Is it type related? Following social trends, style etc.
Following trends, most of them stupid
Is it type related? Following social trends, style etc.
rational, irrational etc?
i know equal amounts of 'hipster jerk" gammas that follow, but don't start stupid trends.
your in love with yourself, te and gamma
ESFx
x
Gammas, delta irrational and alpha SF
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
SF types of course
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Removed at User Request
I think it's more a case of people not noticing in how they conform, only being annoyed by the ways others demand they do; for example, every Alpha I've heard on the subject here claims Alpha is the most democratic, free etc. quadra which neither conforms nor demands others conform - yet other types experiences with Alphas are kind of opposite, surprisingly.Originally Posted by Dynamicism
Being trendy is related to ethics, since ethical types have the highest appreciation for the prestige of something.
Following pre-existing trends is much more related to Se / Ni, and sometimes Fe (ESE, SEI, EIE, IEI) since Fe egos are quite the social chameleons. It's inversely related to Si / Ne.
Being good at being trendy is much less type related since it requires aesthetic sensibility. But that itself could be more related to irrational functions, idk.
Last edited by xerx; 06-25-2010 at 06:26 PM.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Following trends isn't type related, but if the trends are stupid it's Gamma.
Removed at User Request
What quadra is a person who always reads ingredients on any food that has a list, to make a choice?
Yes, I kind of agree with that, but I think in essence, it's not so much "if you can't", more of "within what your Base tells you, eliminate what Creative is firmly against". As in, even withing Base constraints, Creative needs to be accomodated... but we can't really look past the Base, like on type level, where that's the main problem in conflicting relations - you can never remove that filter. In this way you're right that (+) solutions try to satisfy the (-) requirements, as it works in your examples (regardless how pointless I think they are re: brand), except we can't really look past (+) solutions as you imply.Edit: IMO the "ego" of the quadra - the quadra values - works the same way as the Ego of the type: "the first thing you always try to do is what the Base tells you, if you can't, just make sure you never do what the opposite of your Creative tells you to do (basically never do what your Creative rules out)"
... which is basically why I call plus and minus expanding/reducing, with (+) elements expanding options and (-) reducing them, in a way - making a choice out of available ones, but never really looking past them on their own.
What about result types?
Stan is not my real name.
Removed at User Request
I was using pinocchionics terms of (capitalized) Base = valued (+), Creative = valued (-). So these are the same for process and result types within the same quadra.
What you say here is very similar to what I've written just today in ILE/SLE PoLR difference thread. I don't think I've seen the example you speak of. I see it as blocks issue - which may be illustrated by polarity, btw - when types are faced with clearly role or PoLR related information, they quickly default to super-ego over stronger alternative pairing. This happens both ways - when type feels obliged to use their role, it comes off worse for the fact that PoLR judgments take over, although the person themselves will often try to justify them with creative later. This is very important point, we don't always realize that bad judgment (they're usually bad) stemmed from PoLR - what happens is rather rationalizing it and rejecting any suggestion against it.But yes, I think that types look actually past their Base! Sometimes you don't have a choice, then think about these compromises:
- the Role function: it's basically the opposite of your Base, it the incompatible one, still, you may use it, that period you have to deny your Base to interfere
- the Creative function type of information is not always compatible with the Base, when it comes as raw data from outside. If you read my example about LIIs, with their anal-ness against authoritative or forceful people, they can't get over their Se-PoLR, even if it's something in their primary field/interest. They basically prefer to use their Role than the Base about it, when the PoLR ravages their conscious and become strictly Fi - apparently - they don't even put this under investigation. I say Fi because how they react defies Ti and that "common-sense" bullshit shocks me every time.
Even if not Fi, it's definitely outside the range of Ti, IMO.
Role and creative is an unstable combination, in short. (I think that's part of the reason why supervising is tiresome. : P) So yes, when a person is acting out of their super-ego, by definition they aren't making use of ego in that particular case, but the filter - the basic perception - remains, which is part of why we aren't happy with ourselves using other combinations: the information process is largely viewed as inferior.
That sounds like something my LII father does. "I don't have the time, I'll overpay and let a salesperson choose it for me". Needless to say, I find it unreasonable. For everyday purchases at a foreign place, it's fine, but if I'm going to make a longer-term one...Parasite reminded me of this when we talked about this matter: when she bought a bluetooth, she brought a no-name. I had absolutely no idea how should I choose one and then I went myself to buy from a branded shop. This is because I had no time to investigate and no idea how they work and what should I look at. Yes, an option would be to learn about it, but really, I don't have the patience to learn something I have otherwise no interest in just to buy a scrap. I think many people and types would have done the same thing... apart from an Se or Ni - PoLR
. Maybe.
Removed at User Request
Not any judgment. These functions are called producing for a reason - we're more likely to try to communicate our understanding (base) by them. I suppose it depends on a definition of "judgment"; in a more colloquial sense of an evaluation we feel strongly about and find it difficult to question, I'd say base and PoLR are more likely to produce judgments than creative and role.
What I was trying to say is that when using super-ego, acting one's role, assessment is taken using vulnerable function, not creative, but we try to justify it with creative.
So for example ILIs acting out of their super-ego will probably act emotionally and misinterpret others' emotions, yet try to cover it by rationalizing and finding practical reasons - even though they made bad decision because of it. ILEs in super-ego state - especially on defensive - will jump to conclusions about people's intentions and act on them, then claim these are entirely objective and "obvious" - except they are, more often than not, wrong. In both cases, Fx-PoLR types make assessments they usually wouldn't - trying to read others' emotions or intentions, and being wrong about. Whereas in normal ego states, they'd be probably the first to avoid jumping to any conclusions on the matter. I've only a vague image of how it works in other types - that is, I see it but putting it into words is harder.
I'm of the opinion that vulnerable function is malfunctioning, yes. It makes infinitely more sense than a "lack of" many people like to think it to be.
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 06-26-2010 at 02:58 PM.
Removed at User Request
Going by this reasoning you may as well say that Gamma adults don't play with crayons, rattles and colouring in books anymore because they are trying to conform. It might be far more useful to admit you are wrong. In any event I don't know why a reasonable person would pursue as you do.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
lol, windmills become dragons before his eyes
The end is nigh
You've got it backwards. Accepting functions gather (accept) information, and Producing functions produce things.
Stan is not my real name.
Removed at User Request
He makes a great internet socionist. He's got all the skills for classical internet socionics, an ILE self-typing and quite deluded about his superiority.
Yeah, it's inane. I don't know, he must be living in a parallel world.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
What's a stupid trend?
The Producing function both signifies the conscious act of "focussing" and the attention to something outside of (at a distance of) oneself. It can be seen as the agentive "use" of a tool of some kind. In this sense I find myself not being terribly much opposed to these formulations.
Accepting is a "defensive" reaction in which the focus is on oneself, ones phenomenal subjectivity (experience) alone, the attention to the real world (in as far as there is any to speak of) being left "diffuse".
I do this. The threshold at which I would spend money to get people to do annoying tasks for me is very low.Parasite reminded me of this when we talked about this matter: when she bought a bluetooth, she brought a no-name. I had absolutely no idea how should I choose one and then I went myself to buy from a branded shop. This is because I had no time to investigate and no idea how they work and what should I look at. Yes, an option would be to learn about it, but really, I don't have the patience to learn something I have otherwise no interest in just to buy a scrap . I think many people and types would have done the same thing... apart from an Se or Ni - PoLR . Maybe.
That sounds like something my LII father does. "I don't have the time, I'll overpay and let a salesperson choose it for me". Needless to say, I find it unreasonable. For everyday purchases at a foreign place, it's fine, but if I'm going to make a longer-term one...
Last edited by krieger; 07-07-2010 at 03:15 AM.
Also related to this:
Removed at User Request
The quote was from Aiss, not you.You misquoted something - my father is not LII.
Removed at User Request
LoL. Yes, I quoted you too. So what? You have to be a huge jackass to attack someone for accidentally leaving a quotation frame out where there should have been one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
