (standard) words about her ("ILE") "interests" but that actually is never proven.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Pinocchio, I've got to say I've never quite met anyone so eager to jump on unconsidered bits of info without respect to their context just to champion their pet ideas and stroke their ego.
It's not logically sound to conclude Vero dislikes parties. She could easily prefer nights in with her bf over parties (while liking them) AND still want to party with socionics people who come to visit. It would be ridiculous to invite us up there so we could all hang out with her bf at home and, considering the cast of awesome characters involved, the only conclusion is booze-ridden shenanigans.
As for it being social and non-socionical, well, you haven't been to the last couple of meets to know why that might be relevant, right? :wink:
Hmm, some adjectives that I would say describe me:
Creative, innovative, silly, open-minded, experimental, flexible, easy-going, laid-back, quirky, nerdy, geeky, logical, non-judgemental, accepting, down to earth, enthusiastic, optimistic, calm, witty, sarcastic, youthful, irresponsible, childish, random, wandering, unconventional, ugabuga...
...Pinocchio, I've got to say I've never quite met anyone so eager to jump on unconsidered bits of info without respect to their context just to champion their pet ideas and stroke their ego.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
ILEs face anxiety when giving out wrong information to people, whether in general or in the course of their job -- Ti ego. An exception is if they're proposing a new or untested idea, or something highly intuitive. Another exception is if the information concerns aspects of their personal life somehow, which it is nobody's business to pry into anyway -- Fi PoLR.
An ILE might forcefully pretend that he's right and not admit to being wrong, and it's usually easy to find a loop hole in the opponent's logic that would allow that without sacrificing objectivity too much. The need to keep up the appearance of being right is consistent with valued Fe. In secret, most keep careful track of their errors in order to correct them, because the danger of failing to be objective is much greater than the need to hold on to some desired image. ILEs are very hard on themselves.
I don't see what Fi PoLR has to do with lack of responsibility. SLEs are highly responsible to people under their command or those that accept their authority.
ILEs are very hardworking when the work is novel and interesting; they simply need a signal from their Ne before they start to use Te.
ILEs and SLEs aren't responsible in the classic sense, of adhering to a strict set of arbitrary behavioral rules and regulations, like inside any organization. But you'll find that most irrationals (particularly EPs) aren't.
Last edited by xerx; 03-26-2010 at 11:41 AM.
Wrong/right info is a Te thing; something an ENTp can technically do OK, but won't until someone forces them to or provides the argument in the most explicit possible way. This is one of the irritating habits of theirs towards the Serious (Te/Fi) function axis: the only way to make them realize their actions are morally repugnant is to spell out the details of their error. The Ti ego refers to how they are confident in their ability to propone views of their own machination; it's typically interested in those views that aren't proven correct yet and may very well be malicious in the final analysis.ILEs face anxiety when giving out wrong information to people, whether in general or in the course of their job -- Ti ego.
Funny. Here we have a random user of the16types.info saying ENTps don't pry into peoples' lives and a shitload of official socionics descriptions listing the opposite as a typical chracteristic of theirs. Who shall I believe...An exception is if they're proposing a new or untested idea, or something highly intuitive. Another exception is if the information concerns aspects of their personal life somehow, which it is nobody's business to pry into anyway -- Fi PoLR.
I would never call them forceful per say. Most of the time they act like they actions aren't a big deal, they just throw them out there and divorce themselves from the products. It's an important part of that view of an irresponsible person I alluded to earlier that reinforces rather than corrodes it.An ILE might forcefully pretend that he's right and not admit to being wrong, and it's usually easy to find a loop hole in the opponent's logic that would allow that without sacrificing objectivity too much.
ISFjs are hard on themselves to the point you wouldn't believe it. INTps are too. INTjs are to a minor extent and ENTps...? Lol. They don't appear anywhere near the top of that list.The need to keep up the appearance of being right is consistent with valued Fe. In secret, most keep careful track of their errors in order to correct them, because the danger of failing to be objective is much greater than the need to hold on to some desired image. ILEs are very hard on themselves.
It has everything to do with it. It's how the Fi PoLR should be defined. Fi is the function of responisiblity.I don't see what Fi PoLR has to do with lack of responsibility.
Serious irrationals are responsible in a kind of meta-honest sense. They manifest responsiblity towards their ideals when the organizations fail to. I see no inconsistencies whatsoever.ILEs and SLEs aren't responsible in the classic sense, of adhering to a strict set of arbitrary behavioral rules and regulations, like inside any organization. But you'll find that most irrationals (particularly EPs) aren't.
We're all more "responsible" to our ego elements and not so much to our weaker or unvalued elements. For a ILE to be timely, focused on something not of their interests is what makes ILE irresponsible in positions that require these qualities. So they are not a type that caters to others. They also don't care too much to gain from catering to others.
Now being timely and working on things not of your interest is something many many people do and have to do in order to survive, and there are a lot of ILE who are forced thru material circumstances to adopt these sort of roles in order to survive. In truth, ILE is just not a slave nor a master and wish to escape such a circumstance for themselves without dying and losing a lot of social pleasures that exists as a part of society.
Some people call me a very responsible person and some people call me a very helpful person, but I am very honest about not taking on many responsibilities. Only those that I can fulfill and succeed in. People in my life have always asked me to do this or that or take charge in this or that. I reject them constantly yet it does not end. Yet in a emergency I can be very successful because other peoples need can be very interesting to me. There are situations in life which others will speed dial me on in life but they know enough to leave me alone otherwise.
Fi is not the only function of responsibility, maybe of responsibility to family and personal responsibility and perhaps some sense of moral responsibility.
Se is the function of organization responsibility and hierarchy. This is why titles, status, position are important aspects of Se.
Conventional ideas of responsibility and hierarchy are pretty much neccessary for people, mostly because people are totally incapable of surviving or doing much of anything without complying with these rules and the needs of others. A ILE believes themselves to be anything but this.
It's not they think they can go it alone and be super successful, but they can go it alone and it will be OK.
This is more or less ideal circumstances for a ILE, because it is freedom.
Typing House MD as ENTp is a very controversial move. To base any view as to what ENTps are typically like on that character (which, I might add, is fictional to begin with) would be a great example of the kind of irresponsibility I am talking about.
I've typed House on a lot of occasions and this is info I've used to type house. Rather I typed House based on what I quoted! Not the other way around. I guess it is a sort of a circular reference but take it as you will.
The funny thing is that I said this same exact sentiment when I was maybe 15 or so to my friend not based on some story or what not but rather based on my personal experience.
SOMEONE WROTE this, someone felt this, some might have heard this and someone gave this dialogue to a character.
Anyways, plenty of other Alpha NT's have reflected the same sentiment. People like Spinoza and other philosophers.
For Spinoza passion are not emotions like joy, happiness and the like but rather attachment to such emotions or things or people or whatever. Also it is not that Spinoza denies passion completely, but rather only actions based on these attachments, rather he proposes that we counter actions based on attachment with action based on reason.
leads to
rather then
But I'm leaving out the most important aspect of his philosophy which is contemplation of God/Nature.
I use a lot of historical/architypical figures in how I discuss things so you will have to bear with me, because I have a hard time just saying this is how I feel as truth without someone within this particular space time continuum echoing such a thought.
Anyways, more House quotes, because somewhere there is probably a ILE writing dialogue.
Last edited by mu4; 03-26-2010 at 04:02 PM.
It's interesting that you identify with this part of the quote and at the same time don't give a shit that 90% of all people type House different from the way you do. If Spinoza was alive and here today, he would have considered you a poor student of his writing.
labcoat, are you purposefully derailing my thread to try and find out why I made it? Or did I just open the pandora's box of worms here?
Pandora has been collecting worms for a long time.labcoat, are you purposefully derailing my thread to try and find out why I made it? Or did I just open the pandora's box of worms here?
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
Why the accusation? I just want to get at part of the reality around the ENTp type which you wouldn't get if you just politely ask them about it. I'm doing your thread a service.
Providing correct information is something that I associate with both Te and Ti.
On the one hand, Te egos find it uncomfortable to give out wrong factual information pure and simple.
On the other, Ti egos find it uncomfortable to give out wrong information that might impede the induction of the correct conclusion, but the focus isn't on the accuracy of the facts themselves just the resulting system. A Ti ego is more likely to provide looser facts that seem to him "good enough" to form an opinion.
An ILE might offer up a hypothetical theory without explanation, and just assume that everyone understands its hypothetical nature.
An ILE might also not thoroughly explain the facts, or be a little presumptuous about the conclusion, because of weaker Ti/Te than an xxTj, but that can hardly be called morally repugnant.
What sort of actions would an ILE do that are "morally repugnant" iyo?
Link? I must not have read it.Funny. Here we have a random user of the16types.info saying ENTps don't pry into peoples' lives and a shitload of official socionics descriptions listing the opposite as a typical chracteristic of theirs. Who shall I believe...
I'd have thought that someone with strong ethics would find people interesting enough to pry into strangers' lives. Also quite often I notice that Beta STs (or all STs ?) inspect the lives of those around them in order to provide advice.
For me, what people discuss openly is enough to know most of what goes on in their lives, and most of it isn't interesting enough to pry into.
If you're referring to the use of surveillance, Gulenko associates that with the Beta quadra and types Dr. House as Beta because of, among other things, his use of surveillance on the show.
If you mean suddenly abandoning former pursuits, like completely abandoning current ventures and starting new ones from scratch, not having any follow through, then that's a trait of both Ne dominants: ILEs and IEEs. Rick talks about it.I would never call them forceful per say. Most of the time they act like they actions aren't a big deal, they just throw them out there and divorce themselves from the products. It's an important part of that view of an irresponsible person I alluded to earlier that reinforces rather than corrodes it.
What other sorts of actions do you mean?
Fi PoLR is about completely ignoring social taboos or other preset emotional attitudes that might impede an objective (Ti) reading of the situation. FiSe feels like a kind of self-imposed censorship, where you can't consider different ideas and possibilities. Fi PoLR ignores ethical attitudes that are seen as restrictive.ISFjs are hard on themselves to the point you wouldn't believe it. INTps are too. INTjs are to a minor extent and ENTps...? Lol. They don't appear anywhere near the top of that list.
It has everything to do with it. It's how the Fi PoLR should be defined. Fi is the function of responisiblity.
I never meant to imply that ILEs are at the top of the heap or that they're as socially responsible as LxEs. Clearly, we're no where near as stodgy as that. But what you're implying is that ILEs are less responsible than children, which is a ridiculous and clearly biased viewpoint that has no precedent in anything I've read about socionics.
In case you've forgotten, ILEs also have strong Te, which is the function of productivity. ESIs aren't as productive because of very weak Te. ILEs can (and often do) take on many more responsibilities than ESIs in an organization.
A typical "irresponsibility" that an ILE might commit is not respecting established working hours (like going for breaks at the wrong time, being late), working differently, forgetting formal behavioral policies set forth by the company (like forgetting to politely address the boss) -- but still manage to finish his work satisfactorily.
Very morally reprehensible indeed.
But actually, ILEs are very hard on themselves in
I was referring to the fact that, according to Rick, in organizational settings IEEs blow formalities out of proportion, whereas ILEs like to be obligated in some way (because those obligations are easy to perform).Serious irrationals are responsible in a kind of meta-honest sense. They manifest responsiblity towards their ideals when the organizations fail to. I see no inconsistencies whatsoever.
90% of all people are probably stupid and liars...
Wait.. House thought that too..
Spinoza thought that too for that matter. He was a very lonesome man in a world mostly hostile to him. Certainly he wasn't expecting the world around him to all of a sudden agree with him.
Aw snap!
Anyways, enough people type House ILE that it's meaningless for me to dismiss my personal assessment. Anyways I think David Shore is also ILE.
Anyways, you seem to be picking very small details you find contention with to comment on which I add to illustrate prior points. If you want to excise these comments and then discuss everything else I've written feel free, because the argument still exist beyond your minor contention that House is not ILE or whatever your assumption about Spinoza is.
Comment on this or shut it.
Last edited by mu4; 03-26-2010 at 04:22 PM.
Re: giving wrong information - I would NOT want to give someone information that will contradict something else that I might say later on. If I'm free about giving others correct information, then inevitably any wrong thing I say will cause me to contradict myself.
It's enough of a bother when I change my mind and find that my past statements are contradicting my current statements... no one else seems to notice, though.
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
Yes, we're getting to the heart of your confusion.Providing correct information is something that I associate with both Te and Ti.
More or less true.On the one hand, Te egos find it uncomfortable to give out wrong factual information pure and simple.
Thing is, if the appeal of the system doesn't depend on the facts, the system must be upheld for some other reason... You're proving my point by saying this.On the other, Ti egos find it uncomfortable to give out wrong information that might impede the induction of the correct conclusion, but the focus isn't on the accuracy of the facts themselves just the resulting system. A Ti ego is more likely to provide looser facts that seem to him "good enough" to form an opinion.
Yes they tend towards being elitistic intellectuals like that. I don't see why their Ti should be called weak, though. Nothing wrong with it (how does any of this help your appeal?).An ILE might offer up a hypothetical theory without explanation, and just assume that everyone understands its hypothetical nature.
An ILE might also not thoroughly explain the facts, or be a little presumptuous about the conclusion, because of weaker Ti/Te than an xxTj, but that can hardly be called morally repugnant.
Nothing big. Wasting resources in pursuit of pipe dreams, killing millions by inventing communism...What sort of actions would an ILE do that are "morally repugnant" iyo?
₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪Link? I must not have read it.
No I don't mean that, I mean the kind of action I describe.If you mean suddenly abandoning former pursuits, like completely abandoning current ventures and starting new ones from scratch, not having any follow through, then that's a trait of both Ne dominants: ILEs and IEEs. Rick talks about it.
What other sorts of actions do you mean?
I guess the socionists calling Ti a subjectivist function must be wrong then. I'm sure they'll drop their views when they here they are being contested by the great jtxrss.Fi PoLR is about completely ignoring social taboos or other preset emotional attitudes that might impede an objective (Ti) reading of the situation. FiSe feels like a kind of self-imposed censorship, where you can't consider different ideas and possibilities. Fi PoLR ignores ethical attitudes that are seen as restrictive.
Try the ExIs. LxEs try to be responsible but don't always manage to. They have the tools, but not the right mentality.I never meant to imply that ILEs are at the top of the heap or that they're as socially responsible as LxEs.
Seems sort of empirically unfounded, this. ENTps hate producing stuff for the sake of doing so. Even ENTps themselves complain about it.In case you've forgotten, ILEs also have strong Te, which is the function of productivity. ESIs aren't as productive because of very weak Te. ILEs can (and often do) take on many more responsibilities than ESIs in an organization.
Yes their irresponsibility spreads across the whole spectrum of severity like that.A typical "irresponsibility" that an ILE might commit is not respecting established working hours (like going for breaks at the wrong time, being late), working differently, forgetting formal behavioral policies set forth by the company (like forgetting to politely address the boss) -- but still manage to finish his work satisfactorily.
Tautological. We can not distinguish levels of responsiblity between types under such a paradigm.But actually, ILEs are very hard on themselves in
Paranoia is why!
I actually just wanted to knit together a description that, when related to an ILE, would make them go "how'd you do that?"
Surface motive.
Ulterior motive: I thought the above would be helpful if I'm ILE hunting. Which I intend to be.
People die, resources are wasted(hell of a good time occasionally) with or without pipe dreams or communism or ILEs. Marx had his version of communism, which nobody implemented but the world was ready for revolution which happened. UN sanctions have killed more people via starvation then any communist policy in the past 60 years, yet the onus is placed on communism or despotic-ism or some other ideology. The thing about war is that people die and UN sanction is no more then the modern form of siege.
The thing about socially progressive movements in the last 150 years is that in the developed world where wealth redistribution regulations were implemented on industrialized capitalist societies, the standard of living has been increased greatly.
Communism is one answer to the ills of capitalism which is one answer to the ills of feudalism, it was never developed as a solution to peasant societies such as Russia and China who did not undergo the industrialization that existed in the world Marx was talking about. What Marx was wrong about was inevitable revolution in capitalist society but he was born and live in the midst of revolution.
Hey it's ok if you want to make some political point, but don't be a lair and fraud about it.
If there is one thing about ILE's and their thought, is that they will be mis-interpreted and hated by some for what they think and say.
Last edited by mu4; 03-26-2010 at 04:47 PM.
Oh, and correcting falsehood makes for a great social weapon...
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
I like your ulterior motive.
*insert witty comment here*
You justify yourself in a funny way. What is your reasoning for thinking you're part of the 10% and not the 90? Do you really think this is what Spinoza meant when he talked about intellectual honesty? Solipsism can be used to deny the holocaust you know. It's a shortcut to a view where anything you want to be true can be if you just ignore the right set of sources.
Your doing that interpretation thing I mentioned. I like your view of the events, it's positive and hopeful. I just worry about the fact that you display this vision and not the pessimistic one. Hm, liar and fraud. A good way to detect a bad argument is too see whether "right back at you" is a counter to it. So there.
I'm pretty sure, in fact almost certain, I'm stupid and a liar, but I don't want that getting out to others.
I care very little for how you come about your own personal conclusions. But you assigned cause to something so indirect as to be hundred of years later in a enviroment totally different to the enviroment being discussed.
Then again, I actually have a very hard time talking about certain things I think I understand because of the ramification and the problem of interpretation. The problem with saying some true things which are not yet well known is that invariable one will be wrong or inexact about many aspects of those words. And interpreted by others, across space and time, error are compounded by errors.
Oh well, moment of reflection over...
Life is too short and boring to not do something interesting.
Hm, interesting. Up to this point I thought your type was incapable of honesty. Now it seems it just takes a bit of incentive.I'm pretty sure, in fact almost certain, I'm stupid and a liar, but I don't want that getting out to others.
Oh please, there is nothing weird or irrational about claiming there to be a connection between a guy suggesting a benevolent state distrubute resources "fairly" accross it's subjects and a bunch of other people using that same state for nefarious ends. The guy made an elephant sized oversight on top of proponing dubious views on human equalty and absence of the need for meritocracy.I care very little for how you come about your own personal conclusions. But you assigned cause to something so indirect as to be hundred of years later in a enviroment totally different to the enviroment being discussed.
Hm yes. We can't accuse Marx of making the world a less interesting place. That's one thing we agree on.Then again, I actually have a very hard time talking about certain things I think I understand because of the ramification and the problem of interpretation. The problem with saying some true things which are not yet well known is that invariable one will be wrong or inexact about many aspects of those words. And interpreted by others, across space and time, error are compounded by errors.
Oh well, moment of reflection over...
Life is too short and boring to not do something interesting.
Nonsense. I wouldn't uphold a faulty system just to satisfy my ego. You might though. You're forgetting that Ti creatives easily discard systems when they become useless.
IME Elitist intellectuals tend to be EIEs and ILIs, and sometimes LIEs and IEIs. Ni egos are better at that gig.Yes they tend towards being elitistic intellectuals like that. I don't see why their Ti should be called weak, though. Nothing wrong with it (how does any of this help your appeal?).
No more than Nietzsche is responsible for the rise of Adolph ******, or Stalin for Saddam Hussein. I expected more from you than a tired cliche.Nothing big. Wasting resources in pursuit of pipe dreams, killing millions by inventing communism...
Leopold II (ILE) certainly was a monster though. Curious though, what level of responsibility would you give to Richard Nixon (ESI)?
What about Woodrow Wilson's (ESI) plan to sterilize all the Blacks in Haiti and his breaking of his main campaign promise not to take America into war?
Alan Greenspan's deregulation of the markets that led to the economic crisis, based on a religious (not empirical) conviction in deregulation?
How do you rank Julius Caesar on your Fi masturbatory scale?
Mel Gibson and his anti-semitism?
Robespierre?
I just read both articles about ILEs on that site, and it didn't say anything about prying into people's lives.
You never gave specifics. Divorce themselves from products? Wtf does that even mean?No I don't mean that, I mean the kind of action I describe.
I didn't realize the ever so arrogant labcoat had such a literal mindset. Last I checked, Ti was the function that produced correlations between existing bodies of knowledge.I guess the socionists calling Ti a subjectivist function must be wrong then. I'm sure they'll drop their views when they here they are being contested by the great jtxrss.
Does that mean the ExIs have the right mentality but not the tools? So I guess they're not really that responsible. Only potentially responsible.Try the ExIs. LxEs try to be responsible but don't always manage to. They have the tools, but not the right mentality.
Whoever said it was "for the sake of doing so?"Seems sort of empirically unfounded, this. ENTps hate producing stuff for the sake of doing so. Even ENTps themselves complain about it.
-Money is usually involved.
-A job can be a creative outlet.
-Ne can find ways to make something fun.
I find it hard to believe that an ESI (a gamma) would take responsibility if no money were involved just for the sake of it.
Your definition of responsibility is narrow and useless, and tautologically defined to mostly reflect the qualities of ExIs. This is the problem IMO of trying to attach a literal sense to any of the subjective traits associated with socionics.Yes their irresponsibility spreads across the whole spectrum of severity like that.
What's worse is that you conflate responsibility over trifles with moral righteousness. At least you seem to.
Then we cannot distinguish levels of responsibility. Period.Tautological. We can not distinguish levels of responsiblity between types under such a paradigm.
Denying something doesn't make it untrue, jxrtes. The reinterpretation thing is getting old.Nonsense. I wouldn't uphold a faulty system just to satisfy my ego. You might though. You're forgetting that Ti creatives easily discard systems when they become useless.
Anyone but yourselves huh, anyone but yourselves...IME Elitist intellectuals tend to be EIEs and ILIs, and sometimes LIEs and IEIs. Ni egos are better at that gig.
Why aren't they? One has to take in account more than just the intended result of one's actions.No more than Nietzsche is responsible for the rise of Adolph ******, or Stalin for Saddam Hussein.
Ask a historian. There are justifications for all their cases if you just look for them. I don't support your typings just on your say-so either.Leopold II (ILE) certainly was a monster though. Curious though, what level of responsibility would you give to Richard Nixon (ESI)?
What about Woodrow Wilson's (ESI) plan to sterilize all the Blacks in Haiti and his breaking of his main campaign promise not to take America into war?
Alan Greenspan's deregulation of the markets that led to the economic crisis, based on a religious (not empirical) conviction in deregulation?
How do you rank Julius Caesar on your Fi masturbatory scale?
Mel Gibson and his anti-semitism?
Robespierre?
"rudely butt into conversations", "don't know how to keep psychological distance", "don't fix their mistakes after apologizing" then induce for the general pattern. If something is mentioned in a description at all, it's a hint for a bigger trend.I just read both articles about ILEs on that site, and it didn't say anything about prying into people's lives.
Exactly that they don't take responsibility for the effect of their actions. I don't need to spell the details out to you.You never gave specifics. Divorce themselves from products? Wtf does that even mean?
I don't appreciate insults. You can forget about the rest of your hairsplitting arguments as they are clearly not made with the intent of furthering the discussion. I tried to get the facts accross here but you make that impossible by making a charicature out of the pursuit of truth. You're probably not an ENTp, by the way.I didn't realize the ever so arrogant labcoat had such a literal mindset. Last I checked, Ti was the function that produced correlations between existing bodies of knowledge.
Uh. Huh. Because asserting something with no evidence and a loose interpretation of Fi PoLR is much better.
I suppose whenever somebody idiotically misinterprets your theoretical posts, that makes you responsible.Why aren't they? One has to take in account more than just the intended result of one's actions.
Are you suggesting there is a suitable justification for the sterilization of a population? I guess it's ok if he was such a nice, responsible citizen that didn't butt into conversations.Ask a historian. There are justifications for all their cases if you just look for them.
They're not just my typings. But whatever you might think of the rest, Julius Caesar and Richard Nixon are universally typed Gamma.I don't support your typings just on your say-so either.
What I said about your simplistic definition of responsibility. And at least two of those statements have nothing to do with responsibility as it's defined anywhere."rudely butt into conversations", "don't know how to keep psychological distance", "don't fix their mistakes after apologizing" then induce for the general pattern. If something is mentioned in a description at all, it's a hint for a bigger trend.
Exactly that they don't take responsibility for the effect of their actions. I don't need to spell the details out to you.
You called an entire type morally repugnant and you can't handle being called arrogant? I suspected from the first post that you were just trolling and having some fun, and it certainly seems that way, but you've made blanket inflammatory statements about certain types in the past so I couldn't be 100% sure. I'm leaving this discussion now.I don't appreciate insults. You can forget about the rest of your hairsplitting arguments as they are clearly not made with the intent of furthering the discussion. I tried to get the facts accross here but you make that impossible by making a charicature out of the pursuit of truth. You're probably not an ENTp, by the way.
What kind of evidence do you ever want in a field as vague as socionics? Your attitude here is childishly needy.Uh. Huh. Because asserting something with no evidence and a loose interpretation of Fi PoLR is much better.
I don't spread these views on nearly as large a scale as the examples I gave did. I can afford to be misinterpreted, they could not.I suppose whenever somebody idiotically misinterprets your theoretical posts, that makes you responsible.
Anything we know about Caesar today is an interpretation of the past, not the real version. Nixon had a mixed bag of positive and negative character traits on top of those occasioned by his type and lived in times that required a pragmatic approach from him. ISFjs do have Ti role functions, you know, and politics is just one of those places you can't get around their use.Julius Caesar and Richard Nixon are universally typed Gamma.
The topic of discussion was "prying into people's lives", genius. It had nothing to do with the responsibility issue.What I said about your simplistic definition of responsibility. And at least two of those statements have nothing to do with responsibility as it's defined anywhere.
Last edited by krieger; 03-26-2010 at 08:35 PM.
Have you heard of this?
Every ILE out there are implanted with Ne technology and Ti microprocessors that only this state of the art device can pick up via GPS. Locate ILEs anywhere in the world with the amazing ENTp Locator 200X!
Pick up the phone right away, don't delay, call today.
Actually not exactly true, either you're ignorant of the literature or you're lying.
This is Meritocracy, meritocracy tend to fail, because merit is subjective, and when people seek to make merit objective it becomes some sort of certification and testing system which inevitably leads to inherited and systematic inequalities which do not reflect personal ability. Usually this is what ILE seek to overthrow, systematic and inherited inequalities so personal potential can flourish.
This isn't meritocracy nor is it forced standardized distribution, but leaves some areas discussed. The problem of interpretation is that when people assume that everything said is everything that can be said, one makes a fundamental mistake. The most important things are what is left unsaid for various reasons.
You're wrong if you believe Marx had no concept of human inequality. He tried to get in contact with Darwin and was certainly a Darwinist(if you could call someone that in those days).
The Key to communism isn't equality, but rather that exploitation should not occur and that people should have the opportunity to overcome the situation of their birth. You must realize that in the time of his writing, birth largely determined one's future. (It still does, but certainly we are better off in many ways).
His message was:
The fundamental nature of his philosophy is one of struggle and how we struggle with inequality. Inequality is natural and real but how do we deal with it? Brutality? Alienation? Cooperation? Benevolence? Fairness?
Were the workers of his time inherently less capable then aristocracy? Did they deserve their condition of life because they were born into poverty and destitution.
For all the failings of his ideas we should recognize that it has brought billions of people into the modern age and improved their welfare objectively despite all it's misinterpretations by his followers. Fundamentally his ideas were democratic and egalitarian. He is as much a disciple of Spinoza as Hegel or Einstein and many others.
It's no coincidence that Einstein was a socialist too or Orwell, one of English literature foremost critics of the Soviet system.
Why Socialism? Albert Einstein - Monthly Review
This changed how people thought by quite a bit and it won't end for the foreseeable future.
Let's look at policy recommendations.
The funniest thing about Marx is that most of what he wanted has come to pass even in places where he is hated and despised. Why? That is the beauty of reason. Beyond ideology, reality determines policy.
The problem of ideology is that people tend to think that ideology which they are opposed to is totally wrong and need to be destroyed, but in their endeavors they do not realize it is themselves they are destroying.
ILE's are voyeurs and meddlers, not connectors.
Point 1: I acknowledge the fact that the soviets were "abusing" Marx' naive system in the post you quoted.This is Meritocracy, meritocracy tend to fail, because merit is subjective, and when people seek to make merit objective it becomes some sort of certification and testing system which inevitably leads to inherited and systematic inequalities which do not reflect personal ability. Usually this is what ILE seek to overthrow, systematic and inherited inequalities so personal potential can flourish.
Point 2:
Just that there is one brand of meritocracy that fails doesn't mean it is faulty as a general principle. The free market is meritocratic. It lets people reap the benefits of their own labor, thus rewarding those that exert themselves on their own initiative, using what skill and intelligence they have available to themselves. It's the most successful economic principle by virtue of exactly the fact that it provides a form of meritocracy that works in practice. Marx brought about the chain of events that led to the formation of alternate ideas about bringing rewards to work (all involving a powerful state in one way or another) and in so doing legitimated the abandonment of the meritocracy inherent in nature. It was only a gradual change from Marx' ideas on how the state should distribute wealth to those of the soviets on how that same state should distribute wealth.
The truth is, there is no system that is NOT a meritocracy.
Competition is the fundamental nature of the world, the fittest survive.
And Marx as I said was a Darwinist(before such a thing was named).
Where everyone differs is how merit is assessed and what how we treat people who do not fit some determination of merit.
lol this thread is a disaster, but labcoat has a point. Leave it to ILEs to throw a hissy fit over the slightest criticism.
The saddest ESFj
...
Say I invent a system that does exactly what Marx says. People get alotted resources according to their needs. Sooner or later they find out that raising their needs raises the amount of resources they get in turn. So they raise their consumption with every iteration until the system "figures out" that the resources didn't come from out of nowhere like some kooky intellectual told them they would.The truth is, there is no system that is NOT a meritocracy.
Now you say this system is meritocratic...... Bad call.
Of course, nothing a little change to the wording can't fix, right. And that's how "need" turned into "work" in that little slogan.
There are certain things of which we can say without much doubt or contention that they have merit. It's not like there is absolutely nothing we agree on in that regard. This is why money is capable of functioning like an incentive.Where everyone differs is how merit is assessed and what how we treat people who do not fit some determination of merit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
