Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Wanting to go to the Source

  1. #1
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Wanting to go to the Source

    Is it type related? Maybe having to do with Te or something?

    For instance, when I read a novel, I always insist on an Unabridged version. I read Les Miserables in its entirely for the first time when I was in tenth grade. I did not skip a word. Since then, I've read the book again a couple more times, though these other two times I knew what parts could be skipped over to get to the "good parts." But point being, it was then my abridgement, not someone else's.

    And the couple of times I have read an Abridged version, I will not consider myself as having truly read the book, until I go back and read it again in an Unabridged format.

    I grew up on the King James Version of the Bible. I am immediately skeptical of quotations from any other version that does not match up with the KJV. And even with the KJV, I am skeptical at times of the exact wording, since I know it is a translation and not in the original language(s). If I had a better talent for learning languages, I would want to learn as many as possible, just so I could go back and read the original texts to get a more thorough understanding of each book's original intent. If only I could travel back in time and interview the ancient prophets in their own tongues, and immerse myself in their culture to really, truly understand.

    I come across the same snag in Socionics. Since all of the original material is in Russian, unavoidably much of what we English-speakers have is "lost in translation." Even putting Russian text through an online translator is problematic; after a short time, I just get tired of wading through it all.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  2. #2
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sounds like process>result if it's socionics related at all. Though I tend to think the same, I don't want to miss any important details if I'm really interested in the book.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  3. #3
    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'm the same way. I don't really trust people to relay information accurately, and like to go directly to the source. Perhaps it's related to Ne, then? A desire to uncover the underlying true nature of things? An awareness of all the possible ways the intermediary could be distorting the information they're transmitting?

    I'd guess this would be even stronger with Deltas, due to the Fi-valuing tendency to judge the veracity of information by its source, rather than internal logical consistency (which would be Ti).

    Having said all that, I'm wondering how Ni-valuers deal with this issue. Perhaps it's something that all types do, just in different ways and for different reasons? I'd like to see what some of the Ni-valuers think.
    Quaero Veritas.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    I'm the same way. I don't really trust people to relay information accurately, and like to go directly to the source. Perhaps it's related to Ne, then? A desire to uncover the underlying true nature of things? An awareness of all the possible ways the intermediary could be distorting the information they're transmitting?

    I'd guess this would be even stronger with Deltas, due to the Fi-valuing tendency to judge the veracity of information by its source, rather than internal logical consistency (which would be Ti).

    Having said all that, I'm wondering how Ni-valuers deal with this issue. Perhaps it's something that all types do, just in different ways and for different reasons? I'd like to see what some of the Ni-valuers think.
    Im the exact same way as her. I'd like to have a book in its original format rather than read someones interpretation. Even if I cant understand what the original text is saying I'd rather have that then read someone else's possibly BS interpretation. My guess is that its just related to intuitives in general, that or its just not type related, I'm willing to bet on the latter rather than the former.
    Last edited by Sumer1an; 06-09-2011 at 10:55 PM.

  5. #5
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The KJV isn't really a good "source" though. The NT is based on the Textus Receptus, a late medieval collection of Greek manuscripts. The OT is more or less the same as most other bibles, based on the rabbinical Masoretic texts. Modern translations are more reliable as far as NT translations go though (many are critical editions, mostly compiled from the Alexandrian texts, dating from the 4th century).

    Anyways, the "source" could be a matter of debate, as this illustrates. The KJV might be one of the older English translations, but it's based on somewhat flawed, older texts than newer English translations.

  6. #6
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That seems more like a general healthy human inquisitiveness, although in your case I wouldn't be surprised if it was fuelled by Te HA.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

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

  7. #7
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Having said all that, I'm wondering how Ni-valuers deal with this issue. Perhaps it's something that all types do, just in different ways and for different reasons? I'd like to see what some of the Ni-valuers think.
    Questioning the validity of sources is a natural outgrowth of general inquisitiveness. If you must pin this inclination on IEs it'd be most accurate to do so within the context of the individual reader and his or her relation to the text at hand.

  8. #8
    ._. 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 Krig the Viking View Post
    I'm the same way. I don't really trust people to relay information accurately, and like to go directly to the source. Perhaps it's related to Ne, then? A desire to uncover the underlying true nature of things? An awareness of all the possible ways the intermediary could be distorting the information they're transmitting?
    TBH, I feel exactly like you descripe - not quite the same as pianosinger, though. Curiously, it's usually LIIs that try to sell me their abridged version and be put off by me wanting a source - which, while not guaranteed to be better, is at least independent. That being said, my sample is nowhere near enough to say if it's type related; merely a tendency I've observed.

    I'd guess this would be even stronger with Deltas, due to the Fi-valuing tendency to judge the veracity of information by its source, rather than internal logical consistency (which would be Ti).
    No, it'll be due to preferring to judge it by yourself (Fi) rather than rely on someone else's judgment of it (Fe).

    Honestly, the above makes about as much (non)sense as your quote. WTF has Fi to do with "judging the veracity of information by its source", except being constantly accused of it by Ti valuers? I might very well agree with one piece of information and disagree with another in the same article, as unbelievable as it must seem to you guys. /rant over

    Having said all that, I'm wondering how Ni-valuers deal with this issue. Perhaps it's something that all types do, just in different ways and for different reasons? I'd like to see what some of the Ni-valuers think.
    At your service.

  9. #9
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by golden; 06-10-2011 at 03:08 AM.

  10. #10
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,906
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    As for me personally, I like abridged versions - I can get a lot of info faster, and I'll blow through the stripped down versions first, then go for the big main one, and then check even more sources, far and wide, so as little as possible is missed... I don't like being strictly limited to the Cliffs Notes version of stuff though...

    I rarely think of the source, as if there's one that's objectively better than the others... I look at many, and I draw what I can out of many - the more, the better

  11. #11
    Creepy-male

    Default

    When I drink a bottle of water, I always read where its from and desire to seek out the source and drink from the well itself

  12. #12
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dunno, maybe "going to the source" could be equally about

    ("I just want to read the one that is The Truth" --the quest for the bottom line, or the one that shows the principle of it all or simply the "right" one given in the "right" spirit according to the "right" thinking. Iow evaluating the reliability of info based on whether it is consistent with principles held as "true")

    as about

    ("Take anything written by Blah Blah with several grains of salt as he tends to misrepresent info especially on the subject of y, or just don't bother reading what he writes as it's not worth sorting through something put forth by a crackpot" --evaluating the possible reliability of info based on knowledge or judgments about the source's reliability).

    I don't think the OP is like either of these though. It's more going to the core or originator of the info. And I don't see why would be any more concerned with this than . It's like a preference for first-hand sources over second or third... going straight to the origin point. I prefer this as well when possible... when not possible, then well it depends on what it is, what's available, etc. With the bible for instance to feel I had a good enough understanding I would need to probably read more from religious scholars as I feel it's all too complex to just jump in and read it literally or according to my own metaphors so I would need reference materials about what something meant in the time and cultural context. And I would definitely care about when the different books in it were written and knowledge gathered as to what was happening in those times to influence them... I guess in short I'm saying I want as much context as possible. This is all too much effort of course for something I don't have a lot of interest in. As for abridged versions of books, I could see reading one if I don't care about the book and just need to do it for a class or something (a case where gathering the gist of it is fine). But if I do care about it I certainly don't want to read the abridged version as I want to read ALL of it as the author wrote it. And also if I like it and read the abridged version then I'll probably want to read all of it later and I could have saved so much time/effort by not having to read it twice and/or seek out two different versions (unless of course I love it so much I'm fine with reading it twice or I just didn't realize I'd care after or whatever). But sometimes introduction to things comes in a more organic or spontaneous manner... where you encounter some random info, think about it and then later encounter a little more... and so gradually it's piecing it together and re-evaluating at every piecing. So I don't know, like most things, I think it depends on what it is and how motivated I am to deal with it, etc.

  13. #13
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't have a problem with abridged books. If I like a book, I can get the original.
    When I listened to "Ivanhoe" on tape, I liked it a lot. So I read the book.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  14. #14
    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 Aiss View Post
    TBH, I feel exactly like you descripe - not quite the same as pianosinger, though. Curiously, it's usually LIIs that try to sell me their abridged version and be put off by me wanting a source - which, while not guaranteed to be better, is at least independent. That being said, my sample is nowhere near enough to say if it's type related; merely a tendency I've observed.
    I think that's likely due to the fact that LIIs reprocess information so much that they see themselves as a source, preferring to explain their own reasoning themselves rather than refer people to some other source.
    Quaero Veritas.

  15. #15

  16. #16
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,613
    Mentioned
    632 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    Is it really necessary to claim time and again that members of a given type all think and act the same?
    daoigha;<33333 sdkjga , <333#3 <33333 <33333 <33333<33333<33333<33333<33333<33333<33333<33333<3 3333<33333<33333<33333 <33333

  17. #17
    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 k0rpsey View Post
    Is it really necessary to claim time and again that members of a given type all think and act the same?
    If it's true, then yes. If it's not true, then I would like to know about it. What evidence and/or reasoning do you have that backs up your assertion that members of a given type do not think and act in similar ways?
    Quaero Veritas.

  18. #18
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    If it's true, then yes. If it's not true, then I would like to know about it. What evidence and/or reasoning do you have that backs up your assertion that members of a given type do not think and act in similar ways?
    I said same, not similar. Your blanket statement indicates uniformity of thought, not broad general trends blurred at their peripheries by individual variables, the latter being what exists in actual humans, not simplistic formulas purporting to represent humans. Arguments over "true types" aside, none of the forum's active LIIs, for example, are easily confused with the others, nor are members of other types confused with their fellows who actually post often enough to make a blip on my radar. You may periodically be accused of exhibiting Ti or alpha bias but in my time here I don't recall anyone saying, "Krig, you sound just like tcaud/labcoat/neotropic/etc.," nor would such an accusation normally strike me as plausible.

  19. #19
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    Questioning the validity of sources is a natural outgrowth of general inquisitiveness.
    Serious or Te/Fi. It's both type-related and a general occurring thing in humans.
    (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

  20. #20
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Serious or Te/Fi. It's both type-related and a general occurring thing in humans.
    Welcome to the Serious club, Krig.

  21. #21
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,906
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know that it's type-related, but in so many different ways, and with each of those particular ways having their own potency, often to the point of being invisible, or almost irrelevant in the larger scheme of things...

    I think we'd need a solid definition of what exactly is meant by "source" before any progress is made - your own, entirely first-hand, experiences, or what you gather from reading a first-hand account of things?

  22. #22
    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 k0rpsey View Post
    I said same, not similar. Your blanket statement indicates uniformity of thought, not broad general trends blurred at their peripheries by individual variables, the latter being what exists in actual humans, not simplistic formulas purporting to represent humans. Arguments over "true types" aside, none of the forum's active LIIs, for example, are easily confused with the others, nor are members of other types confused with their fellows who actually post often enough to make a blip on my radar. You may periodically be accused of exhibiting Ti or alpha bias but in my time here I don't recall anyone saying, "Krig, you sound just like tcaud/labcoat/neotropic/etc.," nor would such an accusation normally strike me as plausible.
    Ah, ok, I see the problem here. As an Ne-Ego, I just sort of take it for granted that there are many, many possible factors influencing thought and behaviour and not everyone of the same type is going to be exactly the same, and it's easy to forget that not everyone automatically takes that for granted. When I say "LIIs see themselves as a source," I'm talking about a general trend to which there will almost certainly be exceptions of various degrees due to all kinds of possible reasons; I don't intend to make some kind of absolute statement about every single LII who's ever lived.

    Unless I clearly specify otherwise, you can basically assume that everything I say comes with a "may not be true in every single case due to a variety of possible factors" disclaimer.

    That said, it's not surprising to me that people don't usually compare me to tcaud or labcoat, since I have doubts that either one is LII (I don't know who neotropic is). I have in the past been compared to actual LIIs like Brilliand and Logos. I do agree though that there is variation within sociotypes -- one of my major focuses of study is on subtypes, and the delineation of certain differences within type.
    Quaero Veritas.

  23. #23
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Ah, ok, I see the problem here. As an Ne-Ego, I just sort of take it for granted that there are many, many possible factors influencing thought and behaviour and not everyone of the same type is going to be exactly the same, and it's easy to forget that not everyone automatically takes that for granted.
    Ah, so I'm an Ne ego, too.

    When I say "LIIs see themselves as a source," I'm talking about a general trend to which there will almost certainly be exceptions of various degrees due to all kinds of possible reasons; I don't intend to make some kind of absolute statement about every single LII who's ever lived.
    You might be more cautious in how you express yourself henceforth.

    Unless I clearly specify otherwise, you can basically assume that everything I say comes with a "may not be true in every single case due to a variety of possible factors" disclaimer.
    Likewise. Am I still LII?

    That said, it's not surprising to me that people don't usually compare me to tcaud or labcoat, since I have doubts that either one is LII (I don't know who neotropic is).
    I'm already aware of these internecine struggles, which is why I said it should be disregarded for purposes of the present conversation. Some reasons why I think this sort of thing occurs are listed here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...795#post778795

    I have in the past been compared to actual LIIs like Brilliand and Logos.
    Real LIIs, yes. See above. Funny, funny, funny.

    I do agree though that there is variation within sociotypes -- one of my major focuses of study is on subtypes, and the delineation of certain differences within type.
    Something tells me their causes lie largely outside of socionics, but that's just a hunch.

  24. #24
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wanting to go to the Source?
    No, thanks.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    Ah, so I'm an Ne ego, too.
    That seems unlikely. Both of us are aware of the various factors which influence thought and behaviour, my point is that I take them for granted and tend not to focus on it, while to you it's of a more central importance. The flow of events and how one variable affects another is related to Ni. As an Ne-Ego with Ni in my Id, I am aware of Ni matters and take them into account internally, but find it boring and pointless to spend a lot of time talking about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    You might be more cautious in how you express yourself henceforth.
    Communication is often difficult between Quasi-Identicals. It's not so much that there is anything lacking in my ability to communicate or your ability to understand, just that our thought processes are so different that it impedes understanding. A fellow LII, for example, would have understood my implicit assumptions more easily, as he would tend to take the same things for granted himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    I'm already aware of these internecine struggles, which is why I said it should be disregarded for purposes of the present conversation. Some reasons why I think this sort of thing occurs are listed here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...795#post778795
    Heh -- I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the Base Ti LII thinks correct logical categorization is of overriding importance at all times, and the Demonstrative Ti ILI thinks it should sometimes be disregarded.

    While I don't disagree that the biases you listed in the linked post do occur, do you really think everyone posting on this forum is correctly self-typed? Personally, I feel I have sufficiently accounted for those biases in my own analysis of tcaud and labcoat.

    Also, whether or not you routinely clash with someone is not entirely irrelevant, as it may have some bearing on the intertype relation. People who frequently and consistently clash and have difficulty communicating are unlikely to be Duals or Identicals, for example.
    Quaero Veritas.

  26. #26
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Both of us are aware of the various factors which influence thought and behaviour, my point is that I take them for granted and tend not to focus on it, while to you it's of a more central importance.
    Then how can you possibly be studying subtypes, let alone cognitive types, if you aren't taking careful note of multifarious cognitive qualities and their interactions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Communication is often difficult between Quasi-Identicals. It's not so much that there is anything lacking in my ability to communicate or your ability to understand, just that our thought processes are so different that it impedes understanding.
    This seems to occur most frequently when my quasi-identical has made a ludicrous assertion and can't prevent himself from performing contortions in lieu of simply admitting a mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    A fellow LII, for example, would have understood my implicit assumptions more easily, as he would tend to take the same things for granted himself.
    I'll allow for that as a general possibility but there are still many instances where your supposed fellows question the basis and course of your reasoning. Likewise, I find myself in not infrequent disagreements with my ostensible identicals, especially those who are a good bit more "ostensible" than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Heh -- I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the Base Ti LII thinks correct logical categorization is of overriding importance at all times, and the Demonstrative Ti ILI thinks it should sometimes be disregarded.
    If you mean that categorical exactitude to be of the ontic variety I'd put "correct" in quotations to acknowledge the high potential (if not guarantee) for errant human knowledge and judgment. And I wouldn't disregard Ti so much as safeguard against its overshadowing of evidence, and adjust the former when it fails to jibe with the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    While I don't disagree that the biases you listed in the linked post do occur, do you really think everyone posting on this forum is correctly self-typed?
    Of course not. There are various individuals who can't settle on a type, so on that account they're wrong more often than right. There are also a handful who have fixedly mistyped themselves, and it's no secret I've pointedly challenged some of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Personally, I feel I have sufficiently accounted for those biases in my own analysis of tcaud and labcoat.
    I wouldn't disagree but your considered opinion doesn't change the actual mechanics of tcaud or labcoat's cognition. They've both given me reason to ponder whether they're correct about themselves but my doubts aren't especially strong in either case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Also, whether or not you routinely clash with someone is not entirely irrelevant, as it may have some bearing on the intertype relation. People who frequently and consistently clash and have difficulty communicating are unlikely to be Duals or Identicals, for example.
    It might be raining, it might not. Though again I have no reason to disagree with your claim.

  27. #27
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    if "the source" is no more empirically robust than the relaying person, you're not gaining any ground. there's a good number of fields including socionics in which i view it as largely a futile endeavor to unfurl relaying sequences in hopes of finding something solid at their root. it's often quicker and no less epistemically sound to just make an estimation of how trustworthy a relaying entity is and what caveats apply in interpreting their imput based on what you know about their history and ideological and cognitive preferences.

    in general i'd say i'm not "like" pianosinger in this regard very much. i'm not pedantically obsessed with pinpointing sources.

  28. #28
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    Is it type related? Maybe having to do with Te or something?

    For instance, when I read a novel, I always insist on an Unabridged version. I read Les Miserables in its entirely for the first time when I was in tenth grade. I did not skip a word. Since then, I've read the book again a couple more times, though these other two times I knew what parts could be skipped over to get to the "good parts." But point being, it was then my abridgement, not someone else's.

    And the couple of times I have read an Abridged version, I will not consider myself as having truly read the book, until I go back and read it again in an Unabridged format.

    I grew up on the King James Version of the Bible. I am immediately skeptical of quotations from any other version that does not match up with the KJV. And even with the KJV, I am skeptical at times of the exact wording, since I know it is a translation and not in the original language(s). If I had a better talent for learning languages, I would want to learn as many as possible, just so I could go back and read the original texts to get a more thorough understanding of each book's original intent. If only I could travel back in time and interview the ancient prophets in their own tongues, and immerse myself in their culture to really, truly understand.

    I come across the same snag in Socionics. Since all of the original material is in Russian, unavoidably much of what we English-speakers have is "lost in translation." Even putting Russian text through an online translator is problematic; after a short time, I just get tired of wading through it all.
    Yeah I think it's Te-related. I dont read too much as far as fictional novels go, but back in my childhood when I did read more of that stuff, I did feel the same way as you. I'm also thoughtful of what my sources are, and when reading technical stuff, to feel confident about what I'm reading, i like to check several sources to make sure what I'm reading isn't just something cooked up by one particular author.

    One thing that both myself and my sister (EII) have trouble with though is easily finding a trustworthy source. For me it takes rummaging through many figurative layers checking this, checking that, wasting a lot of time, finally landing on a source that I think is more trustworthy (but might not be as good as I initially thought).

    Often because of this, if I'm in a hurry to find out something, I would rather just ask my question of someone whose knowledge I trust. (and i've noticed that too many such questions really irritate the Ti-types). One of the things I really appreciate about all Te-ego types is how quickly they are able to find a good source and tell me what I need to know (if they dont already know it). I also appreciate people who refer me to excellent sources (sometimes even more than just giving me the answer), because then I can just refer to the source for my future questions.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  29. #29
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I trust some sources of information more than others. If I don't know the source, or the place that gave me the information isn't on my trusted list, I might go to a deeper source.

    I think people of many types might want to go "to the source", maybe for different reasons in some cases, but lots of people like to dig deeper, particularly the more important an issue is to them.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  30. #30
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,613
    Mentioned
    632 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i dont think i relate to this, honestly. i cant think of any examples anyway.

  31. #31
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I could see it being type related in certain contexts.
    Stan is not my real name.

  32. #32
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,906
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Looking at the results so far, and using whatever I sense I've got upstairs (I hope it's enough ), I think this whole considering the source thing would be most potent with those who have as a producing function (especially if it's a HA or a Polr), with being Aristocratic playing into things to a lesser extent, same with a perceiving subtype (Creative or Harmonizing when doing the DCNH thing)...

  33. #33
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This need for original sources isn't restricted to groups or types. It's more sensible to use theory to explain how this desire manifests in those individuals who feel it. Without experimental data it's all conjecture.

Posting Permissions

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