Ni
Ne
Si
Se
Fi
Fe
Ti
Te
Strong functions of turutututu
What are my strongest functions in your opinion? Check all that applies in your opinion. So basically, the functions for which you could say "fuck yeah, tururututu uses those, I've seen him doing it". I'm dying to know what will results be like. Thank you.
Last edited by Trevor; 07-03-2010 at 06:10 PM.
Probably base Si. Your Ti is weak or unvalued (pretty much absent in your behavior). You rarely express yourself definitively the way xxTj types do.
I have minimal doubt that tuturututu is-base. He may appear to be a little "different" than some of the other LIIs on here, but I don't think it's out of the range of intratype variations, especially given the cultural comparisons between most LIIs here and tuturututu.
Voted Ti and Ne, believe he's mostly likely Ti-LII.
His speech is far more chaotic and destablized than that of Ti types. I wonder how many people would have called him Ti if he never typed himself that in the first place.
@labcoatOriginally Posted by labcoat
It's what I've been wondering too. The number would be smaller, that's for sure.
@everyone: What I'm also eager to know is which forum members are most similar to me in your opinion. One can never get enough of those opinions.
That's the inevitable near-unanswerable question when it comes to type uncertainty. However, that question, in and of itself, proves nothing. One can only suggest that another's reasoning has been faulty or easily influenced, but that only serves to potentially undermine credibility without actually addressing someone's opinion. I always wonder how much a view of a person is skewed by merely knowing their self-typing, but I have absolutely no way of knowing how, making it all a weightless suspicion. The existence of skepticism does not necessitate the shakiness of what one is skeptical of.
That's the inevitable near-unanswerable question when it comes to type uncertainty. However, that question, in and of itself, proves nothing. One can only suggest that another's reasoning has been faulty or easily influenced, but that only serves to potentially undermine credibility without actually addressing someone's opinion. I always wonder how much a view of a person is skewed by merely knowing their self-typing, but I have absolutely no way of knowing how, making it all a weightless suspicion. The existence of skepticism does not necessitate the shakiness of what one is skeptical of.
I once saw that video suggested as an example of Quasi relations. I'm not sure I accept that typing, (person suggested Neo - LII, Architect - ILI) but it was an interesting perspective.
There isn't really any relevant inter-type interaction to analyze in there, imo. I would have guessed the architect is INTj. As to Neo, not sure.
I was wondering why you posted that video.
Your narrative. It reminded me of him. Convolutions wrapped in convolutions without much of a definite point that couldn't be expressed in a few brief sentences.I was wondering why you posted that video.
"Few" and "brief" are both relative terms. I only used 93 words in the matter of 5 sentences. That aside, I prefer to establish background information before delving into what I had to discuss. I wouldn't expect an audience with a contrary opinion to take what I said without any reasons supporting it. It wouldn't have been effective to post a simple "irrelevant."
I know. I'm not attacking you. I just thought the association was funny so I posted about it.
+1I have minimal doubt that tuturututu is
Voted Ti and Ne, believe he's mostly likely Ti-LII.
labcoat, I'm probably even further from the LII archetype you seem to have in your head, but I'm quite certain that if the theory works, I am LII. That gives me a bit of authority when it comes to recognizing other LII, and I say tut is one of us.
LII
And I laughed.
Not really. Your writing style is what I consider to be close to the typical one for INTjs. Other than that, I don't know much about you.labcoat, I'm probably even further from the LII archetype you seem to have in your head
regarding tuturututu's type...
Si/Ne valuing is easily conceivable, the rest seems less apparent. Intratim > extratim, infantile >> caregiver, and most likely Negativist.
Btw, funny how he misspelled his username; wonder if that was intentional.
Last edited by Park; 07-04-2010 at 04:52 AM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Removed at User Request
So the socionics mob community decides tuturututu is in fact the identical of tcaudilllg and continues to pretend there is nothing wrong.
That's a good question... no one is. I'd say Absurd is the closest match, but still not very similar. So if people typing him LSI are right, then perhaps you're both some rare weird branch of Ti-dominance. I just don't see it.
Yes, that was intentional. Who's laughing now, eh? No longer funny?Btw, funny how he misspelled his username; wonder if that was intentional.
I think Absurd is SLI.
Last edited by Trevor; 07-04-2010 at 05:45 PM.
Weren't you discussing a while back how creating meticulous, no-error Ti systems is more the realm of
As for the Keirsey issue, I've seen INTJ proposed as the Architect's typing more often than INTP, although the latter does come up.
In what way ?
Your habits of posting and chatting and talking and living and the very way of being. I don't know, you're the only person who remotely reminds me of tutti here. MatthewZ doesn't seem like him at all, for example. Subjective opinion, gut feeling, et caetera. No complaints are going to be considered.
You hear that, tut ?
We're in the same boat you and me. You know what that means, don't you ? I won't be no longer responsible for the things I'm about to do or have done.
Care to elaborate? What things?
I've done bad things. No, I can't elaborate
By the way. This is your thread not mine.
Maybe you were confusing him with me. I associate the Creating/Creative function with a form of meticulousness. However, I don't really associate Ti with systemacy so much as I associate it with a subjectivistic (aka, not clean empirical thinking but more based on half-justified estimations) attitude towards facts. ExTps are more concerned with isolating facts that uniquely pertain to a situation, like a single right option, whereas IxTjs choose to present a fact with the intent of reaching a certain situation. To the former, the choice is singularly necessitated, while to the latter it is made on a more or less arbitrary basis.Weren't you discussing a while back how creating meticulous, no-error Ti systems is more the realm of
Meanwhile, the ExTps don't really know where their choices will lead them. They are less concerned with this and are more content to know they are "doing the right thing". IxTjs study situations and the paths through which one is reached via another with perfectionism, such that they can predict the results of their actions and choose them on that basis.
That's more or less consistent with dimensionality theory ( 3D: situational (limiting) and 4D: temporal, teleological (empowering) ). But dimensionality theory and limiting / empowering seem to say the opposite thing for dynamic functions.
I associate "situation" with P functions, because it signifies an entity rather than a distinction, comparison or fact.
Pe is the objective, noumenal situation independent of its appearance.
Pi is the subjective, phenomenal appearance of a situation. A subjective state if you will.
Pe is Focal (limiting) in Ij types, so this is what they primarily manipulate. They think in terms of "now the real situation is like this, I want it to be like this, now which transition do I deduce to be necessary".
Eps more or less isolate the transition intuitively without understanding the situation in as much detail. Focussing on a transition rather than situation makes one extrovert: "stepping on the gas" is a transition, so if one deduces this to be right independent of situation you understand what the results will be.
I'd say the link to dimensionality is sketchy at best. What they call "situational" has little to do with my interpretation of the word.
I agree, that's a good comparison. I don't understand why either of them would be
Finally some clear thinking on the forum. Why is this so hard for anyone else to see?I don't understand why either of them would be
It's more that it's a pointless "battle". I agree with you that neither Turutututu nor Tcaud's INTj but as long as they don't see that then...
LII?
If Tut's behaviour is mostly characterized by lots of playfulness and lack of theoretical system building (and I don't know whether it is), then those aren't terribly inconsistent with ILE or even some LSI. Just thought I'd throw the suggestions out there.
He's also fairly argumentative against, and relatively unflappable to, alternative opinions about his type, which isn't at all what you'd expect from the more suggestible SEI Ti HA. Then again he may be perceiving the retyping as a personal attack.
I had the same thoughts and I agree.
I am at a loss as to what you might be referring to with the bolded part.He's also fairly argumentative against and relatively unflappable to, alternative opinions about his type, which isn't at all what you'd expect from the more suggestible SEI Ti HA.
The main argument against ISTj is the fact he is less definitive (more vague) in his self expression than even an INTj is 'supposed' to be.
Hasn't he been vocally critical of attempted retypings by you?
No, he's been rolling with his blows all along.Hasn't he been vocally critical of attempted retypings by you?
I distinctly remember him making rebuttals to you in threads.
They were relatively mild and lacking in persistence. Nothing that's incompatible with ISxp.I distinctly remember him making rebuttals to you in threads.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote