would you care to defend your love of genocide?Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
or would you rather "regulate the truth" by informing me that what i'm saying is irrelevant and you never said anything in support of genocide?
I'm not sure what that means in this context and if you were so kind to elaborate further I would gladly respond in kind as well. That is, what is missing, is the consensus - you might be talking about something else and I might be thinking about something else.
Wavelengths...
i'm not exactly trolling since theres a point i'm trying to get across. who is everyone? there were a few who i think maybe understood and disagreed like words or fdg but several others i think aren't capable of disagreeing because they just don't grasp it. i know thats condescending but its a little frustrating to have people telling you you're wrong when they can't even process what you're saying. its why i dont post sometimes - also a flaw on my end in terms of being able to communicate well, to be fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_synchronization
if you try long enough, you can justify any behavior to be the result of any IE of your liking. just as i can justify in my head that i am actually an ESTp, either by selectively focusing on certain traits in my personality, or distorting the definitions to the point where they're completely meaningless. (e.g. maritsa, the ineffable). so, what's important is, to stay grounded, to take into consideration other people's perspectives and views, to cross-check yourself against other people so to say, and to have an opinion that is flexible and open to possibilities. insularity leads to a certain blindness to one's mistakes, so it's important to look outside oneself to get things "right".
Which begs the question, why do you ask when you apparently know the answer already?
There is nothing to grasp. You asked a question about something you're ignorant of. I can't believe you're making excuses for your biased behavior. Not only did you say that he is clueless, but you actually attempted to close the discussion in an immature way.
That's better, although it is not applicable in any way in this scenario/thread for it implies external control over you, me and any one posting in this thread. In other words a consensus would be achievable every time just by readjusting the error margins, which again means, this thread/discussion wouldn't happen nor be possible.
Computers don't blunder.
This bit covers some of my Forum Dynamics thread in my head.
you're getting very desperate
you had an opinion, wanted some thoughts on it, but obviously not from people who disagree with you
this is obvious in your attempt to make words's points seem supportive of yours, which is honestly laughable
he was so sarcastic that his points flew over your head
I don't know how you can you disagree with someone directly saying that they support something unless you have evidence that he does not support it; simply the act of stating is evidence that he is not on the fence.
Jung has a definition where he defines broad focuses and then says 'This is most important to me'. Socionics has no additional information but believes you can wrap some kind of logic about it and believe it is 'that tidy' with lots of evidence around which agrees and disagrees with Model A.
It is interesting to consider that religious belief focuses on ignoring any contrary information, it appears the same way in Socionics land, therefore I think you could argue that Socionics 'applicability' is more a function of belief than measurement.
who cares about the premise? if you're wrong you're wrong there is no way around it
you included what suits you to reach to a certain conclusion
you're either going to sit there and act as if your premises are god sent or admit that they are lacking
what what what what what
fair enough. nobody really attacked my premises so much as just bypassed them but even if they had i would have dismissed it and acted like the premise was godsenti'm just not interested in that conversation. i don't want to have to reinvent the wheel. sue me.
in the butt.
I think in the instance of people guessing my type online, ...... it's useless.
They don't know me irl. I therefore, gather my true type from my own knowledge and the knowledge of people I know irl.
Typing people online is the same as diagnosing personality disorders online, in the way that the risk of determining incorrectly is quite high. Therefore, it's done for fun and not for accuracy.
So consensus from an online perspective is the consensus of fools, basically.
Much of other theory is also a mental construct; that doesn't necessarily make it non-usable or untrue, nor does it pose the inability to gain a true or somewhat true, answer. The truest answer may not be the consensus, in fact, it rarely seems to be in popular culture.
Last edited by jet city woman; 05-16-2013 at 05:46 AM.
And? Did I say anything related to that? (something like "social constructs are always objectively right) Do you actually take the time to understand what you read, or do you like to spout some mindless disagreeable nonsense?
The "experience" always fits "reality", they're the same thing (unless you are schizophrenic etc etc). I don't understand what you're arguing about.Meh, I would argue that you should make sure the experience fits with reality
Maybe. But it likely has very little to do with what we're discussing.but this is actually one of the key differences between Ni & Si. Ni would rather change your perception of the issue and create your own mental construct.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
My thoughts on "consensus" in a nutshell....
Good point. On internet forums though, there needs to be at least one more axis in said graph that includes how out of touch with reality the source may be... as well as possibly another new axis for how much the source will agree with a certain bias if they believe there is a chance of getting laid/meet-up.
My thoughts on "consensus" in a nutshell....
The mind is restless and difficult to restrain, but it is subdued by practice
-Krishna
How do you get to say so much without saying anything? Was it networking or politician classes you attended? I think I know what you said but it seems you specialise in something.
I have thought this as well. Think I said it before and some people disagreed, sometimes it's like when people disagree, it's almost like when there's a .... group disagreement you can be on to something, challenging the status quo, the belief system or some such which goes back to bleh at discussion.
Be a rebel Jim, heh.
ruuuuuude
you think you know? lolI think I know what you said but it seems you specialise in something.
do tell, I specialize in many things
zzz spic span internet pop pickers and Fugue
Nice to meet you JD
Oh.. you're the guy who thinks I'm Jadae.
You may want to look for my first post, it will amuse you, surely.
Which first post? Na it doesn't matter too boring thanks though.
My very first post.
You're welcome. It's good to know that the crazies are still roaming around. I kind of missed having a conspiracy theorist on this forum.
Na, I don't think you're cool and manly
urine
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I certainly hope you will expand upon this. After all, you're amongst friends.
Nah, this doesn't sound right. I've seen you offer your knowledge(?) to people on this forum when they were inquiring about some type and when they were not inquiring about it. Step by step you proved yourself useless in this case.
Pinpoint a certified shrink on this forum first.Typing people online is the same as diagnosing personality disorders online, in the way that the risk of determining incorrectly is quite high.
Proved my point.So consensus from an online perspective is the consensus of fools, basically.
Your husband(?) went further as you can see. Don't know whether he agrees with you, that is, gave support to your claim, but if it so, you already form a group. Simply speaking a consensus between you two has been already achieved. Now count in few more people who will agree...
... you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Last edited by Absurd; 05-16-2013 at 12:24 PM.
i think absurd is pretty universally accepted as lse. but i could type him ili and still be able to justify that and make equally good arguments in favor of it because thats how socionics works.
so my typing of absurd as ili is a perfectly fine mental construct but in terms of actual practice and discussion and any sort of analysis i might want to engage in with others on the forum, it is effectively useless.
there are a few people on the forum i can't help but see as something other than the popular typing but say one of those people is being used as an example of displaying a certain reinin dichotomy. what do i get from that conversation other than confusion or a game of rhetoric. since presumably we are all seeing and interacting with the same person anyway.
eh i wanted to hear feedback from people who were on the same page in terms of understanding but now i've spent so much time getting pecked at by people who don't really get it and are freaking out over the word consensus that i've sorta lost focus on that. i don't even know what i want out of this thread anymore. ineffectively pounding against consensus regarding someones type can also be useful if you're looking for a mental workout or something so maybe its all good.
Well yes, you can do that although besides those arguments a consensus requires at least another participant so it can be reached. It can be me or some other person.
You can justify every single typing you make this way even without the knowledge of the subject in question. It is done in case of celebrities and it is allegedly called observation.
All in all, you have to have this other person who shares the same sentiments(?) as you do and it would be damn fine if the person in question would as well.
Without any kind of effort a consensus is reached and what's funnier it's not even a consensus anymore. There's no one to object. A consensus would only come to existence when you, me and some other person met obstacles in form of other people and their opinions.
This is covered in my Forum Dynamics thread (still) in my head as well. A bit busy lately.
Anyway, I read somewhere you're typing me ILI. What would be your next move and who are those people you have doubts on here as well, if you don't mind me asking.
Come on lungs, don't just keep such secrets to yourself, share with me
Last edited by Absurd; 05-16-2013 at 02:41 PM.
Consensus = Majority opinion. Opinion = interpretation based on personal perspective.for the record i'm not suggesting at all that, for example, if everybody else types you ESE even though you self-type ESI, then you must actually be ESE. i hate that shit. you own your own identity. i'm not saying that at all.
what i'm saying is more like. you say, "look, i have the posture of an ESI" and everybody else says, "no, you have the posture of an ESE." you have the same fucking posture either way and the rest is just words. so for the sake of communication and "objectivity" (as far as it can go in something like this) ESE might be a better descriptor.
Think of the elephant and blind men analogy. We're all blind men, grasping around trying to figure out how the elephant really is like (sociotype). We start from touching different elephant parts (coming from different directions according to what we first perceive/stands out to us), moving onto different parts. Those who started from the tail have a very different view from the one who began from the tusks.
If the majority of the blind men began from the tusks and extrapolated from there, they have a different view from the few blind men who extrapolated from the tail. They debate, but all they see is a portion of the elephant. My point is, people give different weights to their observations according to their initial point of reference (and existing biases stemming from their existing understanding).
This is where I disagree.i think what i was originally getting at was that since its all head games and rhetoric to begin with, consensus is as "real" as it can get. (eg tree metaphor)
of course you have to realize its not "real" in the first place to get that and a lot of people here aren't at that point.
1. Is it really all head games to begin with?
2. Does consensus constitute truth?
3. Are all constructs "real"?
I vote no on all three counts.
Last edited by Zenoa; 05-16-2013 at 03:26 PM.
Of course.
That's what William suggested when he came up with 2+2=4 insisting it is so every time and what you're suggesting is equally the same. I can be wrong but it seems you take a reductionist approach like in maths and maths is completely reductionist, that is, it doesn't really take the big picture into consideration.Think of the elephant and blind men analogy. We're all blind men, grasping around trying to figure out how the elephant really is like (sociotype). We start from touching different elephant parts (coming from different directions according to what we first perceive/stands out to us), moving onto different parts. Those who started from the tail have a very different view from the one who began from the tusks.
You take that elephant, dismember it and you've got parts, not an elephant. You can add those parts together, but it still wouldn't be an elephant. Thing is you're omitting the elephant, the big picture. Same with a pen, you take it apart and you've got parts, each having a name, just parts, not a pen. So in that case 2+2=4, but to see the big picture it is going to have to equal five.
I call it Game of Thrones...This is where I disagree.
1. Is it really all head games to begin with?
2. Does consensus constitute truth?
3. Are all constructs "real"?
I vote no on all three counts.
Aren't you overestimating yourself a bit?
Anyway, I don't know, for example if Absurd says that he is a "high energy and hands on person" and the definition of Ni dominance says something like the opposite, then...the argument would have to start with a re-definition of the term Ni dominance etc. etc. so not *that* easy to accomplish.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
