.
.
Last edited by aixelsyd; 08-12-2011 at 06:43 PM.
I'm not tarded, but I am -weak. To me, this manifests as ignoring my physical state at times. Doing something interesting > taking proper care of my body. Also, I don't always recognize hunger for what it is, particularly when the signs are less blatant. I'll be sitting there bored and unfocused, trying to figure out why I feel so crappy, and then, "Wait. How long has it been since I ate?" Sure enough, it's been hours. It's like...even though I recognize patterns like "too much stimulant = bad crash" or "inability to focus = hunger", I still either blatantly ignore them or don't quickly pick up on them.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
I was at a zombie walk with a lot of people who apparently valued more than I did I was yelling my lungs out to hear myself over the other sounds, and they were ducking and covering their ears here's a vid of me - I'm the one in the grey at the upper right going "fast zombie" at 0:26 or so, looks pretty > to me:
A friend of mine also talks about how I "spice the hell out of my foods", my mom says my cookies are pitch black with cocoa and have loads of ginger in them like it's a bad thing, and I go forward with bike rides when it's in the 30s (Fahrenheit) if I can...
I wouldn't call this weak as much as devalued - I can do it if I want to, I take good care of my body and all, but I won't waste time, mental energy, and dirty up clothes to put something on me if I'm chilly unless it's really bad...
The worst thing is when I get flooded with - I want to do something and drive it forward, not spend time thinking about different options! I could be bulldozing through options, but not if the pile's too big, and if it's over a small time thing, I just can't stand it... I'd much rather be wrong about something than be stuck in indecisiveness - at worst, being wrong now can mean being right later, and if you fall on your ass hard enough, you can get other people rallied in on getting something done too
There's been a few times where too much brought a panicked "damn it, damn it, damn it!" out of me or a grumpy "pick a thing and do it!" or something along those lines... I've probably missed a lot of based jokes, and there's a lot that I purposely crashed into the ground in such a way to make the perpetrator feel as awkward as possible that and I can be a bit rough on conspiracy theorists from time to time...
Also, when I played drums for four hours, I was bashing the hell out of the kit and bringing on a crazy amount of energy (the guitarist was having the time of his life ), but I only set up a snare, a bass drum, a crash, a hi-hat, a cowbell, and a china, I hardly did any fills at all, and a good 70% of it was me doing the beat to Van Halen's "Panama" as fast as I could (I doubled the hi-hats for more energy, and I kicked the bass drum more sometimes to pump up the choruses) - I got a well-earned Phil Rudd comparison and it ruled!
Last edited by woofwoofl; 05-11-2011 at 10:11 PM. Reason: had to specify "30s" as Fahrenheit and not Celsius
Also, see:
Originally Posted by IEE Domain
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
These
I'm not sure what weak Ne would look like. The opposite detriment of weak Si whatever that is.
I guess weak Ne could be lack of interest in new things. Preference for what is already tried and preferred. "Creature-comfort" oriented.
How do you see something that is not there.
If you can answer that, than you have your solution.
It certainly falls under S, and that's a combination of and I think - to be aware of how hard to hit the things, and to be aware of the cymbal sound's place in the overall mix of the music...
And yes, I ed at the overall mental image (I knew a really wild ILE percussionist before, he was awesome and so fun)!
I don't know any of the things any of you are talking about.
Last edited by munenori2; 05-12-2011 at 07:30 AM. Reason: madness!
Si-PoLR's tend to shit their pants because they can't understand the internal sensations in their bodies.
Ni-PoLR's throw a temper tantrum if anything is done without an instruction or list.
Ti-PoLR's think 2+1=21
Fi-PoLR's often get thrown out of cars on the highway and can often be seen with their thumbs-up looking to trade a ride for a blowjob.
Se-PoLR's live in a constant state of panic and appear to always be on their periods when around other people.
Ne-PoLR's are sometimes found watching paint dry.
Te-PoLR's are the ******s that get liberal arts degrees and then complain that society doesn't care. They have an affinity for minimum wage jobs.
Fe-PoLR's have aspergers and no emotions and are good at staring contests and having a poker face.
Divided just beat Socionics.
I'll describe my Ti PoLR when I get back home.
Ti-PoLR individuals don't like being told/infered what to do. They don't follow a set of standards of how things should run, rather, they do as they feel at the moment.
Example: I worked with a group of people all last year, and we were all assigned individual roles. This SEE was assigned as a recorder, where she had to email the group a summary of what was covered at the meeting. The thing that bothered me was that she constantly sent it out the night it was due, rather than ahead of time. She pretty much did it whenever she felt like it.
Now I have rules for everything- one is that a people with such positions should take their job seriously. By serious I mean do the job thoroughly, and most importantly, on time, every time, no exceptions. That way, you make other people's jobs a lot easier.
So this SEE created all these holes in my Ti-constitution (What people should do in such positions), and it really bothered me. I feel like this explains a lot of the problems that do arise between me and Ti-PoLRs.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 05-12-2011 at 08:09 PM.
A PoLR is probably best identified as the inappropriate use of the creative element. Even with our role we're usually able to identify when our base is inapproriate, but when it comes to things relevent to our PoLR we tend to take an approach that involves our creative instead.
So
Te-PoLRs may be inclined to approach technical situations however they feel.
Fe-PoLRs may be inclined to approach interpersonal situations mechanically.
Ti-PoLRs may be inclined to take a personal perspective on matters of objective truth.
Fi-PoLRs may be inclined to take a logical perspective on matters subjective in nature.
Ne-PoLRs may be inclined to make complex situations overly simple as if everything is apparent.
Se-PoLRs may be inclined to make simple situations overly complex as if there is more to be seen.
Ni-PoLRs may be inclined to focus on the immediate reality when there is no long term significance.
Si-PoLRs may be inclined to focus on long term visions when there are immediate physical limitations.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
None of you here understand the polr function. It just the function for discriminating pertinent or impertinent information. it's not this "retard function" everyone treats it as.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
With Se it's something I can just sense. I can't explain it. It's usually really obvious though. The only exceptions are some more mellow/laid back Si dominants.
Synthesis is about two distinct or hazy opposing sides, whereas the combination of HP is a multidimensional view of one object.
Showing all sides of a type in the PoLR, Creative, Demonstrative and HA is a multidimensional view of one object(the type), therefore it's akin to Holographic-Panoramic.
Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 05-15-2011 at 01:45 AM.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
In a very clumsy way:
Assume: Ejs to be focused on progress, and the introspection they are interested in is change and how things are affecting the future.
Thus the introspection they are not interested in is aesthetics and how things affect their senses (hence Si-polr)
Also thus they are interested in someone supporting them enact the steps necessary to fulfill the steps necessary to achieve the progress they are heading towards (hence Se-HA).
And also thus they are not interested in exploring what variety of places they could achieve, preferring a single aim to which they are progressing towards, though they are interested in viable possibilities to help they're progress (hence Ne-Demonstrative).
I agree that there must be some way to conceptualise the four functions as the same thing, but I also that it's related to the duality of the functions. E.g. and are focused on striving, and and are focused on moderation (or something). Since ENxj's view moderation (or something) as fairly unimportant, they both get unvalued. Due to the weakness of , it is the less valued of the two, and also is found to be harder to criticize.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
Hmm, back to the drawing board, then. I think I may have been using a faulty description of -HA and -demonstrative.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
So when you said:
did you mean you're more on a multiple perspectives side, that is, Holographic side? If so, I apologize. I thought you were under impression that "multiple perspectives" instead of blending it were more DA, due to your self-typing.Supposedly Holographic-Panoramic types would be able to condense information like this. I can layout multiple perspectives at once, but not in a general, omniscient way. They'd just be multiple perspectives in a specific situation.
For the record, Gulenko on both of these styles:
In this way, by mentally superimposing multiple projections of the same object, Holographists reach a holistic view. To do this, they look at the image and select a desired angle of examination. Holographic cognition often utilizes the grammatical conjunctives: "or-or", "either-or", "on the one hand, on the other hand". It actively uses the principle of perspective; unrestricted choice in point of view. The holographic approach is a progressive approximation towards the purpose, or away from it, accompanied by changes of perspective. The holographic process is carried out as if calibrating focus.
The essential distinguishing feature of the Dialectical style, is a view of the universe as a unified struggle of opposites. In speech it often uses syntactic constructions "if-then-else", the predictive branches of a developing process. Within limits, the Dialectic strives to find an intermediate point of dynamic equilibrium between contrasting extremes. Dialectical cognition is born from the colliding flow and counterflow of thought, the consciousness and unconsciousness. Thinkers of this style are characterized by an express inclination towards the synthesis of opposites, the removal of contradictions, which they so keenly perceive.
It's not so much a lack of interest in new things, but rather the inability to generate interest for these things for themselves. When it's provided to them, Si-base types can actually do something with it. But it's true, until it's provided to them, they are perfectly happy to hang in front of the TV watching episodes of the Big Bang Theory with a big can of ice cream, not noticing their life is being wasted away. At least, that's what my SEI gf does all the time
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Hidden agenda might be used here in company. There is dispute over types being less of one dichotomy, ie. an N dominant being the least S, or the least of their PoLR dichotomy, so we wouldn't want to single out one over the other, but it's given PoLR is the topic of the thread. Being said these look like they work with their role function just as well, except just as you said, a person will more readily notice their role function. One's mirror's description might fit very well for a time being, and fit the given type more universally dispersed, ie. INXp over-focuses on "long term visions when there are immediate physical limitations" for a given time, but realizes necessity of Si, where as an ENXj steadily occupies this trait in a "least-resistance" distribution.
With hidden agenda, you could argue that a type's PoLR is countered with something stronger and more valued, and a type will not always identify with being the weakest in their general PoLR area due to a strong HA presence. There should be, worked into these simplifications, descriptors of these transitions too, to parallel.
When I said that I meant I can try and emulate the product of the HP Cognitive Style(regardless of my type) in terms of getting an understanding of a type and functionally responsive behavior in situations.
I wasn't claiming anything for D-A at the moment.
If this is to be taken with any measure of validity, for the record, I can't recall the last times I've used " 'or-or', 'either-or', 'on the one hand, on the other hand'.For the record, Gulenko on both of these styles:
In this way, by mentally superimposing multiple projections of the same object, Holographists reach a holistic view. To do this, they look at the image and select a desired angle of examination. Holographic cognition often utilizes the grammatical conjunctives: "or-or", "either-or", "on the one hand, on the other hand". It actively uses the principle of perspective; unrestricted choice in point of view. The holographic approach is a progressive approximation towards the purpose, or away from it, accompanied by changes of perspective. The holographic process is carried out as if calibrating focus.
The essential distinguishing feature of the Dialectical style, is a view of the universe as a unified struggle of opposites. In speech it often uses syntactic constructions "if-then-else", the predictive branches of a developing process. Within limits, the Dialectic strives to find an intermediate point of dynamic equilibrium between contrasting extremes. Dialectical cognition is born from the colliding flow and counterflow of thought, the consciousness and unconsciousness. Thinkers of this style are characterized by an express inclination towards the synthesis of opposites, the removal of contradictions, which they so keenly perceive.
But then again nor have I ever heard ESIs or SLEs use those terms.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
It would be interesting to get a description of the types which fully submerged itself into the connection between their elements and their positions rather than describing a type in terms of each element/function in isolation. Like a description that describes how the base/role/DS/ignoring all work simultaneously together, or even how all of the functions work simultaneously together.
This looks to me like Base/Role, rather than Creative/PoLR. What you wrote for Fi-PoLR, for example, isn't it specific to Ti-Base? Descartes, anyone?
So no, while I overall agree on how wou constrast functions based on opposite IEs, that's a direct result of the program function. Taking an universal approach on everything based on a view (in our case IE) does not exclude the opposite, on the contrary, it has to be acknowledged as just "the opposite view", which is precisely the Role function. LXI take and objective approach in everything, LXE by means of usefulness or whatever, IXE see potential and connections in everything, and so on.
Rather, you should have formulated "X-PoLR won't accept taking a X approach on non-X matters". Using Ti/Fi because it looks simpler to me to understand:
- Fi-Base/Ti-Role: inclined to take a personal approach on everything, including matters of objective truth;
- Ti-Base/Fi-Role: inclined to take a logical pespective on everything, including matters of subjective nature;
- Fi-Creative/Ti-PoLR: inclined to reject any logical approach on specific subjective matters;
- Ti-Creative/Fi-PoLR: inclined to reject any personal approach on specific objective matters.
Slight indeed, but important difference, because that makes the difference between Accepting and Producing functions, in the end. This is how conflict is born, when a function that takes a certain approach on everything meets a function which takes a strict opposite approach on certain things. ...And it's impossible to have a strict certain approach on everything because that would exclude the opposite entirely, it would mean the opposite IE to be missing from the psyche which at least in theory is impossible. I doubt even a mentally ill person would. The adverse reaction will always be generated on the side of the Producing function (the Creative/PoLR):
- Ti-Base: "I have this logical opinion on this, you have your personal opinion on it" (works with Fi-Role);
- Ti-PoLR: "this is a personal matter, you can't have your 'logical' opinion on it";
- Fi-Base: "I have my personal opinion on this, you have your logical opinion on it" (works with Ti-Role);
- Fi-PoLR: "this is an objective matter, you can't have your 'personal' opinion on it".
---
And finally, it should be added that there's not such thing as "personal/objective" or "logical/subjective" out there in the wild, this is actually the reason why conflict appears, people have different views on the same things. If all would agree on that, no conflict could appear. However, in the proper context (like my definitions IMO) this idea will necessarily emerge - it's obvious that logical/personal are relative to the type of psyche.
that isn't how i see it happening in practice - i thought the list matched my own observations - but i'm curious why, and how base/role could be described in contrast.
(this isn't meant to pick an argument w/ ineffable, he can choose to think i just mistype everyone as their mirror or something if he'd like.)
the proper definition of Strategy/Tactics is:Strategists (Types with accepting S functions and producing N functions)
- They focus their attention on a goal they wish to accomplish, i.e. on the purpose of their actions instead of the actions themselves, on the purpose of events instead of the events themselves and so on.
- For the strategists the way, method by which they will accomplish their goals is not of prevailing importance. As a result of that the "trajectory" on which they move towards fulfilling their goals is fluid.
- Their actions and choices are estimated from the point of view of how they much they will help them accomplishing their desired objectives (Goals). As a result of that they reject those options that do not fulfill this criterion.
- In analyzing past strategists they separate "key moments" (Basic, most significant stages) that lead to present conditions. They do not consider all versions of events unfolding equivalently (They separately examine and focus on those "key moments")
- They place a goal (Purpose) in mind and will not deviate from it. They experience confusion if they are forced to deviate from it. They get satisfaction in achieving their set objectives (Goal) and disappointment in failing to carry out the goals they had set (Had in mind).
- Strategists operate with purposes (Goals). In a situation where several possible purposes (Goals) exist their hierarchy is established.
- Without having a purpose in their life (A goal to guide them) strategists feel as if something is missing, as if they are incomplete. They experience discomfort and often feel disoriented by such states.
- Lexicon: in their speech strategists often use the word "purpose" and versions of it. Strategists clearly express goals (Purpose), precisely formulate them and do not substitute them with concepts.
Strategy: Strong Focal functions are Reasonable (Focus Reasonable)
Tactics: Strong Focal functions are Resolute (Focus Resolute)
Accepting S and Producing N are just disjoint opposites, so they don't form a coherent whole together. you need Focal/Diffuse to arrive at the workable interpretation.