Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in quadra values

  1. #1
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in quadra values

    Removed at User Request

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Boy: ENTp
    Wolf: ESTp
    Narrow minded villagers: ISFj

  3. #3
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  4. #4
    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

    I think an Se-Ego, SLE or SEE, makes more sense for the boy. He can't foresee the long term consequences of his actions, indicating weak Ni, and he is amused by making the villagers do his bidding, which seems more like a frivolous use of Se. He's enjoying the power he's discovered he has over the villagers. Some equally immature Se-Egos commit petty crimes for the same reason (shoplifting, vandalism, etc.).
    Quaero Veritas.

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ftr: my post was satire. I don't have more than a shallow recollection of what the story is about and just established typings based on stereotypes.

    I think an Se-Ego, SLE or SEE, makes more sense for the boy. He can't foresee the long term consequences of his actions, indicating weak Ni, and he is amused by making the villagers do his bidding, which seems more like a frivolous use of Se. He's enjoying the power he's discovered he has over the villagers.
    I see it as more of a manifestation of unvalued Ni. The decisions was basically all about seeing potential in a radical "plan". It explicitly involved not caring about long term consequences. I also think "power" is a far more general thing than just Se and not really in any way incompatible with the ENxp mindset.

    Other than that, the character is fictional, not well fleshed out, and probably exists in a multitude of incarnations in the first place, so one could question the point of typing him.

  6. #6
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    ftr: my post was satire. I don't have more than a shallow recollection of what the story is about and just established typings based on stereotypes.



    I see it as more of a manifestation of unvalued Ni. The decisions was basically all about seeing potential in a radical "plan". It explicitly involved not caring about long term consequences. I also think "power" is a far more general thing than just Se and not really in any way incompatible with the ENxp mindset.

    Other than that, the character is fictional, not well fleshed out, and probably exists in a multitude of incarnations in the first place, so one could question the point of typing him.
    That's a reasonable position. At least we can agree that this kind of stirrer-upper of trouble is clearly EP.
    Quaero Veritas.

  7. #7
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  8. #8
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se egos have much more trouble seeing the future consequences of their actions than Ne egos. That's why so many of the frakked up celebrities who mess up their future lives by acting wildly in the present are Se egos; i.e. they can't maintain harmony with a single path through time.

    ILEs have trouble maintaining harmony in the present but pretty thoroughly understand the results of their (in)actions for the future. It's certainly possible they may not care though.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Se egos have much more trouble seeing the future consequences of their actions than Ne egos. That's why so many of the frakked up celebrities who mess up their future lives by acting wildly in the present are Se egos; i.e. they can't maintain harmony with a single path through time.

    ILEs have trouble maintaining harmony in the present but pretty thoroughly understand the results of their (in)actions for the future. It's certainly possible they may not care though.
    Here is a point of agreement, if a socionic type has Se function within their first or second blocks, they often advocate living life to the fullest, and they justify their way of life based on ignorance. They will ask you and themselves: "what happened last weekend?", before you can answer, they will answer their own question "I have no friggen idea", "so do whatever you want, no one remembers anyways!". They're non-reflective. They can be the life of the party for sure but at the same time without any direction they can easily fall into a viscious circle, like becoming an alcoholic or addict. The pecular aspect of their personality is they like it that way, sortive. If they turn to alcohol, they are going to be an alcoholic, they would not be settled to imagine what it must be like to be an alcoholic.

  10. #10
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  11. #11
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    As far as I can tell, there is no possibility to have a global persistent view - both in time and space - without using these functions: Te, Fi, Se and Ni.
    As far as I know, any kind of absolutism - global persistent views coming dangerously close to it - is very unlikely when using Te or Ni. That's something I see as more of a Ti thing, maybe Fi, though I may be as biased as you about it. Te/Fe are extroverted, focused on a piece of information at the time; Ti/Fi are introverted, focused on judging information in context of its entirety - look at your own posts and how often you use words such as true/false/right/wrong/correct/incorrect etc. when there's no justification for it except for its relation to your own understanding of socionics. Yet the terms used are treated as if they were global, as if they related to the outside world just as they do to your own model of it.

    You focus on dynamic aspect of Fe to make your point - but did you once considered that just as Fi approaches relationships globally, based on their entire history rather than just momentary emotions, so does Ti attempt to create global truths which are often absolutist or even dogmatic? It's exactly what you do in this and other articles of yours; you take your own biases and paint them as absolute truths where in fact they're often little more than just that, your biases - and not rarely contradicting facts. You make some good points along the way, but too often they get lost and are dismissed along with the rest.

    Also, in my experience weak and unvalued Ni tends to assume things won't change, rather than that they may change in every possible way - very often saying things are this or that "always" or "never", even though they rarely are either. Though it probably seems worse from my point of view and wouldn't irritate someone who doesn't value Ni.

  12. #12
    Creepy-male

    Default

    I always understood the boy who cried wolf more like

    This is why you should be upright and truthful

    rather than

    You shouldn't be a little attention whore and make up problems to feel like you have power over people

    I mean I guess they are the same thing, but the first one tells you what the solution is for the boy, the second one just criticizes the boy. The first one is using it from the perspective of self-development and the second one is using it from the perspective of self-control.

    Oh and on topic I don't think its socionics related

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    And I assume that you're talking about Se Irrationals, don't tell me that an ESI and LSI would have that peculiarity (previously in your post).
    The person who I quoated as saying "live life to the fullest" is a ESI and I can remember a SEE saying exactly the same thing. A LSI do in fact have that same percular trait, I know a LSI who has a drinking problem and another who has a drug problem. A ESI girl told me she loves giving bj's, I told her that must be why her husband is so happy, noticably another girl who was in the conversation seemed to be uncomfortable. Se types love explicit details, sensationalism, determinism, nihilism, etc. However, Se do have a choice in the matter, its not deterministic if a Se type drinks they will become an alcoholic, or if they have sex, they will become a sex addict.

    In contrast, Ne types can easily practise moderation even in the face of social pressure and distain from their friends and peers. Se types can easily practise excess even in the face of social pressure and distain from their friends and peers.

    Take as an example, a Ne type will drink with their friends but refrain from getting drunk, they stop after having two drinks. When a Se type have one drink, they're getting drunk. That is a clearer example of Se types typical behaviour and notibly Si is compatible with moderation and Ni compatible with excess.

    I would consider it uncommon for a Se type to be moderate and a Ne type to be excessive. I have nothing final to say.

    As for the microsoft example you provided, that went way over my head. I could understand you better if you made your statements more coherent. At some points you almost sound like your combining utilitarianism and socionics.

  14. #14
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chip View Post
    Here is a point of agreement, if a socionic type has Se function within their first or second blocks, they often advocate living life to the fullest, and they justify their way of life based on ignorance. They will ask you and themselves: "what happened last weekend?", before you can answer, they will answer their own question "I have no friggen idea", "so do whatever you want, no one remembers anyways!". They're non-reflective. They can be the life of the party for sure but at the same time without any direction they can easily fall into a viscious circle, like becoming an alcoholic or addict. The pecular aspect of their personality is they like it that way, sortive. If they turn to alcohol, they are going to be an alcoholic, they would not be settled to imagine what it must be like to be an alcoholic.
    Actually, I think Se egos (though more so the IJs) are more concerned than Ne egos, in practice, when it comes to their proper path in life since they value Ni, and often attempt to manifest enough discipline and willpower in the present to ensure their path is a fortuitous one.

    It's just that they're not particularly good at generating Ni themselves, which means they need it spelled out from an external source like a dual or some institution.

    I think the examples you cited maybe more undualized, immature or unhealthy Se egos.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  15. #15
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the boy makes sense as an ESTp because their role manifests itself in the way Pied Piper described; ie he thinks that by getting positive attention he will always get a good result. I would imagine an ENTp is better at foreseeing the consequences of their actions, lol.

  16. #16
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
    ILEs are Carefree types.
    SLEs are Farsighted types.
    Seems to contradict what and are.... how is a sensor farsighted? and how is a type which has its base function in considering the potential of something shortsighted.

    I would guess the ILE is more likely to see the potential use of something and therefore connect a particular solution with all solutions.

    Feynman a famous ILE physicist (as I type him) had a quote....

    "The same equations have the same solutions"

    which means, if you encounter a problem that has the same equation, even in a different context or form, it has the same solution.

    The SLE is more a in the moment pragmatist from what I understand.

    The only ILE thing about the boy crying wolf is that ILE occasionally test people and experiment, poking their buttons to test their reactions. They do this to consider possible scenarios with people, and most of the time they don't take this seriously, but its not a good way to act around a tight assed ESI as they believe people need to be really ethical when dealing with people. ESIs are likely to take an ILE seriously when they say something offensive, then when the ILE explains "I'm not serious", they are likely to still remain offended, and then when the ILE explains "I was just experimenting with people", they are likely to claim the moral high ground and explain why you can't do this....... in which case they are attempting to transfer their Ne-PoLR to the ILE who obviously rejects this because leading Ne is the source of their awesomeness, however the ESI underappreciates this and is likely to go out in public and campaign against ILE-dom and convince the society to make laws to preserve the core ethics of the nation (once again without understanding the ILE was not serious and only joking). Eventually the ESI gets laws passed, and the clever ILE like a lawyer using Ne finds a loophole, and so the grand cycle continues. Eventually you'd expect the ESI to learn to tolerate the ILE's eventually, but new ESIs are always being born and educated to hate Ne and wear their PoLR proudly, so...... well....... thats the abundant joy of being ILE. Don't worry about the positive attributes of the ILE.... they are just manipulative and exploitive, that's what potentials, possibilities, and prospects are all about.
    Last edited by male; 09-11-2010 at 06:29 PM.

  17. #17
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I thought the boy (who cried wolf) did it because he thought it was funny. All he had to do was cry "Wolf!" and the entire village would spring into action, a spectacle that he found very amusing and entertaining. Although it did gather him attention because it puts him "in the thick of things" in his important role of calling them all into action. I suppose though that he could instead be a whiny little soul who wants people to protect him and so he always cries wolf so the villagers will rush over and be all "poor little you, are you okay." But I would probably agree that whatever it is, it's to get attention in some form.

    But yes the moral is that after doing this again and again, no one trusts him as credible and they're tired of having to rush over every time he calls only to find it's a waste of their time. I sort of see this as also their fault though. I mean as soon as they realized they didn't consider the boy credible they should have removed him from his post and replaced him with someone they could believe... or had a very serious discussion with him to see if he could turn his behavior around, explaining why it's important that he not create false alarms like this (I mean he's a boy and they're adults, so it's automatically their fault). Also if they're not going to respond when the person in the field says there's a wolf then there's no point in having anyone in the field. So actually now that I've typed all of this I think I really do think it's basically entirely the fault of the villagers and that they were being a lot more irresponsible than the boy who was just being an obnoxious child as children are sometimes prone to do. (I mean it's boring sitting in a field all day or night or whatever... I can easily see why he might start acting out.)

    Also maybe the boy never thought they would actually abandon him in the field because it's dangerous to do that, and he thought it was just a game. If the villagers were trying to "teach him a lesson" or trying not encourage him then they were basically leaving him there to die (a pretty harsh lesson) with no small loss to themselves (as in they would lose some of the livestock probably). If they were just tired of going out there and thinking "oh it's another false alarm, leave it" then they're just as careless as the boy is and not taking their own very serious thing very seriously (no wonder he learned to be equally careless). I mean if you can say "it's a false alarm" every time banking on the chances of a wolf actually showing up being so remote that it will just never happen, then again, why bother ever having anyone watching the field in the first place (since obviously no wolf is ever going to show up). The more I think about it, the more I think the villagers are just a bunch of morons (or whoever is calling the shots is a moron).

    But anyway the boy could have considered consequences somewhat and just been wrong (e.g. not thinking they'd actually abandon him). Really it's a story of betrayal and possibly neglect. The villagers screwed the boy over.

  18. #18
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I thought the boy (who cried wolf) did it because he thought it was funny. All he had to do was cry "Wolf!" and the entire village would spring into action, a spectacle that he found very amusing and entertaining. Although it did gather him attention because it puts him "in the thick of things" in his important role of calling them all into action. I suppose though that he could instead be a whiny little soul who wants people to protect him and so he always cries wolf so the villagers will rush over and be all "poor little you, are you okay." But I would probably agree that whatever it is, it's to get attention in some form.
    Yea that's the basic gist that I got also, he was a trickster that found amusement in his power to make people do things for him out of their fear and concern for him.

    However he didn't respect the power he had, and didn't realize every time he did so he was devaluing the fear and concern they had for him. He was making something important a joke, and when the wolf arrived he couldn't cash in the check he desperately needed because he had devalued it to nothing. He didn't respect his power, he made himself a joke and the villagers didn't take him seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    But yes the moral is that after doing this again and again, no one trusts him as credible and they're tired of having to rush over every time he calls only to find it's a waste of their time. I sort of see this as also their fault though. I mean as soon as they realized they didn't consider the boy credible they should have removed him from his post and replaced him with someone they could believe... or had a very serious discussion with him to see if he could turn his behavior around, explaining why it's important that he not create false alarms like this (I mean he's a boy and they're adults, so it's automatically their fault). Also if they're not going to respond when the person in the field says there's a wolf then there's no point in having anyone in the field. So actually now that I've typed all of this I think I really do think it's basically entirely the fault of the villagers and that they were being a lot more irresponsible than the boy who was just being an obnoxious child as children are sometimes prone to do. (I mean it's boring sitting in a field all day or night or whatever... I can easily see why he might start acting out.)
    Lol yea they could have relieved him or told him to be serious, but it was really both of their faults. It was about the breakdown of trust between him and his village.

    I kind of think if I was the boy, I wouldn't fucking cry wolf if they were actually around (wolves), and if I had devalued the trust of the village, I'd fucking make sure I had something that would help me fight off the wolf.

    I think if I was the villagers, I wouldn't fucking put on immature boy to watch for wolves when I knew there were wolves around, I would put a fucking man in a tower with a bow and arrow or something.

    But that's not the point of the story... its just about kids joking too much and not being serious about serious stuff when they need to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    But anyway the boy could have considered consequences somewhat and just been wrong (e.g. not thinking they'd actually abandon him).
    Lol I don't think the story is about the villager purposefully teaching the boy a lesson, but just about the harshness of life. Like if you abuse people's trust, they won't be their when you really need that trust and help.

    It's really just that simple... if you abuse trust, realize the consequences. If you encounter a wolf, you will need to take that shit on yourself. If you can't do that, then don't fucking abuse your trust.

    People don't like having their trust abused like that, and eventually everyone has a breaking point where eventually they won't allow themselves to be tricked.

    That in my opinion is the way you sort it out.... blaming the villagers is shortsighted because everyone has that breaking point.... blaming the boy is shortsighted because everyone likes to joke. The lesson is about knowing when to play tricks and jokes and when to be serious and why (because you'll fucking die if you do it wrong)... the wolf represents the predator which can be symbolized to represent any potential threat waiting in the shadows to strike and kill you.

  19. #19
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    that story is so lame. it's one of those stories people make up to try and discuss an issue or something. but people love having issues about other people rather than just living their own life. that's why tv is so popular.

  20. #20
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mercutio View Post
    that story is so lame. it's one of those stories people make up to try and discuss an issue or something. but people love having issues about other people rather than just living their own life. that's why tv is so popular.
    lol actually its a folk tale.... its just some story that got passed down throughout the history of human culture. I don't know what its origin is though, my guess would be possibly german, as their are many stories in german folk tales about wolves and forests. The tale probably at one time had some revelence as people lived in villages near forests which were inhabited by wolves. The tale was probably passed down to scare kids into behaving well. Now it has become idiomatic and can be used metaphorically in a whole slew of cases, because the folk tale is so well known.

    Either way, of course its lame, because its from a different time era and its about parents scarring their children into good behavior. It's not a modern action movie with a politically motivated message that appeals to the rebellious adolesence. It's the kind of thing parents used historically to scare there kids, and if you can't understand why parents need to do such things, you haven't experienced dealing with little children. It has little interest to young people, to me I find interest in its historical roots and sociological value.

  21. #21
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    lol actually its a folk tale.... its just some story that got passed down throughout the history of human culture. I don't know what its origin is though, my guess would be possibly german, as their are many stories in german folk tales about wolves and forests. The tale probably at one time had some revelence as people lived in villages near forests which were inhabited by wolves. The tale was probably passed down to scare kids into behaving well. Now it has become idiomatic and can be used metaphorically in a whole slew of cases, because the folk tale is so well known.

    Either way, of course its lame, because its from a different time era and its about parents scarring their children into good behavior. It's not a modern action movie with a politically motivated message that appeals to the rebellious adolesence.
    well parents talk a lot of bullshit. as if children can't see right through them. it makes the mind boggle. do they forget what it's like to be child? yuo don't just "accept" what adults say, and when they pull a quick one it's obvious. kids aren't as "burdened" by adut responsibilities so they can take in a lot more.

  22. #22
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Re: Lucid

    Well I'm not trying to remove all responsibility from the boy (of course he shouldn't have done that) but I still feel the greater responsibility is on the adults who are supposed to be watching out for him so he can grow up into a strong young lad or whatever and not die because he made some mistakes (I mean that's what kids do--they often make mistakes). And I'm sensitive to the boy's character because he just didn't understand what he was doing and he didn't realize and that isn't his fault (you can't help what you don't realize) and they should have been looking out for him rather than allowing his mistakes to be fatal. Anyway, no matter what he did I just see their role as more significant just because they're the elders in the situation and his brain isn't even done developing yet and some people are just reckless and make bad decisions (like the boy) and they can't stop themselves in time (but they don't need to die for it).

    And also it is the sort of thing that should go both ways... the village needs to "have the back" of the person in the field (even if that person is a lying nutcase, it's important to respond every time) just as the person in the field is supposed to warn them when a wolf is coming. So anyway, the boy failing in his responsibility doesn't remove their end of the arrangement (their responsibility). So anyway.

  23. #23
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Well I'm not trying to remove all responsibility from the boy (of course he shouldn't have done that) but I still feel the greater responsibility is on the adults who are supposed to be watching out for him so he can grow up into a strong young lad or whatever and not die because he made some mistakes (I mean that's what kids do--they often make mistakes). And I'm sensitive to the boy's character because he just didn't understand what he was doing and he didn't realize and that isn't his fault (you can't help what you don't realize) and they should have been looking out for him rather than allowing his mistakes to be fatal. Anyway, no matter what he did I just see their role as more significant just because they're the elders in the situation and his brain isn't even done developing yet and some people are just reckless and make shit decisions (like the boy) and they can't stop themselves in time (but they don't need to die for it).
    i don't really know how the story goes.. but you have to learn to read people.. and whether they're just kiddnig around or they're serious...

    and if you can't do that... well let 'em die... they're useless anyway

  24. #24
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mercutio View Post
    well parents talk a lot of bullshit. as if children can't see right through them. it makes the mind boggle. do they forget what it's like to be child? yuo don't just "accept" what adults say, and when they pull a quick one it's obvious. kids aren't as "burdened" by adut responsibilities so they can take in a lot more.
    Lol this is laughably hilarious because it shows the mentality of adolesence perfectly.

    Parents do the kinds of stuff like I explained to their children because they are unwise to the world and naive and innocent. Children don't think of wolves, they think of happy shit like carebears. Children think of cute stuff animals when they see a wolf, they don't fucking think "this thing is going to tear me apart and eat me brutally like a merciless predator in the wild", because children are naive and innocent.

    When kids reach adolesence, they start to understand more about the world, and thus reject their parents explanations as they are not required. They begin to learn more about the world as an adult, they have cynicism mixed in with their naive innocence, and being young they mix the evils of the world in with the adult generation, and probably rightfully so as adults are too cynical to see this, they learn to accept the shittiness of their existence. Anyways their parents realize they are still not fully developed and don't understand everything so they try to continue introducing these lessons, but it can't be in the same manner as they treat a child because that is offensive to the adolesent. What arrises is drama over "I know whats wrong with the world, its your generation".... and "You don't understand whats wrong with the world, your only a kid".

    Yea basically your taking on the adolesence viewpoint because your rejecting this because your to the point where you must reject the older generation and your "parents" advice.

    However what you are failing to understand is this folk tale was likely meant for 5 year old kids, and if you have ever had to deal with 5 year old kids, you'd realize they are relatively stupid to the potential dangers that surround them... that's why people childproof shit, because kids will stick their fingers into electrical outlets and get shocked and die. Kids don't know what the fuck an electrical outlet is.

    Interestingly enough in our society americans always must childproof shit and its all consumerist bullshit, in early human culture, you told kids stories and that was how they learned stuff. Which honestly looking back as a small kid in elementary school I'd much rather prefer to have a parent that would explain shit out to me than one who just childproves everything and ignores me until I'm a teen and then decides to start parenting while I reject everything they say.

  25. #25
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Re: Lucid

    Well I'm not trying to remove all responsibility from the boy (of course he shouldn't have done that) but I still feel the greater responsibility is on the adults who are supposed to be watching out for him so he can grow up into a strong young lad or whatever and not die because he made some mistakes (I mean that's what kids do--they often make mistakes). And I'm sensitive to the boy's character because he just didn't understand what he was doing and he didn't realize and that isn't his fault (you can't help what you don't realize) and they should have been looking out for him rather than allowing his mistakes to be fatal. Anyway, no matter what he did I just see their role as more significant just because they're the elders in the situation and his brain isn't even done developing yet and some people are just reckless and make bad decisions (like the boy) and they can't stop themselves in time (but they don't need to die for it).

    And also it is the sort of thing that should go both ways... the village needs to "have the back" of the person in the field (even if that person is a lying nutcase, it's important to respond every time) just as the person in the field is supposed to warn them when a wolf is coming. So anyway, the boy failing in his responsibility doesn't remove their end of the arrangement (their responsibility). So anyway.
    Yea I understood what you wrote, but its a tale used to scare kids into behaving well and respecting their elders.... its not an actual situation in the news that pundits are debating. If it were, yes I would agree... its fairly obvious, its both of their faults. I'm sure if that really happened the villagers wouldn't be thinking "little snotty brat got what he deserved".... they would be thinking "that's too bad, and that's why you don't cry wolf".... they would feel bad but they wouldn't beat themselves up over it, as its fairly obvious that everyone has a breaking point when they just can't trust you if you lie too much. They would probably tell this to people to prevent such an incident from occurring again as they feel so guilty about what happened and feel it was their fault, and perhaps they would realize the boy was too young to be doing that shit and change their policy.

  26. #26
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  27. #27
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mercutio View Post
    and if you can't do that... well let 'em die... they're useless anyway
    Lol that's not the point....

    The villagers aren't killing the boy, the wolf is. People can't be expected to help all 5 billion people in the world, people have to make decisions on who to help, how to help, and if they really need help. Sometimes things don't work out as they should in hindsight. You learn from that shit and carry on, no one benefits when people beat themselves up over their innocent mistakes. Constantly focusing your empathy on the victim and blaming the rescuer for their incompetency isn't a smart idea, as all it results in is a world where people compete over being the bigger victim and that results in everyone trying to one up each other for the better spot at the bottom, so that people above them can take care of them. In a typical life you will play both the victim and the rescuer, so its probably important to emotionally understand both perspectives.

  28. #28
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Lol that's not the point....

    the villagers aren't killing the boy, the wolf is. People can't be expected to help all 5 billion people in the world, people have to make decisions on who to help, how to help, and if they really need help. Sometimes things don't work out as they should in hindsight. You learn from that shit and carry on, no one benefits when people beat themselves up over their innocent mistakes.

    i know but they're not taking him seriously cos they can't read him, right? which means they're too caught up in themselves to actually perceive reality. and if they can't perceive reality they may as well be dead. so it's ok for them to die.

  29. #29
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mercutio View Post
    i know but they're not taking him seriously cos they can't read him, right? which means they're too caught up in themselves to actually perceive reality. and if they can't perceive reality they may as well be dead. so it's ok for them to die.
    Oh lol I thought your were being bitter/cynical/mocking in the above post ahhahaha, I forgot how you write. I guess I agree, but be careful saying that to someone who is sensitive, they will take it horribly.

  30. #30
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,956
    Mentioned
    137 Post(s)
    Tagged
    15 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Oh lol I thought your were being bitter/cynical/mocking in the above post ahhahaha, I forgot how you write. I guess I agree, but be careful saying that to someone who is sensitive, they will take it horribly.
    I think you have to learn where to draw the line. You can't blame a child in that situation if no-one is taking them seriously. When there are natural disastairs animals often react before humans. And the same kind of thing can work with children. Sometimes they can see things before you see them.

    And if you really care for children you'd listen to them ratehr than jump to conclusions or give them bullshit stories that only half-relate to the issue at hand.

  31. #31
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  32. #32
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mercutio View Post
    I think you have to learn where to draw the line. You can't blame a child in that situation if no-one is taking them seriously. When there are natural disastairs animals often react before humans. And the same kind of thing can work with children. Sometimes they can see things before you see them.

    And if you really care for children you'd listen to them ratehr than jump to conclusions or give them bullshit stories that only half-relate to the issue at hand.
    Lol I didn't invent the story, go complain to the guy who did, I am just analyzing the thing.

    Also I'm saying if you have to deal with children, you'd understand why stories like this exist. Kids are just stupid in this way, its evolution, kids have to trust people with more experience, and people grow out of this as they fully develop their mind and gain experience, typically once your close to your early 20's you don't need parental guidance because you understand how stuff works well enough to live your life.
    Last edited by male; 09-11-2010 at 10:45 PM.

  33. #33
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    You are IMO wrong in these aspects:
    - global views are not absolute, but the opposite. An absolute evaluation is done for the thing itself, with respect to nothing else. I didn't use this word for Serious and Decisive types/functions, but the other way around. You may attach the term to my explanation only if it's applicable, not because you feel like to (misrepresenting me). I use "absolute" for Merry/Judicious and "relative/relativistic" for (Serious/Decisive) for a long time and this view is based on it, not on your fancy interpretation of what absolute means:

    (... lots of self-quoting ...)

    On short: your interpretation of what I said is purely wrong. It's just your Te way of interpreting what "absolute" means. If everyone on this earth drank Coca-Cola you'd believe that the human is a cokephagous specie, about what I can assure you that it's wrong. But through Ti, understanding what a human is, you can tell that it can survive without Coca-Cola despite the fact that all available evidence points the other way. Capisci?

    It is actually strange from your part to claim both that Ti is absolute based on its particular understanding of correctness and that it's global, which assumes considering all available data.
    Again, "absolute truth" is not "global truth", which would imply how it compares to other "truths" which is absurd, using Ti makes it impossible to acknowledge more than one truth, and afaik you're aware of it. When something is correct and makes sense, any further investigation in other views is not only useless, but absurd - assuming that no error is acknowledged.
    As far as I know, Ti refers to its own framework which, unless changed, is applicable in any situation, i.e. globally. I don't know what definition of "global" you're using; it's entirely possible my understanding of the word has been irreversibly skewed by its use in programming, as in "global scope". I wouldn't call Te global and especially not "persistent view". It's true Te attempts to unify its view of the matter by contrasting all available and relevant information, but it can also consider contradictory evidence reliable, which is about as close as it comes to true. It removes contradictions locally. You confirmed the difference yourself, anyway. I'm not sure how you mean to contrast "global" and "absolute", unless you consider the former the same as "contextual", which would inflict on its universality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    Then, to continue:
    - Te and Fe are not focusing on one piece of information each time, but on objects. Te focuses on global evidence, while Fe on the effect on self, therefore Te can (and does, if applicable) simultaneously use all the objects, while Fe can't, one can never know what instance can feel unpleasant until experienced. Memorizing what things is not Fe, btw, in fact memory is not a certain function.

    I focus on on Fe and its descriptions, not on the fact that it's Dynamic. Fe is described as a Merry function anyway. Descriptions state that Fe is based on like/dislike, pleasant/unpleasant, passion, once it becomes a view - the personal values - that becomes Fi. Fe repulsion/attraction is immediate, the Socionics description reject all premeditated repulsion/attraction on Fi. If it was not true, if would have denied the fact that Fe put good mood above judgement based on previous unpleasant experiences.
    I'm not arguing about Fe itself, but commenting on what you say here:

    Through Te, the results of a current evaluation are just another step in building the reliability/value/use of something, it is not a validation/invalidation, the case of Ti. After being rejected as "invalid" by Ti, something is immediately worthless, it is of no interest; but if fate or lack of options makes a new evaluation necessary and the results differ, the previous one is dismissed as a mistake, the same way.
    Similarly, Fe can't accept something that is currently perceived as bad/unpleasant based on its background, the current situation is, hence Fe types inclination to go with the flow of the moment.
    ... in context of what you wrote earlier (should have quoted it before):

    I'd not dare to type the guy, but I'm personally like that in a way: I like to jest and to scare people, many times I actually test them to see what to expect from them - because I don't use to make a long-lasting opinion about anyone (both subdued Se/Ni and Te/Fi, IMO). But when I'm serious I don't even accept an argument like "you use to joke", because right now I'm not joking, this is the only real fact, and what he/she says is wrong. I reject any kind of background when I'm the one to judge, this is one reason why some people think that I'm naive. I'd say I'm not, as long as I'm aware of this, but there's no way to maintain an accurate opinion about a person unless having sustained confirmation.
    What you explain here sounds like a rejection of Fi. But what you forget is that just like Fi is this "background" you have, so Ti has a "background" of its own truths. They're very much alike in this way. You reject implicit background, but not background overall, i.e. you're assigning Je qualities to Merry values. Te, as I've said before, works without this explicit background which allows Ti determine things to be true or false.

    It's important that "background" doesn't mean immediate context, but a baggage of experiences and convictions build up over time, which amounts to preconceptions. So in your example, immediate context is what you put as joking or being serious, while a background you reject is an entire relation between yourself and the other person. That's not to say extroverted functions don't learn, but they don't actively use it. Fi does it with relations; Ti does it with truths.

    Te as build-up is a misconception, though reliability (in immediate context) works; it's trained, but it approaches situations without the background itself. That's a big part of why a lot of your descriptions of it bother me, as they completely disregard it and instead speak of it as if it explicitly judged based on past knowledge - especially the one with horse was horribly inaccurate. Or maybe it was Ni-PoLRish. That is a possibility, but even if so, it's still not Te.

    I used "piece of information" as "object" is often taken way too literally.

    Edit: in respect to my "biased view": you claim that I'm not listening to your opinion and adamantly stick to mine. That's because I understood these things myself, they make and made sense every time I checked them, while when I investigated other claims that contradicted mine - and proved to be wrong to myself -, I obviously rejected them, no matter who the person who claimed them was or how many other people relate to them. I think I'm reasonable and I can't find any reason to accept your random bullshit instead of sticking to my sensible views.

    In the end everything resumes to one thing: why listen to you instead of my reasoning? If you were God and the other forum users your archangels, I would indeed trust you, and accept that all that I know is an illusion .
    Except I've never said half of what you claim I did. You're the one to speak of misinterpretations.

  34. #34
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  35. #35
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  36. #36
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ESE = Farsighted
    The ESE is quick to recognize and respond to passion and emotional involvement, stimulating it where there is none and fueling it where there is. He is well aware of his own and others' passions and tastes and likes to do and say things that stimulates and gives expression to these passions. The ESE likes to see people become lively and animated and show what they feel without thinking first. The ESE equally expects others to let out their negative emotions (despair, anger, sadness) in periods of distress, since he knows keeping them inside can only aggravate bitterness and discontent. His dual the LII finds this openness liberating, and appreciates someone who can positively guide and influence the emotions he communicates.
    LIE = Carefree
    LIEs have blocked with in their ego. That means that they are focused on the accuracy and usefulness of information and actions in a long-term perspective. They rarely think about the expedience of an action in the present without having longer-term consequences in their minds, and their view of reality is shaped by an understanding of the outside world making sense in terms of concrete results. If a decision or statement by a LIE seems to make no sense or lead to lack of comfort in the short term, the reason is that they're already thinking of longer-term gains. The LIEs always have one eye focused on the future to decide their actions.
    Yeah, right
    Well done.

Posting Permissions

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