unvalued Fi? + Hello o/
Hi forum. I'm a former lurker who now finally made an account..
So, here's a [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzmD9GEpdTw&feature=related"]link[/ame] of George Carlin talking about his mother(somewhere at the beginning).
What do you think? Is she Fi? And what about George Carlin's type.
George Carlin looks interestingly sensitive in a way. Like he'd make you feel really guilty if you criticized him at all. And John Stewart is just a typical run-of-the-mill hot narcissistic straight man who wants everybody to rim out his asshole.
So I'm not sure. They're probably both alphas.
both George carlin and the interview are ESE
Mom is not EII.
Mom may be ESI.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Removed at User Request
Yeh, well ILE sounds better than ESE imo because I think he lacks emotional warmth and likes to stick to his ideas.
He also performed a standup about how people are boring.
The themes of the performances just seem mainly idea based, not emotion.
Just because you have Fe leading doesn't mean you have to be emotionally warm to everyone. Maybe he's warm to his lover and not us.Originally Posted by Quaris
Fe usually is inside the brain, gouging for external emotions of others.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Removed at User Request
George Carlin is definitely anPoLR type. SLE could work just as well as ILE.
In favor of SLE, he has a no nonsense "this is right, this is wrong" approach to everything. And he's pretty much the definition of a cantankerous old git. But I'm still hesitant to pick between them because playing a role like that is something an ILE might do.
The mother could be an Fi type from that description, but there's no reason to rule out EIE or another Fe ego, or any logical type for that matter. Any type can suck up to established authority figures.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOWe4-KXqMM]YouTube - george carlin hit the nail on the head back in 2005,fascism[/ame]
Why is Carlin
His humor is certainly known for making politically incorrect leaps to conclusions, but I find it hard to dismiss his comments as merely humorous in a setting like this, even Bill Maher is noted for similar distortions and jumps to conclusions.
I don't think I fully understood your post. Are you saying that he and Bill Maher are both Beta NFs or bothHis humor is certainly known for making politically incorrect leaps to conclusions, but I find it hard to dismiss his comments as merely humorous in a setting like this, even Bill Maher is noted for similar distortions and jumps to conclusions.
Anyway he filters out the intellectual crap and cuts to the chase, which is something I appreciate. That'sthrough and through.
Removed at User Request
I can't see how he is ILE over SLE. Definitely one of the two, as his logic is clear and seems to follow a path of dots so to speak.
Se;
He supports and follows a severe schedule and propells themes like character building through calling losers out for what they are and hard work to actually succeed. He has a lot to say about hard work, especially in his Picasso reference in the interview where he describes how you've got to take hold of your life with your own hands to drive it to your destination; something very characteristic of Se imo and would serve very easily to mobilize an Ni ego.
He is very earthy and argues that the tangible and practical methods that involve working your ass off will be a means to personal success and is at ease with constricting his schedule and lifestyle to tough standards if it is a means to the stage where he can do his job. He also says a bit in the first video about how he is quickly capable of winning the admiration of the authority. In there and in others he talks much of hierarchial structures, and the authority is always in his speeches.
His comedy and life seem to be a perpetual power struggle between opposing authorities. The mother to child, people in heaven to the living etc.; they seem to revolve around the opposing influences.
I can't see Ne in him; he will assume one opposing premise for the purposes of argument, but that is Ti related. He does not consider many things at once and does not seem to make any 'odd' or non-obvious connections between all sorts of objects or things.
Removed at User Request
Yeah ISTj is a good guess. My first instinct says Ne but comparing him to john stewart changes my mind.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFW6NHbWX0E]YouTube - George Carlin - Airplane Safety[/ame]
In this video he is either using Ne alot or making fun of it. He does make a lot of connections that don't seem to have any relevance, but this could be planned out before hand. I am not so sure of myself, but I am not convinced either way as of yet...
Removed at User Request
I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying that Bill Maher's show has a certain level of humor content which is differeny from Larry King's show and also different from Jon Stewart.I don't think I fully understood your post. Are you saying that he and Bill Maher are both Beta NFs or both
What Carlin says in the Bill Maher video is serious enough so that you might argue it's merely for humorous effect if it were on Jon Stewart or Carlin's normal comedy routine, but not on Maher.
I find Carlin funny and I think he isCarlin's actually funny, so he's probably not
Not that people outside my quadra can't be funny but the people I find funniest do tend to be fellow alphas.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
ESTp at first glance, but ILE is also possible... I'd be willing to think either Fi-PoLR is fitting
That may or may not be Fi PoLR, it was too vague to tell. If it's more so a case of "swearing is wrong because that's how I was raised" it's not really type related
A reason more correlated to Fi could be "swearing might offend someone, so you shouldn't do it", thus the motive is about being sensitive to how you affect other people (Fi-ish)
I'm not entirely sure of Carlin's type, though I suspect Fi PoLR is probable
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
yea, I can see your point there.
I generally look at it as a sort of sub-language within a language. The words/vocabulary and pace people use to speak with. Certain sub-language or modes of communication need swearing... certain modes of communication should avoid swearing. It's all a matter of communication. I personally don't believe in getting annoyed at language for its own sake... frustration comes from the implied meaning of this. If someone just says "fuck"... I find myself having the reaction of "bleh". If someone yells "fuck" at me angrily.. I am offended but not because of the word, but the message. The word is exactly the same damn thing, but its the message I focus on.
HAHA! This is perfect! Fi polr right there
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZCS5I80X-8]YouTube - The word '******' - Richard Pryor & George Carlin[/ame]
The final ****** comment by Carlin did seem like a decent example of Fi PoLR.
You just didn't understand it...Fuck off. That isn't "
The black dude talks about WHAT IS WRONG and he also tells the audience how he feels.
Carlin rejects that completely and makes fun of the facts the other dude says. He talks about how fucked up it is for people to THINK IT'S WORNG to say ****** and explains why.
Carlin does say ****** but only to prove that there's nothing wrong with the WORD itself.
Saying possibly offensive things and not prioritizing the affect it has on others is related to Fi devaluing and it's even more apparent in Fi PoLR'sFuck off. That isn't "
This is basically what Augusta is referring to when she mentioned Fi being comparable to measuring the "kinetic energy" between people and how it allows one to "avoid risky collisions"
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
It's not about knowing about those things. It's rather about how different people perceive them and how much value they give to them.Most people (assuming they don't live under rocks) have a sense of what's generally acceptable to say and what isn't, including EXTps. This isn't inherent to
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I'm sorry, but I prefer mangos to kiwis. I hope you will understand.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
This stuff can attributed a lot to Fe-PoLR. From what I know, Fe-PoLRs won't understand social reactions or care about what's right or wrong to do or say, (which is more Fe, like being in with the right people, saying the right things, getting the "social cues," seeing people unequally because of standards) and Fi types will have a strong tendency to want to develop much more personal bonds with individuals, beyond all the meaningless Fe stuff like labels and social expectations. This is at least how I've always seen Fe egos, much too into properness (even if that means something different than another Fe type's way of being proper.) Like most Fe dominants will try not to say stuff that puts them in a position of non-peace, but then might have different expectations as to where to play, or what flavor the atmosphere is, what they're looking for. Yet they'll totally not understand the level of real, me and you-ness, beyond all the bullshit, stuff, that makes us closer to real people, in my opinion. Their heads seem like more in "society" than "reality," or "societal norms" are reality, and "I must see where I play into this and what I want out of it," instead of having this internal uniqueness-accepting sense that is shared among Fi types, where often strong levels of forgiveness and not taking these "personal" things so harshly take place, and there seems to be more "reaching out" and levels of welcomeness. With Fe values, there always seems to be "to each his own," get it right, don't come to me or put your burden on me, you have to learn the right way in this world, to work together, and not expect there to be a depth of relation and that things will just be "understood" because you're a good person. You got to fit in >:] (if that means only with your type of people) and not trouble people (trouble: that which meaning depends on the context), and eat all your peas(so to speak). And with Fe there are "roles" and reality seems to be skewed into these, instead of just seeing what's really there: in the relation itself. Fe types aren't all the same, that's not what I mean, but their behavior tends to "reflect" what they want dependent on their certain culture or group thought of how things are "supposed to be", have this "what's expected from the standards that the group shares" notion: "because this sample reflects reality", and they don't seem to know how to accept and try to relate to all people, instead of just what and who they see as proper. It's like what Ashton was talking about, there being "a set" of rights and wrongs that Fe sees applicable to a Ti structure.
Yeah I can think of many examples of Fi/Fe differences just from watching the game of Survivor, but they're not as telling in text as the main point that I just said. A recent example is this old asian guy who seemed to basically get no respect by any of the four others in his tribe, essentially because he was old, not with the times, might not have related because they were young, was making jokes about being asian, "offending" them somehow, but not even that personally: on a global level, because of their standards of political correctness, being funny yet to them the jokes were getting "old," yet they never even seemed to care in the first place, which is probably why he kept trying, and all of these like emotionless reactions towards who he was as a human being and not seeing how great of a character he was, essentially because the other younger know-it-alls had these "standards of conduct," all basically seemed like Fe valuers who didnt care much about the person, but that his behavior wasn't right. This kind of stuff bugs the shit out of me personally. I can see even an INFj going out of his way to be rude and say ridiculous things, just to test others humanity and acceptance of them. I do it all the time, to see if they even care that I'm a human being. Lol. (and there wrapped up in their Fe world and reactions towards things, have no idea what I'm doing or why I'm doing it.) The one's that sort of "ignore" and stay confined in their little world of "what's really going down" probably have some decently logical reasons for doing so, from my experience, but still to me this is really in disfavor of being a true Fi humanist and just irks me. Their essentially niceness, what I'm sort of tempted to call it, seems to have limits because they want to be "logical" or right, whichever. When you're around Fe types for a certain amount of time, they can often start getting more personal by essentially telling you what not to do, and that you're doing it wrong, or basically to "stop being you." My ISTj used to tell me all the time "don't do this, that's not something I would do, that is rude to do." Obviously there are some things he was taking personally that I wasn't at all, because I just saw it as superficial bullshit clouding his judgment of the actual people involved.
Anyway, I was going to show you the Survivor video I was talking about, of the older asian man being looked down upon by a few young Fe snots, but youtube is being slow right now.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Externally based rule sets that get treated as objective standards isMost people (assuming they don't live under rocks) have a sense of what's generally acceptable to say and what isn't, including EXTps. This isn't inherent to
Beyond that, there are some differences in whatvs.
.
Any set of rules is a way to organize material and that is the domain of both logical elements (external rational, so Ti and Te).
Objective standards are the domain of object elements and they comprise any object that's well-defined across everyone's perception. So for example, that Bush is the 41st president and that a traffic light goes green >> yellow >> red are objective standards, as are rules of behavior that apply to everyone.
One's permanent internal attitude towards a set of rules is
That's a pretty dismissive description of Ti. Ti is interested in the form of logic. It shouldn't be thought of in terms of its content so much. The system isn't implemented based on 'some goal', either. That sounds alot like dominant Ne with creative Ti. The function only deals with coherence. Whether that's clouded by values is an issue of other functions.
This lack of a theory of mind when addressing other quadras is what makes you sound uninformed and arrogant. There is nothing "ostensible" aboutWe're probably talking about different things. Or having different subjective reactions to non-valued IEs. When I think of
Everyone go read that.
I don't make it sound like that at all. It depends on the set of values of theYou make it sound like
There's two aspects to any function. How it inducts its conclusions and how it's implemented in the real world. The former is something that's done in the privacy of one's mind, is spontaneous and not necessarily goal-directed. The latter is something that plays inside a context defined by an associated extroverted function and, within that context, tries to solve the goals set by the extrovert function.
Introverts gravitate toward the former and extroverts gravitate toward the latter, but any type can use both.
No, there is the pure function and then there are instances of the function. Those instances which you describe don't define the function. They can describe it. But what is common to them? That's the function.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
