Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 110

Thread: Reinin's Book

  1. #41
    Haikus xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,858
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    That's not what it says. It's read: "If you have a piece of evidence that goes against my understanding, I don't care, because my understanding is still correct. The evidence is misleading and does not describe the way the world generally works (as I have come to know)."
    I keep hearing this about Ti, and if it's uniformly true then I've got to be Alpha SF. Whatever happened to accounting for all the possibilities?

    There is not 100% certainty in a regular self defense situation.
    Bad guy is attempting to kill your family.
    You decide to stop him.
    Your family is dead.
    You attack.
    Bad guy is dead.
    You go to jail for murder, because you attacked too late (not self-defense anymore).

    Your waiting for a 100% certainty (because clearly there were more unseen consequences) would end with a worse situation. The mother fucker got away.

    (I didn't know there were so many people against the death penalty here: "Nobody's really bad!": poor mislead souls.)
    The level of certainty about the values a society should have vs. the biological certainty that you have a right to live without being victimized are very different. Almost everyone has a share of the latter in varying degrees, making the former a dependent variable.

  2. #42
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    I keep hearing this about Ti, and if it's uniformly true then I've got to be Alpha SF. Whatever happened to accounting for all the possibilities?
    You forget that Ti is you're area of creativity (the universal rules can change), and that you do not ignore Te. That quote is specifically for LII's (and LSI's I assume). You are more inclined to account for all possibilities (accepting Ne) than stick to what you know as the universal truth (accepting Ti).


    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    The level of certainty about the values a society should have vs. the biological certainty that you have a right to live without being victimized are very different. Almost everyone has a share of the latter in varying degrees, making the former a dependent variable.
    The correct move is less clear-cut, I agree. But there does (mathematically) exist a set of values an Ideal society should have. If he was confident he found that set of values, and he acted in the best interest of his (good/innocent) people, I can't conceive of how he is psycho or a bad person in general.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  3. #43
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    521
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur View Post
    ...
    I would like to give you my unnecessarily long and complicated answer, but it would serve no purpose because your question is impossible to answer. You question whether or not relativism applies to me, which it does, as it does to everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    I don't agree with your equation, since when is evidence and proof an automatic justification for the truth?
    TiNe is described as a heavy theorist or researcher. What you're proposing is that these heavy researchers do not necessarily require the use evidence to support their theories. Now what, exactly, are these theories made up of if not conclusions and supporting evidence in the form of reason or material facts? Simply conclusions with nothing backing it? That doesn't sound consistent with Ti at all. It makes much more sense to say that the use of evidence is paramount to the Ti sense of continuity. Therefore, if presented with evidence that suggests the opposite of what the TiNe has concluded, does it not follow that he would never simply reject it outright but rather compare it to his already existing foundation of evidence and examine whether or not his current conclusions/premises need revision? Is this not what the descriptions mean when they describe Ti as a lens from which incoming information is compared to already existing principles?

    More importantly, why would any sane person be interested in manufacturing a theory that doesn't work?
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    That's not what it says. It's read: "If you have a piece of evidence that goes against my understanding, I don't care, because my understanding is still correct. The evidence is misleading and does not describe the way the world generally works (as I have come to know)."
    The bolded does not follow from the text; the text states that 'if you have evidence that it's not the way I see it, too bad for the world'. That means you have evidence that it's not the way the LII sees it and the LII is choosing to ignore you, not that you have evidence that the LII interprets as misleading.

    Assuming Reinin/translators/whatevers doesn't run circles around us by writing intentionally misleading descriptions, he probably meant for the descriptions to be taken literally so people of all types can interpret the information. If it's intended literally, my claim follows from what he originally said. Here's why; 'you have evidence' means the opposing party actually has evidence that is evidence and not bullshit, meaning;
    Quote Originally Posted by Evidence View Post
    that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
    which means you have something which 'tends to disprove'. If you have that which disproves and you present it to someone holding the belief it specifically works on, the person you are presenting it to (LII) can either be insane,
    Quote Originally Posted by Insanity View Post
    utterly senseless
    or he can accept/refute the evidence by comparing it to his already existing evidence that supports his theory you're challenging (Ti types use evidence to justify their theorycraft). Keep in mind that in order for something to be evidence all it has to do is be something that 'tends to disprove', the most relevant in this case being 'reason', something more applicable to Ti than Te in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Nowhere does he admit he is wrong. We rarely do.
    Given the description of heavy theorist I cited in response to polikujm, TiNe would be in a constant state of examination and re examination of his principles, and it even says in a description that his principles are subject to 'constant refinement', meaning consistent and frequent admissions that he is wrong.

  4. #44
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The atomic weight of Fluorine after thousands (I'd imagine) of trials is 18.9984032 Grams Per Mole (This builds up into Ti understanding). You just did an experiment that resulted in the atomic weight at a value of 18.562. Did the value shrink over time? An ILI might argue so because he uses Te on a case-by-case basis. The LII will know fo sho his understanding is correct and will ignore this evidence. This is because the LII knows that the laws that make up the universe Never Change, Ever, Ever.

    Reinen did not explicitly state the evidence is proof (evidence is almost never proof). He just stated the evidence pointed towards something other than what the LII understands, and the LII discounts it as fallacious because he has come to understand otherwise.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  5. #45
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,333
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My response is basically what Crispy said. Additionally I think the ILE is more prone to reexamination and seeing no firm underlying system because of various incoming perspectives and ideas, somewhat similar to what you describe. LIIs are usually much more settled in their conclusions and don't rely on new evidence just so they can be even more right. Ti isn't really a strong observant process, it's a logical deduction formed as an archetype which, in the LII, makes good use of patterns. Just read the descriptions :|

  6. #46
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    797
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Best Descriptions Ever.

    “The world should live in harmony, people deserve to be happy", says a Robespierre, "so let's take a guillotine and chop off heads of all bad people who hamper our creation so that only good ones remain and everyone will be happy. Let's build a society free of the bad people, oppression, violence, injustice … But this purpose is achieved by means of a guillotine”. This is how this type expresses his creativity.

    Fuck yeaaaaaaa.
    Just kill all of the bad people in the world... what a remarkably simple solution! I can't believe I didn't think of it before.

  7. #47
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know, right?
    JUSTICE REIGNS SUPREME!
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  8. #48
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,397
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I believe the Robespierre stuff is an example of LII applied to revolutionary statecraft. The point is that the murderous beliefs are a mistake created by type biases.

    The suggestive function is primitive, extreme, and binary in the grips of the leading function.

    Fe suggestive (vacillates between a gullibility of others' ethical intentions and a spiteful misanthropy) :

    "If people would just understand my world view they'd see how brilliant I am and express their unconditional admiration for me."

    "People are mindless fools who try to take advantage of me emotionally. I will keep my genius away from their influence (or perhaps even force them into my vision of Utopia -usually a fantasy, but sometimes powerful people make their violent dreams a reality...)."

    The weakest functions are binary in that they make extreme conceptions which leave out details/complexity and cannot be applied to specific circumstances.
    Last edited by ArchonAlarion; 10-12-2010 at 05:04 AM.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  9. #49
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess it could be considered a mistake (it didn't go "just as planned"), which is far from taking away his moral character. In his defense it seems an easy mistake for a Robespierre to make (ie, excellent observations Archon).

    On a side note this thread makes me think Light Yagami is almost certainly LII, but I must explore further.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  10. #50
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    797
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Reinin's view of the IMs allows for crossover with MBTI functional ordering.

    Discuss.

  11. #51
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur View Post
    SEI description what.
    I liked the part about SEIs knowing their own feelings but being bad at introspection. I think my own private concept of "introspection" is knowing ones feelings, and what else is there to know?

  12. #52
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewZ View Post
    Reinin's view of the IMs allows for crossover with MBTI functional ordering.

    Discuss.
    J/P switch or regular crossover? What do you mean by functional ordering? It's using socionics functions in the correct positions as far as I can tell.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  13. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,491
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thank you for sharing this. I haven't read it yet, but it seems appropriate to me to thank you for posting it.

  14. #54
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Attached.
    thank you for this!

  15. #55
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    I believe the Robespierre stuff is an example of LII applied to revolutionary statecraft. The point is that the murderous beliefs are a mistake created by type biases.

    The suggestive function is primitive, extreme, and binary in the grips of the leading function.

    Fe suggestive (vacillates between a gullibility of others' ethical intentions and a spiteful misanthropy) :

    "If people would just understand my world view they'd see how brilliant I am and express their unconditional admiration for me."

    "People are mindless fools who try to take advantage of me emotionally. I will keep my genius away from their influence (or perhaps even force them into my vision of Utopia -usually a fantasy, but sometimes powerful people make their violent dreams a reality...)."

    The weakest functions are binary in that they make extreme conceptions which leave out details/complexity and cannot be applied to specific circumstances.
    cool, i liked this explanation a lot @ the bolded descriptions - i immediately thought of the 1-dimensional functions (suggestive and vulnerable) but i'm not sure whether you were thinking of that specifically or not when writing this.

  16. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,491
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just been reading this (SLI ignoring function):

    objective sensoring ( ): the zone of ignoring. People of this type may be inattentive to their own appearance, to the interior of their house, to other people’s behavior even if their actions influence them directly. They are not fit for any monotonous work, for example, for work at the conveyor assembly line. They need to pay special attention and make extra efforts to keep up their appearance. They do not have a natural feeling for style in clothes. They often ignore parents or peer pressure. Children of this type may seem to be very stubborn.
    Which I find quite interesting. Something that's puzzled me recently, is myself and my SLI friend tend towards a more unkempt appearance. I've struggled at times to look good, look presentable in the world, something I forget to pay attention to.

    I've wondered at times, as i've read that Si is to do with looking good, appearance and such, which I would not rate as my strength, although I do have more of a means for it now, can do it some more, but still....

    On another note, i've tended to compensate with being in reasonable physical shape, on the thought of ok... perhaps look a bit unkempt etc, but at least it's balanced out with a healthy body, which is probably a compensation attitude.

  17. #57
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,978
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The atomic weight of Fluorine after thousands (I'd imagine) of trials is 18.9984032 Grams Per Mole (This builds up into Ti understanding). You just did an experiment that resulted in the atomic weight at a value of 18.562. Did the value shrink over time? An ILI might argue so because he uses Te on a case-by-case basis. The LII will know fo sho his understanding is correct and will ignore this evidence. This is because the LII knows that the laws that make up the universe Never Change, Ever, Ever.

    Reinen did not explicitly state the evidence is proof (evidence is almost never proof). He just stated the evidence pointed towards something other than what the LII understands, and the LII discounts it as fallacious because he has come to understand otherwise.
    INTjs never discount information. In this case a hypothesis would be formulated as to how the off base measurement came about due to personal mistakes or unaccounted variables. Then occam's razor would be applied to see whether this theorem is more likely to be true than a theorem explaining why the thousand of other measurements didn't apply to the situation in the way first envisioned.

    I disagree with the statement on laws. You don't know at any time whether a "rule" that you found holds universally or just locally. It is an extremely arrogant thing to claim you have found a law that holds universally. History is full of examples of people who had the hubris to do this and were proven wrong eventually.

    I really don't think the INTp and INTj outlook on this issue differ significantly.

  18. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,491
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think ILIs do what it states above, but I accept it depends on personal development, as I find it's the more immature ones who argue such (to me) pointless points.

    In saying that, i'd maybe have done the same thing, but not about the atomic weight subject, something more practical, until I realised it just pissses people off and it's better to just, not...still, it's still there.

    Oh, re INTjs, I find that they ignore the evidence in favour of the rule, it takes a lot of evidence before they re-adjust their global outlook.

  19. #59
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,978
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, re INTjs, I find that they ignore the evidence in favour of the rule, it takes a lot of evidence before they re-adjust their global outlook.
    When I consider something a "rule", it is usually because there have been a lot of indications (or maybe even evidence) supporting it. A single new indication doesn't weigh up to the indications that already exist towards the issue. The image of stubborness and subjectivity is only raised by the fact that the indications are difficult to share and not visible to the person criticizing the INTj.

    But again, are other types really so much different in this regard?

  20. #60
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    521
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    The atomic weight of Fluorine after thousands (I'd imagine) of trials is 18.9984032 Grams Per Mole (This builds up into Ti understanding). You just did an experiment that resulted in the atomic weight at a value of 18.562. Did the value shrink over time? An ILI might argue so because he uses Te on a case-by-case basis. The LII will know fo sho his understanding is correct and will ignore this evidence. This is because the LII knows that the laws that make up the universe Never Change, Ever, Ever.

    Reinen did not explicitly state the evidence is proof (evidence is almost never proof). He just stated the evidence pointed towards something other than what the LII understands, and the LII discounts it as fallacious because he has come to understand otherwise.
    We must be practicing two different systems here because I can't envision a personality type that 'knows that the laws that make up the universe Never Change, Ever, Ever.'

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    My response is basically what Crispy said. Additionally I think the ILE is more prone to reexamination and seeing no firm underlying system because of various incoming perspectives and ideas, somewhat similar to what you describe. LIIs are usually much more settled in their conclusions and don't rely on new evidence just so they can be even more right. Ti isn't really a strong observant process, it's a logical deduction formed as an archetype which, in the LII, makes good use of patterns. Just read the descriptions :|
    I disagree. Descriptions describe Ne, new ideas, new information, new evidence (whatever you want to call it) as the lifeblood of the LII and ILE. The ILE actively seeks objects of novelty out while the LII may simply use them to support or investigate something he is interested in; nonetheless, both types are apt to consider or embrace something new.

    Recieving information through Ti isn't an ignoring process; it's a comparative process. The information being recieved is being related to systems that are already held. Ti types do not simply 'ignore' anything that contradicts them; rather they would be more likely to either refute it based on what system they related it to which disproved it (rules rules rules) or they would accept it after due deliberation and a comparative process. This is apparant in most of the descriptions of Ti, perhaps less so when described as being held by an Se type.

  21. #61
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    In this case a hypothesis would be formulated as to how the off base measurement came about due to personal mistakes or unaccounted variables.
    I skipped this step because it was obvious. The blame goes to the personal mistakes / unaccounted variables, and he then does discount the information.
    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
    We must be practicing two different systems here because I can't envision a personality type that 'knows that the laws that make up the universe Never Change, Ever, Ever.'
    You're right, you must not be practicing Socionics. Otherwise you would know that INTj is a static type with a dominant function: -Ti = Universality: "Finding the one system (set of laws)"
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  22. #62
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,397
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    cool, i liked this explanation a lot @ the bolded descriptions - i immediately thought of the 1-dimensional functions (suggestive and vulnerable) but i'm not sure whether you were thinking of that specifically or not when writing this.
    Yes, I did have dimensionality in mind. I'll read through the book again to see if I can describe other elements in the suggestive function.

    Also, I've been considering the name "suggestive" as limited because it only describes the initial behavior of the type. When a type becomes accustomed to being duped and manipulated here (especially when lead to unfavorable circumstances) they may actively avoid the sphere of activity. Ti egos become misanthropic, Te unsympathetic, Ni inert, Fi incompetent, etc. So, maybe suggestive-avoidant? Something will come.


    Less murderous INTj reformism:

    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  23. #63
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    521
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    You're right, you must not be practicing Socionics. Otherwise you would know that INTj is a static type with a dominant function: -Ti = Universality: "Finding the one system (set of laws)"
    Nowhere does a description of either static or Ti does it say that in use of Ti or any static element the user assumes his view contains the mighty 'laws that make up the universe'. As I said earlier, they do say that the Ti user is constantly revising and correcting his own ideas and 'laws'. It is a perpetual refinement; Ti may seek logical perfection, but it will never have it except in the area of mathematics, and a certain sense of this is necessary if its systems are ever to be personally revised (as they are). If someone were to question a principle held by a TiNe would he not jump at the chance to either prove his position or achieve its revision by physically considering the information set forth? Everything about the LII and ILE scream warm reception to new information and its relation to their inner systems, not intentional ignorance to preserve those systems. This is why I still don't think it makes sense to equate a Te ignoring to;
    Quote Originally Posted by Book View Post
    If you have evidence that it's not the way I see it, too bad
    Ti is static, yes, but that just means it functions as 'law v1.0' -> 'law v1.1' as opposed to the dynamic perception, which includes all values 1.0 to 1.1 if you see what I mean. Static does not automatically imply universal rules taken for granted to apply to everything; just snapshots of how they believe the world works.

    If you are skipping all the steps that involve the LII disproving the new information and then ignoring it in its disproven state you may as well tell me now as that would save us a lot of misunderstanding and wasted effort. As I see it now, you are supporting the statement from the book claiming to outright ignore information that conflicts with inner systems for no apparant reason.

  24. #64
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,333
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is true, but still the book is describing the common LII confidence of established logical deduction, which doesn't mean they simply ignore everything on the outside. But if they know they're right, even though there is evidence or so-called proof, then there is no reason to continue searching for new information at the time, due to the manifestation of logical reasoning > obtaining new information. Especially when they've already made most of their attributions to the idea (a difference between LIIs and say ILEs or ILIs) by which they'll eventually find the time to register new information. They're inclined to debate these things for the sake of proof, that is quite common. By discussing that LIIs simply ignore all evidence, then were getting somewhat off topic, because that wasn't in the book. LIIs have their own structured way of learning that seems different to others. They openly question things they themselves have come to wonder about, and aren't focused around fixing every bit of knowledge they have already registered, that is rather clear to me. New ideas are secondary to systemization, by which they are open about.

  25. #65
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Since logical perfection exists, and LII's believe themselves the closest to finding it, it is natural for them to discard information from a less trusted source, ie. someone else. That is unless the information makes sense to them, and they adapt it to their view, getting that much closer to logical perfection.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  26. #66
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ... and for Ti, any rule found lacking is immediately replaced by another. That's what's characteristic for it, "unchangeable laws" would rather describe the ideal it aims at than imperfect models it creates.

    For contrast, Te is more like loosely bound facts; the dynamic Pi perspective is all that brings them together. Extroverted attitude of Logic means it's directed at evaluating pieces of information according to explicit external standards - and the standard itself is created by other information. Te extracts what might be considered closest to "facts", as it's logically investigating information's reliability and constrasting it. External dynamic of objects is a lot like "explicit actions of elements", allowing it to see how they affect each other rather than how they fit together. It's from those actions that perspective of interaction emerges, and only then are pieces falling into place. That's a totally different approach from creating what can be called a system of knowledge, where one attempts to make logical sense of the whole (Ti), rather than of the pieces (Te).

  27. #67
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowisthetime View Post
    Who translated it? Where does it come from?
    Good questions...

    Where the heck does it come from...?

  28. #68
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,830
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    Good questions...

    Where the heck does it come from...?
    Reinin sent it to Expat, who sent it to some people, who sent it to some people. Somebody along the line probably should have asked about possible copyright infringements by posting it here. . . ??? I suppose that's in the clear?

  29. #69
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    "unchangeable laws" would rather describe the ideal it aims at than imperfect models it creates
    Of course. We know there exists laws of the universe that are unchanging. I never claimed we knew exactly what those are... yet.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  30. #70
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    521
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Of course. We know there exists laws of the universe that are unchanging. I never claimed we knew exactly what those are... yet.
    How do you know there don't exist rules that dictate other rules be changed? At the same time how can you be sure there isn't a factor of total randomness in the creation and destruction of old rules?

    And yeah Ti-Te relationship has been clarified; I agree with you but not with this unchangeability business.

  31. #71
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The laws have not changed once for the last 14.7 billion years, and they show no sign of changing in the future. There is no element of "pure randomness" else this universe wouldn't be so predictable.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  32. #72
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,855
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    This book is awesome.
    NA KURCU TE NAWESOME.

  33. #73
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The book is interesting but very unconventional. In my opinion the descriptions of intertype relations are very bad:

    Quote Originally Posted by Reinin about identity
    A person of the same IM type is the best teacher!
    Quote Originally Posted by Reinin about duality
    A person of the complementary type is the best teacher.
    So who is the best teacher now?! An identical or a dual?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Reinin about mirror
    The only drawback of the mirror relationships is that partners may consider each other boring. [...] “He is a good guy, but really boring! What is there to discuss, everything is plain and clear! ”
    Quote Originally Posted by Reinin about quasi-identity
    The other person seems to be very interesting but he/she is really hard to approach.
    Have you ever considered a mirror boring or a quasi-identical interesting?! Okay, quasi-identicals of the opposite sex may be interesting if they are good-looking or if they have an interesting subtype at least. But in general I consider my quasi-identiticals the most boring people of all types. And I never ever saw a mirror I would have considered "boring". Those descriptions really sound ridiculous to me...

  34. #74
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,607
    Mentioned
    725 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    So who is the best teacher now?! An identical or a dual?!
    lol, i saw this too and i was like

    does anybody know if this book was a draft or something?

  35. #75
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most interesting thing imo was the order of functions in super-ego and id. As far as I can see they are different than in model A. It is good to get some new perspectives other than model A.

  36. #76
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,245
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Of course. We know there exists laws of the universe that are unchanging. I never claimed we knew exactly what those are... yet.
    Well, all least we have all of our absurdly-minor-but-definitely-true absolute laws (i.e. details) to tide us over.

    I am of the opinion that the time required to find a rule that is not in some way local is in fact infinite. We can only hope for a bigger local area and a greater saturation (i.e. a larger local area in domains such as time, mass and energy pattern).

    Then there's the issue with the implementation of said law, which is an issue of brain size and neuron firing speed, which is itself limited by the speed of light (at least, in our present locality ).



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  37. #77
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    797
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    The laws have not changed once for the last 14.7 billion years, and they show no sign of changing in the future. There is no element of "pure randomness" else this universe wouldn't be so predictable.
    That's more of an assumed premise than an observation.

  38. #78
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,978
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There have only been litterate humans capable of measuring these supposed "laws" for barely two centuries.

  39. #79
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    797
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    lol, i saw this too and i was like

    does anybody know if this book was a draft or something?
    I'm not thoroughly convinced this isn't a case of meaning being confused in translation. While in English, "best" is commonly understood to mean the singular apex of a series, it can also mean that something is of a high calibre. (IE: "This soup is the BEST! Certainly, one would not mean by this statement that such a soup is superior to all others in existence; it is understood that one is merely indicating the soup to be of high quality.)

    </Te-ignoring: "this actually fits the rule; you just don't realize it">

  40. #80
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,101
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    So who is the best teacher now?! An identical or a dual?!
    Identical is the best Teacher. Dual is the best Babysitter.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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