Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Stacy Keibler

  1. #1
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Stacy Keibler

    I get a very strong feeling she's ESE.

    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  2. #2
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Her and Tyra Banks who is SEE imo.

    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  3. #3
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Which IE is being high-strung related to?
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  4. #4
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    EJ in general. Exceptions do exist; trend, not a rule.
    Oh I see. Tyra Banks is SEE and an exception to your rule IMO.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  5. #5
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    What's so ESFp about her? She's too brash and something of a loudmouth demagogue, which would also point towards ENFj imo.
    Have you ever met an SEE? I've had to live with one for roughly 20 years. They are the definition of brash. Her comes out pretty strongly when she insists on her forceful judgments about people's character.

    Gene Simmons is SEE.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  6. #6
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    ESFps usually come across fairly calm and composed to me, somewhat shy at first even. I don't often have negative reactions to them.

    Doubtful. Looks β to me.
    I think you're mistyping SEEs.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  7. #7
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Sounds like you're overgeneralizing your 1 personal experience from living w/ a supposed ESFp for 20 yrs. Unless you have more to back your justification for typing these people as such?
    I'm not. Nice cop out though.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're aware that ashton has a giant typelist of famous people, those who have these common similarities belonging to the same type and quadra, so it's kind of hard to argue with him when you're bringing up like 2 people who are allegedly typed wrong. Just my personal opinion. Unless you'd like to show off your collection of people and explain day after day why you type them together in such a fashion. I guess a good argument to use against him is to explain why those people are like some of the other SEEs in his list.

  9. #9
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    You're aware that ashton has a giant typelist of famous people, those who have these common similarities belonging to the same type and quadra, so it's kind of hard to argue with him when you're bringing up like 2 people who are allegedly typed wrong. Just my personal opinion. Unless you'd like to show off your collection of people.
    The size is unimportant if he's putting them into the wrong typing in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I asked if you had additional justification, it's not copping out.
    Irrelevant because brash is very much part of the vocabulary for leading, SEE in particular. The IEs serve as a justification. If you need additional justification, then it means you don't understand the elements.

    I'm open to the possibility she's EIE who overemphasizes her hidden agenda and has a self-righteous moral streak, but I'd need more than some contrived explanation based on an esoteric view of temperaments.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  10. #10
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just mentioned how they all have their own similarities, which might help you understand why he types them as ESFps, or whatever, instead of just saying how wrong it is. To approach this from a common basis would be useful, and since you haven't shown much evidence on you opinions, looking over these typings and discussing seems like a reasonable way to figure out what to talk about. I mean, I'm not siding with anyone, I'm just saying.

  11. #11
    Haikus Sirena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    GAH, US
    TIM
    Mumpsimus
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Have you ever met an SEE? I've had to live with one for roughly 20 years. They are the definition of brash. Her comes out pretty strongly when she insists on her forceful judgments about people's character.
    My mom is one and I concur.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    ESFps usually come across fairly calm and composed to me, somewhat shy at first even. I don't often have negative reactions to them. Though as an α, YMMV.
    Huh? What kind of SEEs have YOU come across??

  12. #12
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jxrtes is right.

  13. #13
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    It's all observable evidence. Something you don't have much of.
    Then lets go through your "observable" evidence. Give me a justification for why they're all similar and why being in that cluster makes them SEE.

    So every person who behaves in a brash manner is leading IYO?
    No! The converse is true: leading behaves in a brash manner. I was making a positivist claim, which makes my argument weaker than I'd like, but much stronger than yours because you didn't use information elements.

    It's not an esoteric view at all. My stance on temperaments is well in accordance with what's been routinely established of them for the last 2,000+ years or so.
    Haven't those temperaments largely been debunked as pseudoscience? Just curious.

    Even if they haven't, why do you just assume they're the same temperaments as in socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    I just mentioned how they all have their own similarities, which might help you understand why he types them as ESFps, or whatever, instead of just saying how wrong it is. To approach this from a common basis would be useful, and since you haven't shown much evidence on you opinions, looking over these typings and discussing seems like a reasonable way to figure out what to talk about.
    If I told you I have two apple shaped fruits that look alike, then of course they must be the same fruit. But if I said they were oranges instead of apples, that doesn't then make me right. It makes it a misleading and ridiculous statement.

    Besides, I have just as many observations of people I know. They're just much more informal.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  14. #14
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Go look for yourself. You don't need me to hold your hand. The evidence can speak for itself, it doesn't require a theoretical context in this case to make sense of.
    The word SEE is a theoretical construct that doesn't exist in reality. If you're going to correlate a cluster of people to that word, you need to back it up with a theoretical context that properly defines it. It doesn't make sense to call them SEE without one because, without the theory, they're just people who look alike that are arbitrarily grouped together.

    You didn't operationally define "brash," so unfortunately the argument remains largely meaningless. I 'get' what you mean, but lets not pretend to ourselves that the argument has much strength, or that invoking information elements magically makes it any stronger.
    Brash - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    I don't know, but it hardly matters if so. Socionics is pseudoscience just the same and you've said so yourself on numerous occasions.
    lolwut? Two wrongs don't make a right.

    There's no good reason to assume they're ontologically distinct. We're better off assuming that both theories speak of the same entities.
    There's no good reason not to assume they're distinct either.

    Sounds about like your argument for asserting that all ESFps are "brash."

    How about some observations of people we can all observe?
    No it makes it the opposite, because my conclusions follow purely from deduction from the theoretical nature of the elements.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  15. #15
    Haikus Sirena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    GAH, US
    TIM
    Mumpsimus
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Its pointless to talk about people we know in our personal lives, since these persons are not available to 3rd-party observation.

    You can check Socionics Types Database or Gallery if you wish to get an idea of who/what I type as ESFp.
    I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. What makes your typings any more correct? Who exactly has verified them that would be qualified to do so to the point of absolute correctness?

  16. #16
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,098
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What are these alternate temperaments that may or may not be the same as socionics yall speak of?
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  17. #17
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Anybody can look for themselves, apply an understanding of intertype relations and information elements, and look for the unifying patterns and trends in the cluster of observations.
    If it's so easy then why not tell me? Educate me please.

    That's not really an acceptable operational definition—but okay, does this definition necessarily correspond to something uniquely fundamental to ? Non- egos could exhibit these traits as well, yes?
    Actually, in my understanding it corresponds mostly to EP types. But I think it tends to be exemplified by egos because of their higher level of activity and direct involvement in the environment around them.

    EJ is more about rational, linearly-directed action than about being brash.

    Is Socionics a pseudoscience IYO?
    Yes, but whether or not it's a pseudoscience is irrelevant to me. Quantum mechanics was pseudoscientific at one point. Economics is still a proto-science. It didn't and doesn't prevent people from seeking to find something scientific about them.

    Consilience of knowledge.
    lol. No more than mcnew mixing socionics and astrology.

    Which means nothing without an objective empirical substantiation. I could derive a theoretical deduction of why the pattern of hairs on my head means I'm King Tut, and it would the same epistemic weight as your conclusions.
    Then none of any of these typings mean anything. Especially not your big list because you didn't use any empirical methods to derive it, just your subjective impressions. Unless you identified the similarities in strict laboratory conditions, you don't have a right to call them empirical.

    But lets suppose you did have a lab and the empirical means to test socionics. You still need to have a theory to test out. It doesn't work just by making loose correlations.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  18. #18
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,098
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Four temperaments/humors theory.

    Choleric = EJ
    Phlegmatic = IJ
    Sanguine = EP
    Melancholic = IP

    Google should be replete w/ info on it, some sources more dubious than others. But nevertheless about par in absurdity to Socionics.
    Funny Keirsey did the same setup except it was
    Choleric = NF
    Phlegmatic = NT
    Sanguine = SP
    Melancholic = SJ

    Your version makes a lot more sense than Keirsey's as far as socionics is concerned but the chance that the authors of both socionics and the four humors were thinking of the same thing when making temperaments seems small.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  19. #19
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton
    Lol. If it could be so easily condensed into words, I wouldn't have gone through the efforts of putting up a gallery. Pictures and videos convey these things much better.
    Ah, I see your point. I looked at your gallery and I disagree with all the similarities you see between the typings.

    This is all vague to me. Do you have sources which might explain any of this better?
    Gulenko assigned those definitions when he invented the temperaments.
    His article is in a post Rick linked to once, if you can find it.

    Linear-Energetic -- EJ
    Mobile-Flexible -- EP

    I beg your pardon? The idea of consilience has nothing to do with astrology or mysticism. It's merely the notion that inductions in various fields of knowledge should, ultimately speaking, be relatable to one another. i.e., theories in economics should be traceable to theories in psychology, which should themselves should be traceable to a basis in neuroscience > chemistry > physics… Surely don't disagree w/ this?
    Does that mean that all inductions in mcnew's astrology theory can be correlated to socionics as well?

    Lol, you don't need a laboratory to be empirical—unless we had something measurable and wanted to meet requisite scientific standards, which we can't (at this point of development). Aside from this, an observation does constitute an empirical datum. Further, everything that I've observed is something objective—that is, any 3rd-party observer can look at the same images, videos, and written excerpts which were used to infer my conclusions.
    Stop at the bolded part. Yes you do. You need to control for variables in order to create experimental conditions, that's all I mean by "laboratory".

    Other than that, I can pull a list of 1000s of typings out of my ass on the basis of some undisclosed subjective similarity, and they could contradict yours entirely. It doesn't make me right and yours wrong on the basis of having more typings.

    That would be nice, but I think loose correlations are the best Socionics is going to get for right now. Until we have something that's actually testable/measurable.
    Since I question your theoretical understanding, I question your typings.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  20. #20
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    everybody stop fighting



    also ESFj probably
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  21. #21
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Omg there's disagreement in Socionics. I'll be my father's knickers.

  22. #22
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Kick his ass, Xerxes!

  23. #23
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with ashton when he says there are a lot of points he can't explain, because in actual relationships its hard to explain why two people get along. There are so many loose factors that attribute to this theory. That's why he made a type list, so you can get a closer picture of how he sees relationships and the essence of a personality type instead of defining it in strict explainable parameters. He's explained many aspects of Socionics in posts, but nothing he's said is close enough to the ultimate truth. So there's a level of humility that goes along with what he's done.

  24. #24
    Haikus Sirena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    GAH, US
    TIM
    Mumpsimus
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I think you missed the point of what I said. I'll restate w/ emphasis: Its pointless to talk about people we know in our personal lives, since these persons are not available to 3rd-party observation. Unless of course you can supply pictures, videos, written statements, and other primary sources from that person. That would be wholly acceptable.

    Making sense yet? Anybody can debate the accuracy of these typings if they wish (though not all of them are mine).
    No need to be a patronizing jerk.

  25. #25
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In my opinion, based solely on those videos, Stacy Keibler is ESE. Her description of high school, especially, sounded like a typical ESE-dealing-with-Vulnerable-Ni thing (i.e., in high school she couldn't look ahead and see which things would be important in ten years and which would not). I would guess she's D-ESE, in specific.

    I also agree that Tyra Banks is more likely SEE than EIE. She's got that "judging people's worth based solely on physical appearance" thing going on, which Gamma SFs so frequently have. She also projects a very solid, "here-and-now" presence, while EIEs are less physically grounded and focus on ideas and things not currently present in the surrounding environment.
    Quaero Veritas.

  26. #26
    Haikus Sirena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    GAH, US
    TIM
    Mumpsimus
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I apologize. I shouldn't have done that.

  27. #27
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Ah right. Yeah, I've read those. Though I disagree that he "invented" temperaments. It appears more that he borrowed from pre-existing knowledge on the matter.
    The crucial point is that they're different from the classical temperaments you cited.

    I don't think so. I suppose you could try if you wanted to. But I don't see McNew's astrology theories being in the same class as Socionics theories; to my knowledge, both deal with radically different kinds of phenomena. Whereas temperament theory and Socionics are in a similar class of pseudoscience, as they pertain to similar phenomena.
    Why not? Those theories belong to the class of things that have to do with every other thing. Principle of consilience and all that.

    And..? How does your list match up with sense experience if the classification is entirely based on your own subjective impressions. Sense experience would imply bringing in a strict form of behaviorism (see BF Skinner) to the process of typing.

    Another key tenet of empiricism is that observations must be repeatable, which you haven't managed if you think a subjective method can be repeated. So your observations aren't really empirical. There is a word for them, however -- hypothetical.

    Assuming there were multiple discernible similarities, assuming intertype relations matched up satisfactorily, etc. Properties which my typing, by and large, do happen to possess.
    Like I said, I don't see the similarities.

    Which would be a laughable basis to question me on, since no rigorous theoretical explication of Socionics theory exists. Every last person is pulling subjective dingleberries from their ass every time they claim to be speaking with authority on what's "Socionics theory."
    Oh I don't expect you to change your mind, since like I said, there is no scientific proof or anything. I don't really care if you choose some different metric. It's really your choice and your own loss in the matter, since I've found socionics immensely useful in the form I've acquired it.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  28. #28
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One way I'm sort of leaning in defining the temperaments in terms of P and J with I and E, naturally, is in using the traditional ideas, saying that extroverts expend more bodily energy (focus is towards their environment and having affect), where as introverts expend more mental energy (focus is towards thoughts and ruminating), going with the science that introverts have longer thought canals and require more blood in their brain, and extroverts have more blood flowing through their body, can think more quickly and resourcefully (introverts moving and acting more resourcefully), that doubled with rationals focusing mainly on what is expected or towards a goal in mind, where as irrationals are more focused on their internal state and doing what they want or need in order to keep it. This has sort of been the classic overall theme of these 2 dichotomies I've gathered from online sources, debate it all you want or how different it is to what you think, though I know there can be exceptions when more potent correlations go in favor of a different type. So essentially you're combining these two dichotomies, and forming an overall feel of the four temperaments. I think that any of these four temperaments, Sanguine, Choleric, etc, could reflect various Socionics types without stark correlation. I've never been of the opinion that a Phlegmatic personality was right for a Choleric personality, necessarily, or Melancholic for Sanguine, though I have heard of this idea. I am sure that I fit the Melancholic temperament the most, anyhaps.

    So in theory you have two Js that have a similar wavelength of wanting to achieve more expectations and goals (more or less), and two Ps that have their wavelength of wanting to achieve their desired states, being a unique goal in-of-itself. The introverted partner can think things through more, and the extroverted partner is able to act and participate with more of the outer going-abouts, where in combination you ideologically have a mutually rewarding, even-mannered (I with E) and meaningful (PP or JJ) relationship.
    Last edited by 717495; 07-20-2010 at 05:50 AM.

  29. #29
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Not significantly. Even if they were starkly different, I would argue that the classical temperaments have supremacy over the more recently crafted Gulenko ones.
    There are enough differences to socionics types to warrant abrogating the use of classical temperaments. That's IMO.

    In my typing experience there are plenty of IxEs who aren't sanguine/extroverts. EIEs who are sanguine rather than choleric and so on.

    Eh, don't be facetious. It's silly. You're smarter than what you're saying.
    It's not silly. Adding more pseudoscience to socionics without any qualifications whatsoever makes as much sense as grafting mcnew's theories to it.

    ^ Apparently someone didn't read the Wiki entry very well and wants to insist on remolding the meaning of the word 'empirical' to their own specifications.
    Read it yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Empiricaldata is data that is produced by experiment or observation.
    But anyway, FYI: The list isn't drawn solely from my observations; others have been able to repeat them, so the principle of replicability is there (albeit, not to the kind of scientific standards I would ideally like of course). There's about a dozen or so people who either are or have been regular contributors to the list. Upwards of 95% of the typings there have had input from multiple parties. I more or less just strive to keep the list updated and in an easily disseminated format.
    Have they really repeated them independently, or have you based your method around your collective subjective input?

    And I don't really see your theoretical deductions having any reliable, tangible basis in reality. You can talk about types being "brash," but subjective attributions like that mean nothing to me until you can start establishing it with at least a dozen or so examples with which to qualify that kind of terminology, and consistently adhere to your definitions over the course of time (permitting gradual minor evolutions for the sake of further clarity of course). Otherwise you risk 'smorgasbord thinking' and spewing ad hoc hypotheses. Not accusing you of this, but I've often seen identical hypotheses used by the same individuals to defend entirely contradictory conclusions at different points in time.
    If you insist, I type the following people as leading:
    Britney Spears (tentative)
    Will Smith
    Tyra Banks
    Lady Gaga
    Paris Hilton
    Gene Simmons
    King Henry VIII
    Achilles
    Gwen Stefani
    Shirley Manson
    Gordon Ramsay
    Jimmy Kimmel
    Brad Pitt
    Bobby Fischer
    George S. Patton

    I see all kinds of subjective similarities between them. If you don't agree, then I don't see the point in further arguing. Let's just agree to disagree so we can move on with our lives because we're probably not doing the same socionics.

    I just think its ridiculous when people criticize the "theoretical understanding" of others, when no real basis exists for deciding who's "theoretical understanding" is better or worse. I mean, unless you're willing to speak straight from Aushra when you talk about IEs and what not. Which I don't think anyone who's actually read those monstrosities is prepared to do that, heh.
    lol. You've been criticizing my theoretical understanding this whole thread. I've read most of Augusta's work by the way, and anyone smart enough to operate a translator can grasp the intended meaning.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  30. #30
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I see no sufficient distinctions b/t Socionics types and temperaments to warrant that measure. If anything, understanding temperament theory makes the task of Socionics typings more accurate.

    The qualifications are already inherent. They pertain to similar phenomena; McNew's bozo astrology stuff does not.
    Yeah it does. It pertains to explain socionics type behaviors. It's elaborate, internally consistent and everything. It explains everything very neatly and correlates to most of socionics.

    Yes, observable by the senses. What's the issue here? As I said, anyone can conduct their own observations and hear/see the same evidence used to make the typings. I'm not asserting these observations would meet scientific rigor, however.
    Drawing a correlation between the concept SEE and those people is not something you can observe, record or test. It's a purely mental process until we have the tech otherwise.

    Having others come to similar conclusions doesn't mean that something has empirical evidence. Plenty of Fundamentalist Muslims come to the exact same conclusion about God all the time. If it doesn't give it empirical proof then, it doesn't now.

    Lol@"intended meaning"… Phrases like that are a pandora's box of subjectivity.
    Only someone so lost in their own subjectivity would assume its existence in everything else.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  31. #31
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jxrtes, what type is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and what can you say about their relationship that reflects something in Socionics? I'm curious in general about this scenario, even though I don't really pay attention to them.

  32. #32
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Jxrtes, what type is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and what can you say about their relationship that reflects something in Socionics? I'm curious in general about this scenario, even though I don't really pay attention to them.
    I'm sorry I can't give a detailed explanation because most of my justifications are subjective and wouldn't have discussed them under different circumstances, but:

    Brad Pitt = SLE
    Strikes me as a typically confident manly-man persona with a certain flair, high standards for his personal image, and a slight penchant for metro-sexuality.

    Angelina Jolie = LSI
    Not sure at all about her, except she's very matter of fact and completely reserved about her feelings. Sort of a man-eater vibe. Seems indomitable, which is an impression I often get from rational STs.

    Jennifer Aniston = ESE (Which explains her falling out with Brad; in benefit there can be lots of mutual interest at first before the relationship starts to deteriorate under closer contact).
    She strikes me as a typically emotionally effusive woman with mercurial moods, who wears her heart on her sleeve and has a very hard time dealing with break ups and divorces.

    Aniston is good friends with Zooey Deschanel, whom I see as my identical (probably ILE).
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  33. #33
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    The mental process is observable in their words, at least I regard this as a safe assumption to make. Obviously you still haven't read Semantics of Information Elements, or you thoroughly disagree w/ the core premise of said research.
    Three things,

    1)Those experiments were conducted under better experimental conditions than tinychat/stickam.

    2)Experienced socionists typed those people first and the experimenters already had a theoretical conception of what each element was supposed to look like. I didn't realize you looked up to the Russian socionics establishment so much. But anyway, those people weren't selected via a purely correlation process with others who were just like them.

    3)The article agrees with me that Tyra is ego.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article Fi ego
    - evaluations that include oaths or insults
    - constant traits; personality and character traits
    - evaluating people's behavior
    Can you read, write, and speak in the Russian language? Otherwise, do tell me how babelfish/google translations of Aushra Augusta's writings do not imply some level of subjectivity bordering on exegesis…? Any native speaker will tell you that a lot of the nuance in the language and its meanings become lost in machine translations.
    That's not what native speakers have told me, but it doesn't matter. The number of permutations for the arrangement of syntax in a sentence is relatively small enough that you can safely make deductions with a high enough accuracy.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  34. #34
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    HST levies scalding character judgments on people, yet you type him ENFj. i.e.:

    “Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism—which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.”
    I see where you're coming from, but I still think he's EIE. That quote is full of emotionally charged adjectives, which are replete through most of Hunter S. Thompson's writings.

    I think it's easy to confuse any character judgments with , but general character judgments like that can be done by any type.

    I don't really see much . He doesn't talks about Nixon's personality characteristics when judging him. Actually the only real specific character trait he mentions is that Nixon was "all-American", which isn't even a character trait specific to Nixon the individual (every politician has it, which puts it more in terms of the greater American social context that Hunter frequently criticized) and is more of a reference to the image that Nixon liked to project than to Nixon himself.

    Interpreting correctly the nuances of a language is more than just making deductions b/t a series of syntactical permutations.
    I hope that means you've only been misinterpreting my posts.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  35. #35
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    'qualitative adjectival evaluations' is listed under as well. No analogues exist under semantics.
    Yes it does:
    Quote Originally Posted by Fe

    • frequent use of emotionally charged adjectives
    Character judgments in general, I agree are not going to be unique to IE. But the quality/phrase/tone/contents of their construction, is something identifiable to . In which case I think HST's statements fall more in line with what is described of > . As well as .

    Okay. If that doesn't do it for you, how about:

    “Richard Nixon has never been one of my favorite people anyway. For years I've regarded his existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad. The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine.”

    Also:

    “Nixon believed, as he said many times, that if the president of the United States does it, it can't be illegal. But Nixon never understood the much higher and meaner truth of Bob Dylan's warning that ‘To live outside the law you must be honest.’”
    Again, just because someone is being criticized doesn't mean that he's being judged using . It's not safe just to apply the contents of articles like that literally and uncritically without some idea of their intended meaning. Recalling the question of subjectivity, science is essentially a process of trial and error that includes a huge amount of intelligent guesswork when formulating hypotheses and explanations. Under conditions of lack of evidence, conclusions aren't selected on the basis of their correlation with empirical truth, but on the basis of their beauty, elegance and explanatory power. It's well understood that these conclusions are never final without evidence to back them up. Science isn't formal logic and formal logic is horrible at explaining the workings of the universe.


    As for the quotes:

    The imagery he uses (like poison toad, hyena, rancid genes) is actually quite provocative and calculated to cause an emotional association. The only concrete character trait he cites in the first -- "the Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless" -- sounds exactly like the type of criticism an ego would make against someone from a serious quadra who tries to avoid, or is insusceptible to, the emotional analysis of their reactions.

    The criticism of Nixon as a dishonest person is a bit better, but without proper context I don't see how it relates to valuing personal integrity as opposed to valuing the truth. I mean even I've suspected/accused people of being dishonest before and it's a constant theme with the Betas here to accuse others of hiding the truth or lying for ulterior motives.

    Tyra's judgment based on the other person's lack of responsibility in this video is what I associate with Gamma . There is a strong focus on mobilizing the other model to take responsibility for her self (), and a forceful seal of judgment is put on her character for failing to live up to her own and Tyra's personal expectations from the relationship: "We were all rooting for you. How dare you [do this to me]" (). Also for failing to comply with Tyra's essential motive to provide her with .


    In my opinion, the quotes you posted sound more like gossip than a character analysis. And that's the reason I find them not only incredibly hilarious, but more insightful about Nixon's role in American politics than what an ego could produce about him.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  36. #36
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Wow, her antics are completely disgust me in that video. Scolding someone to the point of public humiliation, in the name of some illusionary collective group loyalty is typical β Aristocracy at work, and is reprehensible. Tyra comes off like a shrill drama queen making a spectacle of herself and everyone else involved; and she seems to like it, being all zealously worked up and howling like a godawful banshee. It's really gross and it absolutely reeks of abhorrent .
    I don't think that's what it was and I don't think most of it was . The emotional reaction was spontaneously engendered by her being offended; she wasn't trying to modify the atmosphere around her or pass her emotional state on to others; she even ended it abruptly. Also your absolute correlation between and that sort of drama is frankly offensive.

    Let's just drop it because we're not going to agree. We clearly have different ways of framing the phenomena in question and different ways of perceiving the role of science. I wish you good luck though in making your socionics more scientifically rigorous.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

Posting Permissions

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