what does the acronym "TPE" mean in this article?Originally Posted by Myst
and your post explaining Ne in more detail seemed good to me.got nothing to add
what does the acronym "TPE" mean in this article?
and your post explaining Ne in more detail seemed good to me.
lick me
TPE = Things/People/Events, looks like it's essentially the "bodies" (objects) as contrasted with "fields" (relations).what does the acronym "TPE" mean in this article?
and your post explaining Ne in more detail seemed good to me.
From http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ary-of-Aspects
Ti polr manifests in me when:
Arriving between two options like i think both are great xD
I don't have the Ti i guess in determining which is better because i think both are better.
I always ask for opinion of others in determining between options.
I have an is/ntp friend that helps me with common sense all the time.
And I'm practicing common sense actually.
I don't think it's something that should be an insecurity thus it should be developed.
I think Ti is useful in life.
Yes.. I'm actually practicing the use of it like I'm shutting down my feelings and switch on the Ti. Ti helps a lot.
Like there's times when i think negative thoughts, and i activate my Ti like: "wake up bitch, what you're thinking ain't true. Like what's the probability that is likely to happen? Let's be realistic here."
It helps me.
Maybe your dual, ISTp/SLII have an is/ntp friend that helps me with common sense all the time.
Yes probably he's an istp because he's always horny all the time and every morning his dick always raises.Maybe your dual, ISTp/SLI
I just don't know if I'm just hot or he's just horny??
Ti polr is playing an entirely different game, which the SLI "gets" and "likes" (in the case of IEE); 1d Ti as in ESE is playing the Ti game but being bad at it but wanting be good at it (or at the very least not thought of as "stupid")
If you call an IEE stupid for Ti reasons they're likely to just consider you incapable of rising out of your mechanistic logic to see the broader picture, whereas ESE would be more likely to be legit hurt and demand explanations or respond in terms of continuing the Ti "fight" not trying to get around it or rise above it (although they may frame things in terms of Fe/Ti, which maybe feels like a dodge, but its fundamentally the same game)
Ti "fights" rarely result in hits to IEEs self esteem, but when Ti manages to "control" or "conclusively determine" the opposite of whatever the IEE is trying to promote or achieve, that is extremely painful because they either accept that 1) something "evil" which no one else can see took the day or 2) the "evil" is inside them and they are incapable of always knowing it (inability to completely understand Ti and how it can be "right"). both of these entail unavoidable self esteem hits for the most part
ESE is glad to be shown exactly where they went wrong so they won't do it again (in terms of Ti), and sees it more as have been done a service, even though momentarily potentially embarrassing, Fe can usually easily mitigate that and ESE moves forward without the same level of pain
Ni polr takes on the painful character to ESE because once the hit becomes apparent they realize they don't stand much chance of not repeating the same mistake, and that strikes at the core of their being in much the same way Ti polr does for IEE. I.e.: on some level they recognize it as a character weakness that is never going to ever truly go away, but is painful because it could lead to ethical misjudgements, and the idea that there are unavoidable ethical misjudgements strikes at the core of the ethical type because they consider it in some sense their job and reason for being to provide them. to know they will be flawed in some sense no matter what is an easy thing to pay lip service to, but a harder thing to experience first hand
small fights rarely if ever rise to the level of polr hits because each side simply believes the other is wrong and moves on, polr hits of this nature come when the "self righteous" ethical is conclusively shown to be wrong, or reaps undeniable negative consequences which really amounts to the same thing, by illustrating the "wrongness" of their position in action. its not enough to be right or wrong, the polr hit comes from realizing it, in the case of Ti or Ni. I feel like ESE could conceivably go their whole life without ever experiencing a polr hit under the right conditions, although you could probably say the same for any type
some of the confusion comes from not being able to sort out Ti from Ni, Ni is more subjective state of mind, whereas Ti is subjective logic. state of mind entails more than the simple body of logic thus accumulated; it also includes attitude towards time, and how emotions and logic are interwoven in light of time and the basis for motive and meaning. Ti is more or less the scheme we map over things in terms of if->then constructions which we use to get a handle on them. Ni precedes Ti but since they're both internal process to find out where things broke down can be quite difficult. often the easiest way to tell is to see their response to treating it "as if" it were one thing or the other. which brings us back to the beginning, ESE will tend to respond positively to Ti-as-solution whereas IEE wont
Ni polr moments often go hand in hand with 4d Se which is absent in the case of IEE polr disputes (but not SEE).
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-22-2017 at 11:10 AM.
@Bertrand
You put it very well imo about Ti PoLR not caring about Ti criticism vs the real PoLR hits. That part was very good, really.
I'd object to calling Ti a map though, that's a bit too ambiguous. It's a logical map, sure but, it's not just an "if/then" scheme, it works with distinctly defined things and analyzes in a strict manner with conclusions being definite (Rational). It's not very internal beyond just being introverted in terms of looking at "fields", otherwise it's not going as deep in the mind like Ni does even though it can work well with mental facts. And, maybe it's the Alpha NT flavour of Ti where it's about finding out where things broke down? For me Ti is more about building the logic of things (LSI is also described in this way), not simply about troubleshooting, if you already have an understanding of something then of course very useful for that too.
you're right of course, Ti goes very deep and is a very complex phenomenon. Its almost impossible for me to wrap it up under a tidy conceptual umbrella except to say its "grid-like" and comprised of "if->then" chains... I feel like that's probably akin to saying software is comprised of 1s and 0s... true but not very sophisticated. I would very much like to hear Ti valuers describe their first hand experience of Ti in depth. if for no other reason than to add some of it to my toolkit when it comes to describing it or thinking about it in terms of larger structures
That's an OK analogy heh about it seeing in a too binary way. How to wrap it up under that "tidy conceptual umbrella", well my attempt at this would be, I can see several modes of cognition for me in my mind that are all Ti with different manifestations, where what's shared in all these modes is the emotional neutrality, impersonal objectivity, where the relevant quantifiable/distinct/defined (explicit) details are processed by strict rules-based analytical reasoning for building a systematic understanding where the judgments being made are decisions in a sense but not decisions for action directly (not without Fe added anyway) though of course the built-up understanding can be used for action indirectly and it's essentially a filter that makes the object in front of me "removed", not directly accessed but there is still a sense of control via understanding it.
I can describe a few of the manifestations if you want, for describing that first hand experience in depth
Last edited by Myst; 07-23-2017 at 12:24 AM.
Categories
Just simply, categories? They are part of a thinking process that does more than just seeing categories.
keep going with the Ti descriptions
Okay here's a better term: Simplification.
@squark
categories is what I took away from your blog entry. I don't know if I missed something but that basically seemed to be it; essentially a web of associations that is backdrop to things which you place them along via rational "coordinates". gridlike, in other words. if you don't have a scheme for something do you just default to something more general, like arranging socks by color if no better reason strikes you? how do you determine what is most efficient, do you have separate meta criteria for what you want these schemes to do for you? is there some overarching unifying goal or principle, that places everything according to a "theory of everything?"
let me know if there's more to it
i want to contrast it to how I think
if I have a task, first thing I do is ask myself, how much time do I have and what is the desired endstate. lets say I need to do something I dont really have a good way of ascertaining how it should go. time decides everything, if I have no time but it must be completed, then it doesn't matter how I arrange it because the criterion for success is it "gets done" and if the physical act of accomplishing it regardless of configuration is going to take up all my time, I have no more time to deliberate, and just start moving, maybe ill figure things out as I go or maybe not, but lack of time means it was "done right" regardless of how "good" it turns out because if it gets on the shelves then that is "success". if I have more time I may think about it for a minute, if nothing springs to mind, Ill just ask whoever wants it done if they want it a certain way, or if theyre not around someone who might know or who might have insight into doing it better. If no ones around ill think about it for a while and it may get back to original "no time" point in which case i'll proceed in that way, and that constitutes "trying my best" and thus justifies whatever end state. if there is literally no time limit Ill just walk away because it not getting done is actually more of a "success" than potentially doing it wrong and having to redo it. If I come across knowledge that is dispositive ill use it to complete the task, otherwise ill wait till a time limit is imposed and begin according to that.
in this way I never really do stuff that doesn't need to get done in a way that is worse than having not done it. in a way to me it seems like everything ultimately turns out as best as it possibly could have, assuming I try my best. how much I care about a thing is ultimately a factor, but its sort of presumed here I care. care is sort of the counter point to time, such that you don't expend time on things you don't care about because that is likewise a waste. in this way I feel like Te/Fi hang in a balance and are perceived on the basis of time which forms the fundamental "currency" which Te/Fi then judges how to "spend." Fi focuses on "what to do" Te focuses on "how to do it"
money as I see it is compensation for time and provides the Fi motive. "time is money"--yup. you can then translate the money back into time for things you care about. doing this efficiently is like a force multiplier. its like making $300/hour so you can just pay someone to move for you. unless you really enjoy doing it yourself for some reason, which goes back to Fi. in this way you make the most of your time
i pay attention to ideas that I think may prove useful and basically just build a toolkit of mostly atomic schemes and tactics. i try to forget stuff that is worthless or doesnt provide context or meaning to my life in terms of its overarching goals and im constantly moving in the direction of information that allows me to better accomplish my goals "information is power" in that respect, but only the "right" information, the kind that allows you some kind of meaningful leverage. some information is dead weight. ill never understand trivia contests
after studying california's community property laws my mind was blown on how relationships are basically the biggest time sink of all, and people really squander it. its like why would you marry someone not knowing up front if you divorce they get half (assuming no prenup)? if you're not prepared to take that on you're already implicitly making the call this relationship is only worth it if it succeeds, in other words "not better to have loved and lost"-- its like jeez people, pick the person if you lose it was still worth it, otherwise that is not love (I guess my problem is people are marrying people they dont love because they dont know what love is (Fi)). my point is socionics and jungian psychology promise some of the biggest payouts possible in light of the "worth" of human relationships, not in money but time. i guess you could call it an Fi reason for spending time on these ideas [1]
sorry, tangent, but people often think I do nothing. they don't see the method behind the madness. socionics inasmuch as it fosters love for others pays out in terms of care way beyond what just jobbing some 9-5 would do for you. which is why it blows my mind people dont try to use socionics to understand things, but rather as a mere form of identity show and tell--thats like using a iphone to hammer nails
[1] and I don't mean because you're going to "pick the perfect person" rather you're going to become the better person, and the good relationships will flow from that. like it seems obvious, but if you're a shit person you're probably not going to have great relationships. people of quality attract other people of quality in other words, and you have one life to live, so live it well
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-23-2017 at 04:30 PM.
If you mean simplification as contrasted with just having a load of facts - I would agree with that.
Hmm, I'm not squark but let me comment. Regardless of type, I dunno if this depends on the individual too but I definitely don't have a "web of associations". Maybe I misinterpret the phrasing but for me it's not about associative perceptions, I still don't see it as grid-like either for myself. I've heard ILE talk about a "web of associations" though.
Theory of everything, well if this counts, I don't have time to understand everything in this world, so I only strive to have a consistent worldview that's based on my own axioms from which everything else neatly follows in terms of how it's what I'll use to analyze/understand the things that I haven't looked at yet.
OK, so more on Ti, at least on how I see it.
I see various "raw materials" for the abstracted away Ti logic in my case at least, these all have logical information in them presented in different ways but what's common in them is that you can extract a final abstracted away form from them. Main ones are visuo-spatial information and some versions of concrete defined bits of information (those are never spatial, can be verbal but not necessarily). Former is holistic, latter ones are not.
So the logical points/parts/relations/concepts are extracted/abstracted away from the raw materials as above and they are put together in a logical system in reasoning. This has core logical concepts and axioms in an "inner picture" with all other logical details extractable (verbalizable) from it on demand. (This "picture" isn't actually really visual, though, that wording isn't to be meant literally, it's just some representation of the logic of the thoughts, regardless of form.)
I'll go more in depth in describing the above but first let me emphasize that in all these modes/manifestations as described below (and there are more but these are some of the main ones), there are always "logical points" of the situation/issue/things, these points are any definable details/parts that are then related to each other in a way relevant to the higher conceptual level of the entire logical reasoning about the topic. These are hardly the objects themselves, it's instead how you define them in the logical context. Extreme example from a formal logic test: "Either ostriches eat engines or both ostriches eat engines and orangutans eat steering wheels if, and only if ostriches eat engines." The words used don't matter here, what matters is just how the objects or concepts designated by them relate to each other in the given context. So I would read this sentence that way, only taking into account the relevant (as specified) properties of the given objects and not paying attention to anything else.
So that was a formal logic example with pretty much pure reasoning but it was still applied on concrete things (even if it sounded like a nonsensical arrangement of objects and actions lol). As the most pure form of logic, there is the logic of mathematics, the most abstracted away form of logic, not requiring any "real life" objects anymore.
The less pure manifestations I can see as the pure logical layer on top of or "embedded" in its raw material in various forms.
First, there is a form of logic giving me a significant part of my instinctive foundation to the mathematical logic, I call this spatial logic. There I see the problem's "logical points" arranged in a spatial way in my mind. That means, I may imagine things of a situation/issue/problem in a spatial context, where the spatial information is the raw material so to speak, with objects already disregarded and "accessed" only indirectly, but what I really am focusing on is the logical relationships that I read out of the spatial picture that are quite readily expressed and developed into logical concepts and so it easily ends up as mathematical logic or any kind of formalized enough abstracted-away logic. So there is a visual-spatial arrangement that offers a quick holistical reading of quantifiable relations and that's why it's readily translated into the abstract logical concepts.
Then with some spatial problems, at one point I switch to fully analytical-logical mode which is an entirely exacting mode no longer in a visual or spatial form at all though it has (part of) its origins in the spatial somehow. So it's abstracted away Ti logic. The problem solving is always completed on the exacting analytical level with explicit logical operations expressible in distinct steps if needed, but the logical meaning for each step is given conceptually by the entire logical context. I can entirely start on the exacting analytical level but if the raw material is spatial then I'm quicker if I let the spatial mode work first. I can just stay with that level almost entirely for some stuff, which means the analytical process isn't fully separated out but runs in parallel with viewing the spatial information.
(Example for spatial reasoning (from a study investigating spatial-visual thinking among other things): "drawing a diagram representing the relative position of Jim, Peter, and Tom in an athletics race" to answer the question "In an athletics race, Jim is four feet ahead of Tom and Peter is three feet behind Jim. How far is Peter ahead of Tom?". Or, in the Advanced Progressive Matrices IQ test, I rely to some degree on the holistic spatial information in both the figural problems and in the analytical problems but in the latter I only use it to pick up the information more quickly, while in the former the larger part of the actual problem solving is visuo-spatial detecting most of the logical pattern that way, though the finishing step is the exacting analytical one, focusing fully analytically to determine the remaining details of the logic.)
There is also a very abstract form of the spatial logic which is very close to the mathematical logic but still isn't the same even though it does contain all of that logic. Also, with certain nontrivial mathematical problems, I first "feel" the logical route then I flesh out and verify steps analytically. The "feel" isn't really an Intuitive "eureka" insight, it's just is still slightly a spatial feel, just very abstract... Otoh, the exacting analytical mode is used on its own for quite some mathematical topics that are just quantifiable rules-based conceptual stuff, or for problems translatable to that.
Another manifestation where there isn't spatial data at all in the raw material, is when performing a nonspatial task with specific steps, or I'm dealing with some other complex arrangement of actions/concrete objects/people in a situation or concrete verbal information about such situations that's to be organized. It's all to be seen inside a systematic context for the steps of tasks or for other complex arrangements, where the system of "laws" cannot be directly shown (or not shown well enough or would be too complicated) by pointing to stuff or by illustrating it, but more verbally explainable. The system is either created by me or is an external system but understood by me by my own way, not taken up "as is".
So, much of this will not be visuo-spatial data for the raw material (though depending on the type of situation there can be some of that still in addition), more like other concrete details, anything that can be defined. That's the important part: there are definable concrete bits of things. Such a system could look very detailed but it still has to have the logically meaningful "points" where I can systematize on a higher level for the data. Then everything follows from that neatly. This simplifies a lot of the facts of the situations/things. Again, in this process I extract and abstract away the logical concepts to do the operations on them, from the concrete information relating to the task. It's the exacting Ti analysis again, I just keep the concrete bits of information in focus at the same time.
All in all, I guess these abstracted away logical concepts are what will fit in an "inner logical picture" (like Jung described Ti, and that really makes sense to me) with expression of that "picture" in explicitly presenting the "logical points" which can become very thoroughly elaborated if going deeper in the "inner picture" to express all of it. And this understanding gives me a sense of control over everything, a sense of being oriented neatly.
Heh that's definitely not how I do this. I want to grab the "logical points" of the task and I will go by that. I might have to first get into it first to see the details though.i want to contrast it to how I think
if I have a task, first thing I do is ask myself, how much time do I have and what is the desired endstate. lets say I need to do something I dont really have a good way of ascertaining how it should go. time decides everything, if I have no time but it must be completed, then it doesn't matter how I arrange it because the criterion for success is it "gets done" and if the physical act of accomplishing it regardless of configuration is going to take up all my time, I have no more time to deliberate, and just start moving, maybe ill figure things out as I go or maybe not, but lack of time means it was "done right" regardless of how "good" it turns out because if it gets on the shelves then that is "success". if I have more time I may think about it for a minute, if nothing springs to mind, Ill just ask whoever wants it done if they want it a certain way, or if theyre not around someone who might know or who might have insight into doing it better. If no ones around ill think about it for a while and it may get back to original "no time" point in which case i'll proceed in that way, and that constitutes "trying my best" and thus justifies whatever end state. if there is literally no time limit Ill just walk away because it not getting done is actually more of a "success" than potentially doing it wrong and having to redo it. If I come across knowledge that is dispositive ill use it to complete the task, otherwise ill wait till a time limit is imposed and begin according to that.
Last edited by Myst; 07-24-2017 at 06:09 AM.
I know what you're getting at, and don't want to be overly nitpicky, but wanted to say that if-then chains is a feature of causal-deterministic thinking (static-deductive.) It and formal logic aren't to do with Ti directly as both EII and SEE also have a CD cognitive style. You've probably already read the cognitive styles, I can't remember if you said you had or not. Direct link to CD http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...nist_Cognition Since SEE is CD and IEE as a holographic type doesn't have to strain overly much to use CD (one IEE on the forum mentioned even teaching formal logic at the university level) it should be noted as something distinct from Ti.
well I mean everyone uses Ti to some extent, even if its like "how does the dishwasher work" I feel like that's kind of gridlike and if-then based
i feel like CD (and all cognitive styles) is a more sophisticated concept in general
thanks @Myst for making the effort... I didn't really understand most of that but it felt to me like you think in terms of the "aesthetics of the situation" which is more of an Fe mindset
your logical example could be shortened to "ostriches eat engines <=> orangutans eat steering wheels" [1]. or "either both ostiches eat engines and orangutans eat steering wheels or neither do"
it honestly looks to me like maybe you have vital Ti because it feels like kind of dreamy not "hard" like how most thinking egos come across to me
[1] if and only if (iff) is called a biconditional and is often symbolized as <=>
Np. Feel free to ask about the unclear parts.
What do you call "aesthetics of the situation"?
The point with the example was not about simplification, I copypasted it from a test and it was an illustration of how Ti logic isn't directly about the objects. I did call it an extreme example for how it twists things lol.your logical example could be shortened to "ostriches eat engines <=> orangutans eat steering wheels" [1]. or "either both ostiches eat engines and orangutans eat steering wheels or neither do"
Nah. Btw half of Thinking egos have vital Ti...it honestly looks to me like maybe you have vital Ti because it feels like kind of dreamy not "hard" like how most thinking egos come across to me
"Because fuck you, that's why."
this is precisely my point! it was in the context of being ti valuing
i notice you actually do this a lot. thinking Ti egos tend to know exactly what is carved out by implication and what is not. for example ti valuing minus "hardness" of thinking ego, doesn't allow for thinking ego + vital ti, i.e. Te valuing. its more a nitpick that forgets a step in doing the math [1], but not in an Ne sense.. all the components are there ready to be used, its not asking you to infer anything about the "picture of the world". this is more like "appearance of Ti" which is more characteristic of vital Ti in non thinking egos.. you couldn't build something like a plane off this Ti, but its "good enough for gov work" (which I have a feeling this is precisely what hardcore logical types think of the bureaucratic thinking that dominates various gov agencies).
I mean did you really think Te ego was on the table? if so that could be a Ne thing, but failure to "factor that into the calculations" in tandem with the idea of "vital Ti" and know precisely what I was outlining as possible seems like weak but valued Ti when in the same breath you point out "half of thinking egos have vital Ti"--it should be clear exactly what I'm implying the possible states of affairs are [2]
as an interesting aside, I'm beginning to perceive a pattern develop where it seems like Fi ego tends to use words impressionistically with precise syntax, whereas Fe ego tends to use precise words with "loose" syntax. Fi creates dynamism with its language from within the words to create impressionistic portraits of "living" things (emotions). whereas Fe tends to use verbiage with narrow meaning (of words) in mind but plays looser with the syntactical ties between words and that is where the "room to play is" [3] you distinctly give the impression of the later
there's definitely a better way for me to formulate that last bit so just ignore it if it doesn't make sense, but its something I'm kicking around that can distinguish between the types. its probably a merry/serious thing take together with something else thats creating this effect
[1] fundamentally interested in nitpicking (Ti) but bad at it (lower dimensionality).. posts where you go line by line with people are very demonstrative of this. its almost like an ESE's method of filling the air with words thinking the appearance of contravening points is sufficient to "make the argument" true. as if volume is whats dispositive between LII and ESE when deciding on who's right, well it is in the sense that LII is Fe suggestive
[2] furthermore if you stepped back and just thought about what you were saying, you would realize that even if the nit pick held it wouldn't actually establish anything... you have to ask yourself even if your nitpick was true what it would establish along logical grounds. Ok, half of all egos are Ti vital, what does that "carve out" in light of the point you're trying to make. from a thinking standpoint it is moot regardless if you're technically correct or not. Ti in LII and ILE tends to stand on "technicalities" because a lot tends to hang on the distinctions they make, if everything else is presumed to structurally relate back to it in a Ti sense (which is often their divergence with Te types in disputes). Here if you grant the "Ti interpretation" it still accomplishes nothing, except perhaps the implication "he was wrong about this what else could he be wrong about!" which is not how Ti actually argues, that is actually an ethical form of argumentation
[3] i.e.: Fi tends to craft expressions where the nuance is in the range of meaning present in the "one interpretation of the syntax" whereas Fe can mean wildly different things on a higher level i.e.: as to "who" it applies to, etc. Fe gets me with this all the time when they're like "lul i was just joking bro" or they otherwise turn the entire sentence on its head.. Fi tends to be "serious" in that they don't pull the rug out from under you, but will add in subtlety to the implications of the words themselves, which may contain a range of "colors." I believe this is the basis for a lot of gamma humor where they can say two different things solely on the basis of potential differences in word-color, whereas Fe tends to be more "wild" in the sense that they don't bother with that kind of subtlety and just play with the larger macro structures. I actually think Fi is a subversive defensive reaction to Fe in this sense
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-24-2017 at 04:16 AM.
Mind answering me on what you mean by "aesthetics of the situation"? And where did you see that in my post?
I nitpicked your sloppy wording on purpose because I can't take your aesthetics thingy seriously lol.
But if you are capable of explaining what you meant by it, I'm looking forward to it.
EDIT:
I see you added this:
As I said, it's simply getting at the sloppy wording. Nothing more, nothing less. Your point should've emphasized "Fe ego" or "Ethical type" instead of "vital Ti" to look good. Yes, it's a technicality since you already hinted about an Fe mindset earlier, but this sort of sloppiness tends to hurt my eyes a bit and you already annoyed me with how your whole post was getting at precisely nothing in terms of what my post was about. I usually don't call people out on this kind of little sloppiness otherwise, I don't really mind all that much by default and there is no real point to it, and it would also be madness to always get at it, lol, so by default I just let it hurt my eyes a tiny little bit and move on immediately. Funnily enough an exception from this little "eye hurt" is if the whole stuff is presented in an emotional enough way, Fe egos manage to distract me / my analness or something lolfurthermore if you stepped back and just thought about what you were saying, you would realize that even if the nit pick held it wouldn't actually establish anything... you have to ask yourself even if your nitpick was true what it would establish along logical grounds. Ok, half of all egos are Ti vital, what does that "carve out" in light of the point you're trying to make. from a thinking standpoint it is moot regardless if you're technically correct or not. Ti in LII and ILE tends to stand on "technicalities" because a lot tends to hang on the distinctions they make, if everything else is presumed to structurally relate back to it in a Ti sense (which is often their divergence with Te types in disputes). Here if you grant the "Ti interpretation" it still accomplishes nothing, except perhaps the implication "he was wrong about this what else could he be wrong about!" which is not how Ti actually argues, that is actually an ethical form of argumentation
Last edited by Myst; 07-24-2017 at 07:30 AM.
Oh you added another edit... No, I didn't think Te ego was on the table for you for my typing, lol, I just simply couldn't take your "analysis" seriously. Sorry for the honesty.
Still, feel free to explain what you saw as Fe aesthetics in that post, whatever you may mean by it.
Are you going to add more edits?
OK so you did explain yourself, thanks for putting in the effort, I respect that.
So, I disagree that I played loosely with "syntactical ties", maybe you should ask me about the unclear parts of my post before assuming that.
Or, if you want, you can give an example of where you saw it as loose and I can clarify further for you.
I will say that I have not fully organized the material about the topic in my head, I'm still discovering more and more things about my cognition, so I'm definitely going to refine my understanding further where it's unfinished. I was not 100% comfortable with posting some not fully finished parts, but I wanted to present a summary of as many of the observations as possible (without making too much of a compromise on posting about too unfinished thoughts tho'), but again, it's not a loose play with ideas.
I noticed somewhere before that you made this weird assumption about going line by line having to be Ethical ego or that the motivation behind is simply to increase volume.
That's very off in my case and probably off for most other people too who do the quoting in that manner. In my case it's simply a quick way to write disregarding the aesthetics (the look) of the post.
Feel free to type me as ESE if you want, but I think you are too stuck in trying to link every little bit to sociotypes. (Fe suggestive doesn't work that way tho')
I'm not saying you're ESE or anything like that (by this I mean I'm not trying to positively determine your exact type--I'm trying to rule out certain types, leaving quite a range of possibilities left). Try and limit the scope of your conclusions to exactly what is implied, which is also what I made explicit (you can trust me that they line up if you don't want to try and work it out). I just don't get the feeling you're a thinking ego and that you have vital yet valued Ti. That's the impression you give me. I could of course be wrong, absolutely
I'd just be lying if I tried to say I felt anything different, so there it is
Really I don't mind whatever you type me as. Why are you trying to type me tho'? What's your goal with it? Learning the theory more by practicing typing?
You are not telling me how to think, lol.Try and limit the scope of your conclusions to exactly what is implied, which is also what I made explicit (you can trust me that they line up if you don't want to try and work it out).
No worries. No one typed me Fe ego on this forum yet btw, let alone alpha SF/ESEI just don't get the feeling you're a thinking ego and that you have vital yet valued Ti. That's the impression you give me. I could of course be wrong, absolutely
I'd just be lying if I tried to say I felt anything different, so there it is
you know how LSE gets when something is clearly "out of place"
I get that feeling too and I feel like if I don't say something when the opportunity arises then I've made things worse not better
as far as I can tell myst, aylen, and cassandra are all socials. maybe my systems all fucked up but I believe that's whats going on basically
its basically like "letting a mess fester" if I don't help clean it up
what's interesting is gamma socials don't seem to have a problem with self identifying as such, perhaps because we see things in a similar light, and therefore see resistance to it as a weird form of unproductive self hate so we don't engage in it. my sense of it is gamma thinks more like "type doesn't make me cool, I make my type cool" which I think is the right attitude towards identity and information in general. maybe this is an Fi valuing thing in general, where the "objective" status of a types popularity is not a consideration that overrides thinking. it does seem to me that Fe egos would see the truth of such things in said light (as social "hierarchy" Fe+Ti) and order themselves along the hierarchy as desired, because the "social manifestation" in some sense, "makes it true" feels>reals essentially
i actually feel like that's really counterproductive, but maybe not entirely because it invites the truth out
i say socials here because intuitives tend to work with concepts and their method is to "place (whatever they are) on top" not "place themselves into whatever is already perceived to be on top" in other words, the "prestige" of EIE and IEI is an "intuitive campaign" to find their way to the top, whereas ESE and SEI just puts themselves at whatever "pre established" top there is. in this way IEI/EIE don't have to contort themselves, they contort the hierarchy itself, so their focus is less on "what they really are (not)" since they can easily demonstrate that with systematic consistency (because its true) but its more of why "beta is the best". inasmuch as any of the above 3 may conform to the later pattern they may actually be humanitarians.. but I don't have the time or inclination to hunt down all that information. to the extent that I do see new posts come and go I see a lot of Si content get posted (which there's nothing wrong with Si content but it is what it is, its actually a beta scheme to make it seem like Si content is worth less), like an absurd and obvious amount if anyone's paying attention
if you've noticed i've routinely challenged both horns of this issue: 1) that beta is perfect (or "top of the heirarchy, ultimate") and that 2) people have a tendency to slot themselves according to perceived status (based on Fe/Ti information coming off the types) against objective logic or reality (Te Ne)... I feel like this place in general has suffered from enough of this dynamic that useful information has mostly dried up and what's left is a lot of Fe... which is like the tvtropes version of typology (a sort of imitation of "useful knowledge"), which is sort of how like cassandra's posts tend to read when she goes into lots of "detail" for its own sake. this probably has to do with the gamma exodus of the past. a general defensive reaction would be to try and push me out as well, but this place only hurts itself when it does that
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-24-2017 at 05:46 AM.
Put this in the thread for the typing of forum members.
FFS, I now see what @Singu is talking about. I am not a social but why don't you take a shot at my E type next? It is the only thing you haven't speculated on.
What I see in this thread is you floundering like a drowning man gasping for his last breath. It is like you feel a need to rewrite the narrative every time you have some issue understanding others. I tell you why you are off about my sociotype so you go for my instinct stacking now? My instincts are off limits to you unless you can tell me 3 personal things about myself that I have not shared on the forum. I hold my instincts sacred to myself so don't go there.
Dude, this alone could rule out LIE for you since all you can do is weave ambiguous storylines to twist things to fit your system while ignoring any Te in the process. I grew up being lectured by Te egos and I can see clearly that you do not value it but maybe if you keep blowing your own horn loud enough someone might believe you because they don't want to have to wade through this nonsense to find any semblance of truth besides yours. Keep twisting things if you want but it isn't going to make your posts more "factual".LIEs usually have a rather direct and formal style of interacting and communicating. They commonly have a tendency to speak quickly, and to the point. They tend to value clear and unambiguous communication and may place great attention on distributing factually accurate information to others, and often expecting the same degree of clarity in return.
Oh and LSI also notice when things are out of place because they categorize them a certain way. AND, what is with all this feely talk? I think I am going to gag if you mention your feelings in relation to people's types one more time. I could barely keep from it when you told the story of the "SEE" .You feel this and that but feelings are often poor judges of reality. They are subjective and open to misunderstanding. I would tell you to use intuition but you would probably fuck that up too. It seems you need someone around to clean up the mess you are making of socionics and now instinct stacking. I prefer you do not mention my instincts but if you are going to then put it in the other thread as @Myst suggested. Then we can discuss it properly.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I couldn't sleep or I would have missed this entirely since I was not actually @ mentioned. I only saw the thread again because you bumped it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I actually feel like as the lead gamma intuitive extrovert my role in this is pretty by the numbers
Now that made me irlol. Good night Bertrand.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Replied in the members type thread.
lol don't bother with Socionics, people literally make shit up because it can be neither proven nor disproven. So they fill in the empty space with bullshit based on their random, and amateurish, observations. So you have people making nice and little theories based on their limited observations, which might make sense to them, but to the outsiders it just seems like some incoherent gibberish that make little to no sense.
Yeah the more the writing depends on model A, the worse the gibberish.
Some of the ideas in Socionics do have validity but the models themselves, ehh...
I don't know what this Ti as Point of least resistance really means. All I can think of is that I hate math... it really annoys me. Everything that has to do with figuring out numbers is difficult for me.
In cute nonsense.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
