Mystic Sonic a sensory type?
I think it seems highly probable that mystic sonic could really be a sensory type. As long as I have talked to him, I have noted time and time again that he seems to have a hugh tendency towards making inductions in a way that does not seem very intuitive. I could be wrong, but I don't think that alot of what he says is based on intuitive or judgement processes. I may list some examples of some thing I have seen him do later when I have time.
I disagree.
Why? He has a hugh tendency to make conclusions about whole systems based on what he knows about a small static example of the general element of the system, which is typical of people who are sensors and use inductive reasoning ... you've never noticed that?Originally Posted by Zeia
I also disagree...Why? He has a hugh tendency to make conclusions about whole systems based on what he knows about a small static example of the general element of the system, which is typical of people who are sensors and use inductive reasoning ... you've never noticed that?rmcnew, did you think MS would describe you his system when trying to explain anything? It's probably too big. That's the thing with me - I can see the conclusion and even parts of the system, but I explain the system itself, nor do I plan to try.
You'll ask something, and he'll give you his opinion, and he'll add a part of the system to show you that he knows where this thing belongs in his system. To you it seems like a static example, because you are not familiar with his system.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
mysticsonic is one of the most classic intj's we have here!!
Entp
ILE
A classic case of missing the point. Apparently kriistina does not see what I have seen, but I think what I am implying is totally applicable to someone who is sensory.I also disagree...Why? He has a hugh tendency to make conclusions about whole systems based on what he knows about a small static example of the general element of the system, which is typical of people who are sensors and use inductive reasoning ... you've never noticed that?
You'll ask something, and he'll give you his opinion, and he'll add a part of the system to show you that he knows where this thing belongs in his system. To you it seems like a static example, because you are not familiar with his system.
There are actually more than a few examples I can think of, as it is a pattern I have noticed in his behaviour and how he comes acrost in the chat and on the forum. It is especially noticable when he defends his opinions. The thing I have noticed is that when he defends what he has said against people with diffrent opinions he tends to make conclusions that can not be guaranted, and then acts like they are valid conclusions which justify what he has said. Intuitive types do not tend to do this! An intuitive type would say something general and avoid saying something that escapes an absolute conclusion which is undeniable, which I havn't really seen mysticsonic do much at all, if even at all!
Anyhow ... like I said I don't think you guys are seeing what I am seeing, but when you finally get around to it and start seeing his patterns of behaviour, I hope you'd understand by then.
And by the way, I think you guys are confusing his use of a sensory function with, and that is why you think he is INTj, unless he is really ISTj ...
You can speculate about the system, which what mystic sonic does not do which means he may not be an intuitive, because an intuitive would speculate about the system and not make inductions about it.This is one of the stupidest threads I've read on here in quite some time, and everyone knows there's A LOT of stupid threads on here. Anyway...
Yeah, that's what intelligent people do mcnew. You can't know everything about a system plus the full extent of it beforehand and draw absolute conclusions about it unless it was written from the ground up beforehand (like math). Reality doesn't work this way - all you can ever do is make inductive probabilistic statements drawn on your knowledge about some incomplete segment of it.
And I disagree, so while you are at it just get out of my thread if you think it is stupid meerly because you don't agree with it, though you can disagree. Not everyone makes inductive conclusions over speculative deductions, like you claim.
*Looks at Dynamicism*Hey look mcnew, some woman is being a whore!
Yup ...
Well, looks like this thead is about to go to hell ... quit posting here.
How confident, though, is he in his defense of his conclusions? That is probably the most important factor.There are actually more than a few examples I can think of, as it is a pattern I have noticed in his behaviour and how he comes acrost in the chat and on the forum. It is especially noticable when he defends his opinions. The thing I have noticed is that when he defends what he has said against people with diffrent opinions he tends to make conclusions that can not be guaranted, and then acts like they are valid conclusions which justify what he has said. Intuitive types do not tend to do this! An intuitive type would say something general and avoid saying something that escapes an absolute conclusion which is undeniable, which I havn't really seen mysticsonic do much at all, if even at all!
You may have a point, here, rmcnew. The description of Se that Hugo often uses states that the Se type has the "skill to make decisions on the basis of incomplete data."
Although we should wait to see what Mystic has to say about this.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
*pulls up with a truckload of manure and dumps the load on top of Dynamicism**farts on mcnew**Looks at Dynamicism*Hey look mcnew, some woman is being a whore!
Yup ...
From what I see he places all emphasis on his conclusions and runs with them like they are tough enough to busts through anything. That is eveidence that he is placing alot of confidence in his conclusions, in my opinion.
Yes!!! That is a NEGITIVE point about being intuitive ... The NEGITIVE point about being sensory is that the conclusion is never guaranteed to be true!Yeah, because all N types are always totally insecure about their conclusions.
For example, there is a guy typing load on a keyboard -
Sensory type would say: HE NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO TYPE!
Intuitive type would say: He types FAST and in an UNORTHODOX way ...
The sensory types conclusion is not guaranteed, the intuitive types conclusion can not be denied!!!!!!
The sensory type makes conclusion that are usually initially FALSE, and the intuitive type makes conclusions that can not said to be anything other than TRUE.
I don't think that herzy realized it, but she is proving the points I have made in her sarcasm.Yeah, especially those constantly doubting, ever-deliberating ENTjs who hesitate to come to any conclusion about anything.Yeah, because all N types are always totally insecure about their conclusions.
This is where I absolutly disagree with you, and for good reason. I am going to post what I put earlier in another thread to help prove some of this supposed 'stupid shit' some of you guys are obviously too blindsided to consider.No. You're just making yourself look stupid. Especially with statements like the following:
wtf? way to mass-stereotype the validity of half the population's conclusions. ZOMFGZ HE'Z A ZENZOR, HE MUST SUCK AT DRAWING KONKLUZINZ, EL OH ELZ.
Sensory type would say: HE NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO TYPE!
Intuitive type would say: He types FAST and in an UNORTHODOX way ...
The sensory types conclusion is not guaranteed, the intuitive types conclusion can not be denied!!!!!!
The sensory type makes conclusion that are usually initially FALSE, and the intuitive type makes conclusions that can not said to be anything other than TRUE.Just because someone is a sensor or an intutitive, has absolutely nothing at all to do with their assumptions / conclusions. Period.
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=4811&start=90I disagree, I think it is the other way around ... perceiving functions make conclusions based on deductive/inductive referencing and judging functions make conclusions based on objective/subjective referencing.
So Te only makes observations? I disagree; perceiving functions make observations. Judging functions arrive at conclusions based on the data absorbed via perceiving functions.
And the aptitude to making empirical conclusions is based on sensory perception [not the judging process Te], which is anything but initially accurate. Intuitives usually do not need to naturally make empirical conclusions, typically on account of their tendency to narrow generalizing specifics down to accurate conclusions. Sensors tend to work from induction and as a result naturally make false conclusions initially, because they go by the senses and therefore tend to lack the ability to make appropiate deductions from their surrounds such as an intuitive person would, and therefore make empirical conclusions instead. Making empirical conclusions has nothing to do with judging functions, with the exception in making subjective/objective inferences along with what has been inducted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.
In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.
I must be an S type, too.Yes!!! That is a NEGITIVE point about being intuitive ... The NEGITIVE point about being sensory is that the conclusion is never guaranteed to be true!Yeah, because all N types are always totally insecure about their conclusions.
A simple solution to that would be to quit acting like bigoted flamming trolls who can not posts in serious threads without the intent of verbal attacking another person or degrading what he or she has to say, but for some of that seems to be too much to ask.
I think actually a little thought before hitting the "Submit" button would prevent situations like this.A simple solution to that would be to quit acting like bigoted flamming trolls who can not posts in serious threads without the intent of verbal attacking another person or degrading what he or she has to say, but for some of that seems to be too much to ask.
Or a click of the "Preview" button before the "Submit" button.
Sorry man but this thread was really a very bad idea. Like very.
That's good, 'cause I like controversy and it seems now there is plenty of it.
Here is one example on Mysticsonic coming up with inductive conclusions they way I have implied in the chatroom. I took an EMT course and I remember that the instructor said that the worst pain in the world was a broken shoulder blade,which is why I was arguing with him about it in case anyone is wondering.
And another instance of his doing something similar with making inductive conclusions, as opposed to making speculative deductions is found in this thread where he mentions Kierkegaard ...<Mysticsonic> Nothing hurts worse than a woman giving birth
<rmcnew> except for maybe getting a broken shoulderblade, that hurts way way worse!
<mysticsonic> I wouldn't think so
<rmcnew> *posts link about website on shoulderblade injuries*
<rmcnew> Shoulderblade injuries usually only happen in car wrecks
<mysticsonic> I've known people to have carwrecks, they've come out fine! <--- inductive conclusion
<mysticsonic> having kids still hurts worse, but it does not matter 'cause we are not women ...
http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4...r=asc&start=15
Well, it is MBTI --- otherwise it is pretty clear.
http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/mbti.htm
Sensors are more concrete perceivers, relying more heavily on what they can taste, touch, hear, see, and what is right in front of their noses--they analyze through comparison to their past experiences. They tend to think sequentially from A to B to C, using inductive reasoning (going from the specific to the general).
Intuitors, on the other hand, tend to consider the hunches, the overall picture, the possibilities, the patterns, and to use deductive reasoning (going from the general to the specific). Because they focus on possibilities, Intuitive types draw more on the unknown, the indirect, the not - yet - experienced -- and are therefore more oriented in time to the future.
Mcnew, what do you mean about sensory types being wrong and intuitive types being right? I'm hoping what you meant to say differs from how it read.
It means that intuitive types generalize in such a way that they can never be wrong about what they say and sensors tend to make conclusions based upon what they see with no guarnatee that their conclusions are right or guaranteed.
I tried to make an example that demonstrated that, but I don't think people are getting what the example implies.
Are you saying the initial statements made by a sensor are inductive, and thus probably wrong, and that an intuiter is generally deductive and therefore must be correct?
I figured what you said didn't come out right...
Well, an intuitive is not necessarily correct or even sure of being correct, but will usually generalize in such a way that can not be proven wrong. Other than that, I think you understand.
McNew's mad I disagreed with him about existentialism and for some reason do not see the tradition as one being composed of those who are scientific in their philosphical endeavors.
Let's look at it this way: McNew claimed that existentialism is, inpart and insofar that it can be referred to as a unitary movement, as stated above. This conclusion seems inductive, and if it is deductive, then I would have to say I do not see the deductive reasoning used in the process of coming to such a conclusion; by Mcnew's own criteria, it appears he would be a sensor.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
He said existensialism is a "unitary movement"? First of all, what the hell does that mean. And second, lmao.
No, he said there are contradictions within it, but insofar that it can be referred to as a whole, what I stated in the first part of the post is a part of existentialism.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
question for mcnew:
i think most people who disagree with you here (which is everybody) would say that what you are describing has more to do with Te/Ti. i certainly think you've missed the point completely on the differences between sensation and intuition.
based on your criteria of sensing being inductive and intuition being deductive, and your further elaborations on the point, how would you differentiate these criteria from the difference between Te and Ti?
I don't necessarily disagree with him...
the vast majority of the people who have responded have disagreed.
yeah and we all know that the masses are always right
that's irrelevant if you look at the context of the statement.
my vote goes for INTj btw
DJ wasn't talking about my type when he said "I don't necessarily disagree with him," but rather McNew's conclusions about existentialism.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
And also what he said about N/S.
First off, your implications for making your statement are totally false. I am not mad at you and the disagreement about existentialism is not what initially made me think you might be a sensor, but a whole bunch of little things you've said and done for the past few months. I noticed a pattern in your behaviour. If that is a reason to get on the defensive, then I am not sure whether I should even bother to discuss it.
Second, let me point a few things out here ...
You admitted right there in bold that your entire argument is inductive. Assuming that Kierkegaard is a key example of one who represents all of existentialism is an inductive method. Like I said, there are many diffrent examples of what an existentialist is and claiming one of them is like all of them isn't necessarily true. You did mention Nietzsche, but whether he is a good example of an existentialist after going totally nuts, that's questionable. Though he did follow more scientific methods like you said.I did not put words into your mouth, nor did I claim you have failed at something that can be proven easily by being "looked up over the internet by anyone not lazy enough to look it up." Kierkegaard being unscientific in his philosphical ponderings is a good enough reason, given his ENORMOUS influence within the aether of existentialism, to doubt your claim that existentialists are scientific in their philosphical investigations.
Then this statement ...
It is questionable whether someone who does not posses the above traits is an existentialist at all, because it generally covers the whole realm of existentialism, and can not be proven wrong. What I said was deductive because it was a general overview and is impossible to prove what I said is wrong. However, it is possible to be inductive, and assume someone is an existentialist meerly because 'they claim the name of an existentialist,' which is exactly what you were inplying. However, just saying you are an existentialist 'does not mean you are an existentialist'. I disagree wholely."It is called 'Existentialism,' which includes atheist, agnostics, and some theists; they are people who are unconcerned about religions and take non-traditional and scientific approaches to discovering the origions of the Universe. However, being an Existentialist does not necessarily mean the rejection of religion, meerly the probing of its validity. "
That's not existentialism; existentialists CAN be as such, but one need not necessarily possess such traits in order to be one.
Therefore, Mysticsonic was being typically inductive, rmcnew was being typically deductive
"And also what he said about N/S."
O.
"First off, your implications for making your statement are totally false. I am not mad at you and the disagreement about existentialism is not what initially made me think you might be a sensor, but a whole bunch of little things you've said and done for the past few months."
That wasn't really a serious statement.
"It is questionable whether someone who does not posses the above traits is an existentialist at all, because it generally covers the whole realm of existentialism, and can not be proven wrong."
Except for the fact that, Kierkegaard being an obvious existentialist, there exists existentialists who were not scientific in deciphering the origins of the universe.
I actually find existentialism to be more about defining the value of one's own existence; examples of such tenets throughout the philosophy are Kierkegaard's concept of the "leap of faith," Nietzsche's statement about bringing value back towards huimanity, and Sartre's concept of good faith. It seems to me that anyone who believes as such should be considered an existentialist. You induced that I meant anyone who dons the title of existentialist is an existentialist, thus you were being inductive, and were wrong.
Therefore, you were being inductive.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Alright .. if I was being inductive ... Prove that the above stament I made is false. If not, then I was being deductive, because that is a deductive statement. I commend you if you try to disporve it, but it is too general to be false. I was being deductive"It is called 'Existentialism,' which includes atheist, agnostics, and some theists; they are people who are unconcerned about religions and take non-traditional and scientific approaches to discovering the origions of the Universe. However, being an Existentialist does not necessarily mean the rejection of religion, meerly the probing of its validity. "
That's not existentialism; existentialists CAN be as such, but one need not necessarily possess such traits in order to be one.
The statement above is inductive, and therefore showing that mystic sonic was being inductive, while I was not being inductive. Kierkegaard is not a valid reason to determine that all existentialist were unscientific.I did not put words into your mouth, nor did I claim you have failed at something that can be proven easily by being "looked up over the internet by anyone not lazy enough to look it up." Kierkegaard being unscientific in his philosphical ponderings is a good enough reason, given his ENORMOUS influence within the aether of existentialism, to doubt your claim that existentialists are scientific in their philosphical investigations.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote