Come say hi!

[whittgenstein]

Hey, I'm Lucy. I recently made an account here as well as my one over on Personality Cafe so I can be exposed to more socionics. I believe I'm a SEI (972 so/sx tritype) but really want to get to know the theory more! This seemed like a great place where I can discuss it and lurk through years of past threads to get to grips with socionics.

I never usually make introduction threads so I'm not sure what to put really. I'm 18 and a student from the UK. I live on pizza, curry, coke and hummus and can usually be found in bed or down the pub (so, fairly typical for a student). Dancing, lurking on internet forums and watching movies takes up most of my time.

Let's hang out down the local and get our dual on.

Catch you on the flip side.

[Raver]

Welcome!

[Creepy-bg]

hi.

[mu4]

Hi!

[fen]

Hello hello.

[InvisibleHim]

Hi, Lucy.

[squirreltual]

Hello! Um. Do you like biscuits?

[FDG]

Hi, Ludwig.

[whittgenstein]

Hello! Um. Do you like biscuits?

Only chocolate ones. And custard creams, of course.

[Saberstorm]

Lucy are you Italian? Do you like art? Do you have babies?

[anndelise]

Howdy.

[whittgenstein]

Lucy are you Italian? Do you like art? Do you have babies?

No, yes, no.
I'm from the UK (England to be specific). I enjoy art, particularly a lot of the modern stuff that most people seem to hate. I don't know a lot about it, though, so I can't say whether a piece is good or bad, only if I like it or not. Babies are lame and smell bad.

[Aquagraph]

I enjoy art, particularly a lot of the modern stuff that most people seem to hate.

I'm a bit notorious for showing appreciation towards a certain piece of modern art.

It's a video. First there is a long long time of showing clips of atrocities human kind does. I involves human cruelty towards humans, animals, nature. After that there's a short clip where there's a kitten just lying there and then the artist comes and decapitates it with an axe and jerks on it's severed head. Humanity is so dulled to seeing those atrocities but when a kitten dies, the observer may notice the irrationality of his sudden reaction. I assume that you are part of the majority who hates that guy, but let me know if you aren't.

[whittgenstein]

I'm a bit notorious for showing appreciation towards a certain piece of modern art.

It's a video. First there is a long long time of showing clips of atrocities human kind does. I involves human cruelty towards humans, animals, nature. After that there's a short clip where there's a kitten just lying there and then the artist comes and decapitates it with an axe and jerks on it's severed head. Humanity is so dulled to seeing those atrocities but when a kitten dies, the observer may notice the irrationality of his sudden reaction. I assume that you are part of the majority who hates that guy, but let me know if you aren't.

I was going more for the abstract shapes and colours that sell for ridiculous amounts of money and make the general public say things like, "my five year old could have done that!"

My first reaction to that description was that it was horrendous but that's exactly why a piece like that was done, I suppose. I'm definitely guilty of watching films where people get slaughtered and then cringing when someone kicks a dog or something. Though I agree that we should probably be at least as affected by watching clips of, say, the holocaust as we would to a cat being decapitated, I cannot get behind and support the violence done solely to make a point of that. It's probably the most effective way to get the message across but also a horrible way to go about it. Totally agree with the sentiment, though; it's terrible how we are not only desensitised to violence but are also encouraged to think it's fun and that you can still be a 'good guy' whist mowing down anonymous 'bad' henchmen.

[Aquagraph]

My first reaction to that description was that it was horrendous but that's exactly why a piece like that was done, I suppose. I'm definitely guilty of watching films where people get slaughtered and then cringing when someone kicks a dog or something. Though I agree that we should probably be at least as affected by watching clips of, say, the holocaust as we would to a cat being decapitated, I cannot get behind and support the violence done solely to make a point of that. It's probably the most effective way to get the message across but also a horrible way to go about it. Totally agree with the sentiment, though; it's terrible how we are not only desensitised to violence but are also encouraged to think it's fun and that you can still be a 'good guy' whist mowing down anonymous 'bad' henchmen.

It is easily considered unethical, but from a strict utilitarian point of view, if turned a few people a bit better as a person or, say, turned someone a vegetarian, it is worth it. I don't like to preach about the latter but the things we do to the animals we eat is a lot worse fate than what happened to the kitten. Many people are aware of this piece but sadly it isn't available and only few people have seen it.

We live in a world where pictures like this don't feel like much to the modern man. We don't care what is being done in the world, unless it's done in our immediate vicinity. And when we finally care, it's blind emotions all over. Organizations that protect wildlife target the cutest creatures. We want to "punish the evildoers" out of zealous hatred, not to think how to reach out to them. Rape is worse than murder because yuck. We give more money to beggars who have been maimed for sympathy by their criminal lords.

Our sentimental view of justice blinds us. I think his piece gave shock therapy to the sentimentalists.

[whittgenstein]

It is easily considered unethical, but from a strict utilitarian point of view, if turned a few people a bit better as a person or, say, turned someone a vegetarian, it is worth it. I don't like to preach about the latter but the things we do to the animals we eat is a lot worse fate than what happened to the kitten. Many people are aware of this piece but sadly it isn't available and only few people have seen it.

I'm vegetarian myself so I can get behind this at least. I suppose if the death of one animal went on to save the lives of many more it'd be for the greater good but that idea in itself is a pretty harsh way to look at life and one I'm not sure I agree with. It's a shame it's not available as I'd actually quite like to see it.

We live in a world where pictures like this don't feel like much to the modern man. We don't care what is being done in the world, unless it's done in our immediate vicinity. And when we finally care, it's blind emotions all over. Organizations that protect wildlife target the cutest creatures. We want to "punish the evildoers" out of zealous hatred, not to think how to reach out to them. Rape is worse than murder because yuck. We give more money to beggars who have been maimed for sympathy by their criminal lords.

Our sentimental view of justice blinds us. I think his piece gave shock therapy to the sentimentalists.

I agree with pretty much everything said here and don't really have much to add. I concur.

[malna]

Hi, Lucy.
Hello World.

[GuavaDrunk]

An interesting person, hello hello. o/

What do you study and why? What's your take on curry pizza?

[whittgenstein]

An interesting person, hello hello. o/

What do you study and why? What's your take on curry pizza?

Thank you.

I study Theology. I don't particularly have a grand reason such as it leading into a career I want to do. I simply find it interesting - particularly the philosophical and cultural side of it. I'm an atheist so it's pretty cool looking in on that mindset and looking at how a theist's worldview would be different to mine.

Curry pizza dipped in hummus with a can of coke on the side would be my dream. Particularly if there were cheesy curly fries, too. Let's get to work on making this happen.

[GuavaDrunk]

Thank you.

I study Theology. I don't particularly have a grand reason such as it leading into a career I want to do. I simply find it interesting - particularly the philosophical and cultural side of it. I'm an atheist so it's pretty cool looking in on that mindset and looking at how a theist's worldview would be different to mine.

Respect for studying theology as an atheist. How does that work out in discussions with course-mates? Could you argue that you are now extra-prepared to travel the world and not get severe culture shock? How are the lessons structured, if I may ask, and does the subject talk only about Christianity?

You don't have to answer everything ftr. ^_^

Curry pizza dipped in hummus with a can of coke on the side would be my dream. Particularly if there were cheesy curly fries, too. Let's get to work on making this happen.

You make it and I'll test it. Easy on the cheese, it's all in the ketchup.

[Words]

I'm a bit notorious for showing appreciation towards a certain piece of modern art.

It's a video. First there is a long long time of showing clips of atrocities human kind does. I involves human cruelty towards humans, animals, nature. After that there's a short clip where there's a kitten just lying there and then the artist comes and decapitates it with an axe and jerks on it's severed head. Humanity is so dulled to seeing those atrocities but when a kitten dies, the observer may notice the irrationality of his sudden reaction. I assume that you are part of the majority who hates that guy, but let me know if you aren't.

Sounds like a lot of bollocks.

[whittgenstein]

Respect for studying theology as an atheist. How does that work out in discussions with course-mates? Could you argue that you are now extra-prepared to travel the world and not get severe culture shock? How are the lessons structured, if I may ask, and does the subject talk only about Christianity?

You don't have to answer everything ftr. ^_^

I feel sometimes that I'm not as prepared for the subject as some of my classmates. A lot of them know the Bible quite well from being brought up as Christians whereas I lack that foundation. On the other hand, I feel I have the advantage when it comes to being objective. A lot of them get very emotional over certain parts and may reject an argument based on it conflicting their beliefs rather than because it's a bad argument. It has not necessarily prepared me for a culture shock but has certainly taught me to keep my tongue and be careful about how I word criticisms of someone's beliefs.

It is almost completely Christian based. I'm doing one module next year that compares Christianity to the other Abrahamic faiths (Judaism + Muslim) but that's it. Other Universities do Religious Studies instead which looks at all faiths rather than just the one.

You make it and I'll test it. Easy on the cheese, it's all in the ketchup.

Duh, you put the ketchup on top of the cheese! Unfortunately, I think this might be the unhealthiest meal in the cosmos.

[Words]

I feel sometimes that I'm not as prepared for the subject as some of my classmates. A lot of them know the Bible quite well from being brought up as Christians whereas I lack that foundation. On the other hand, I feel I have the advantage when it comes to being objective. A lot of them get very emotional over certain parts and may reject an argument based on it conflicting their beliefs rather than because it's a bad argument. It has not necessarily prepared me for a culture shock but has certainly taught me to keep my tongue and be careful about how I word criticisms of someone's beliefs.

It is almost completely Christian based. I'm doing one module next year that compares Christianity to the other Abrahamic faiths (Judaism + Muslim) but that's it. Other Universities do Religious Studies instead which looks at all faiths rather than just the one.



Duh, you put the ketchup on top of the cheese! Unfortunately, I think this might be the unhealthiest meal in the cosmos.

You don't need to know the bible, you have www.google.com

BTW how do the Christians feel about it being labelled as Abrahamic? And yourself? Seeing there is quite large differences between those three religions. Just wonder if some have a contention with it as it can be used in a derogatory fashion ie the 'Abrahamics' to describe religions with different basic tenets of belief.

[whittgenstein]

You don't need to know the bible, you have www.google.com

True dat.

BTW how do the Christians feel about it being labelled as Abrahamic? And yourself? Seeing there is quite large differences between those three religions. Just wonder if some have a contention with it as it can be used in a derogatory fashion ie the 'Abrahamics' to describe religions with different basic tenets of belief.

I don't think it's particularly derogatory. It just means they all got their origins from Abraham. The differences from there on in are the focus of the module. I'm yet to do that module so I can't say for sure if some would find it derogatory. I guess this is what I meant about looking at religion objectively whereas people within a faith might be more defensive about it.

[InvisibleJim]

hello.

[Words]

True dat.



I don't think it's particularly derogatory. It just means they all got their origins from Abraham. The differences from there on in are the focus of the module. I'm yet to do that module so I can't say for sure if some would find it derogatory. I guess this is what I meant about looking at religion objectively whereas people within a faith might be more defensive about it.

Yeah, it is a combination from what i've observed where people would describe eg 'Abrahamics' when their beliefs are different from another subset, with the intention of this, and therefore defence/redefence etc which ends up being a lot of time spent getting nowhere. Something similar to how Funamentalism can now be called Fundies. Taken from an academic stance it should be fine which is really what it is about, I was just curious.

And welcome I hope you find some use or just some fun out this and that other website.

[Aquagraph]

Personally, this is the most interesting introduction thread so far. Unless I count my own, naturally. I have a strong belief that in the seeming paradoxes lies something fruitful. It's as if someone has seen the both sides of the coin. I've already seen two of them in you:

-You don't entirely approve the art piece but you'd really like to see it.
-You are an atheist who studies theology.

I like to test people sometimes by providing something for them which they are fairly unprepared for and you passed the test. Or maybe I just like to think you as an intelligent person because you agreed with me.

You are also a vegetarian. I'm not so much anymore but you do get kudos for that.

Well, I like you, person.

Soooo, what's up? (You must say something else than "I'm good.", etc)

Sounds like a lot of bollocks.

Sad to hear that you were unable to get anything from it.

[Words]

Sad to hear that you were unable to get anything from it.

There's plenty to hear from it, some moron cuts off a cats head and jerks over it and you extrapolate a whole load of nonenesense about 'the modern' man. Even funnier you go on to believe all the stuff you just come up with in you own head.

[RedBeard]

Welcome.

[whittgenstein]

There's plenty to hear from it, some moron cuts off a cats head and jerks over it and you extrapolate a whole load of nonenesense about 'the modern' man. Even funnier you go on to believe all the stuff you just come up with in you own head.

Surely, that's all any art is. As soon as it's out of the artist's (musician's / writer's / etc) hands it's up to the public to decide what it means or does not mean. You could watch a Warhol film and see it as just boring rubbish or perhaps find something deeper there. Whatever you find to be there, is there. I think art is nothing if it doesn't provoke some sort of reaction because it only really exists as art in the mind of the person experiencing it. If you look at a famous painting and think, "that's nice" it's not as good a work of art as something like the cat that would cause you to react in outrage (or, spew 'bollocks' about the modern man).

[Absurd]

Surely, that's all any art is. As soon as it's out of the artist's (musician's / writer's / etc) hands it's up to the public to decide what it means or does not mean. You could watch a Warhol film and see it as just boring rubbish or perhaps find something deeper there. Whatever you find to be there, is there. I think art is nothing if it doesn't provoke some sort of reaction because it only really exists as art in the mind of the person experiencing it. If you look at a famous painting and think, "that's nice" it's not as good a work of art as something like the cat that would cause you to react in outrage (or, spew 'bollocks' about the modern man).

I think I disagree. That means an artist does things without knowing why he does them, which is pretty idiotic if you ask me. It's like saying I made something, but I don't know what it is, "come and tell me."

[Pa3s]

Hello

If I'm not mistaken, your signature is taken from a scene of American Psycho. Do you like that movie?

[whittgenstein]

Personally, this is the most interesting introduction thread so far. Unless I count my own, naturally. I have a strong belief that in the seeming paradoxes lies something fruitful. It's as if someone has seen the both sides of the coin. I've already seen two of them in you:

-You don't entirely approve the art piece but you'd really like to see it.
-You are an atheist who studies theology.

I like to test people sometimes by providing something for them which they are fairly unprepared for and you passed the test. Or maybe I just like to think you as an intelligent person because you agreed with me.

You are also a vegetarian. I'm not so much anymore but you do get kudos for that.

Well, I like you, person.

Soooo, what's up? (You must say something else than "I'm good.", etc)

Thank you for your opinions.

"What's up" is a fairly loaded question if I can't just answer with "I'm good." When one is faced with such an open ended question one tends to look at the overwhelming amount of ways to answer and ends up not answering at all.

I can give a brief outline of everything that is up in my life right now, though. In just over a week I'll be finishing my first year at University so my main chores at the moment are packing everything up and tying up loose ends like talking to my personal tutor etc. I love having lots of stuff in my room (I hate show home rooms and minimalist decor with no personality) and when I came down in September I took the bare minimum with me for ease of packing. Since Uni rooms look like a cross between a prison cell and a hospital I have naturally acquired lots of stuff to distract from that and so packing and moving it all the way home will be a big task. I few days after coming home I'll be going to see Neil Young in concert so his music is pretty much on repeat at the moment. Oh, and I've recently been elected President of the Gender Equality society and Social Secretary / Publicity Officer for the Humanist society so I'm also involved in preparing those for next year.

TL;DR, I'm busy but good.

[whittgenstein]

I think I disagree. That means an artist does things without knowing why he does them, which is pretty idiotic if you ask me. It's like saying I made something, but I don't know what it is, "come and tell me."

The artist has their opinion just like everybody else. I suppose it's the 'master' opinion but once the work is in the public domain then people can put into it and take from it what they like, whether it was intentionally put there or not.

Hello

If I'm not mistaken, your signature is taken from a scene of American Psycho. Do you like that movie?

It is! I didn't like the movie when I saw it because I felt it missed the point of the book, which is one of my favourites. Looking back at it a little more objectively, most of the film was good (the acting, the visuals etc) and that scene is one of the really funny ones. My other favourite is the Huey Lewis and the News scene with Bale and Jared Leto. Whilst those parts exist I can't really say it's a bad film and the part they changed from the book was probably changed because it's easier to digest / understand / show in film. I can't say specifically without spoiling the end. I think there's an option to make a spoiler alert button and I could write under that but I'm not sure how to do those?

Of course, if you haven't read the book or aren't overly interested it doesn't matter. If the book didn't exist I'd probably have loved the movie. Since it does and the thing I'm talking about is one of my favourite things of the book I can't help but feel like the movie is a let down.

[Words]

Surely, that's all any art is. As soon as it's out of the artist's (musician's / writer's / etc) hands it's up to the public to decide what it means or does not mean. You could watch a Warhol film and see it as just boring rubbish or perhaps find something deeper there. Whatever you find to be there, is there. I think art is nothing if it doesn't provoke some sort of reaction because it only really exists as art in the mind of the person experiencing it. If you look at a famous painting and think, "that's nice" it's not as good a work of art as something like the cat that would cause you to react in outrage (or, spew 'bollocks' about the modern man).

Na, an artist creates something with something in mind, as it defined as an expression of human creative skill and imagination, in this instance it is a political (?) statement, except it is a statement made without being aware or taking in a significant number of facts from what i can see, ironic considering when it is to be a global statement.

As for people forming their own opinions, pretty sure this just doesn't happen in art

Actually, Oxford dictionary defines art as:

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:

Considering it is beauty or emotional based, it could well be an argumen for art to stay out of parts which are also suited with some factual info or logical thinking, I suppose you've seen Bono trying to bring art to current affairs.

[Absurd]

The artist has their opinion just like everybody else. I suppose it's the 'master' opinion but once the work is in the public domain then people can put into it and take from it what they like, whether it was intentionally put there or not.

Oh, so it is just a matter of opinion/interpretation. Interesting.

[whittgenstein]

Na, an artist creates something with something in mind, as it defined as an expression of human creative skill and imagination, in this instance it is a political (?) statement, except it is a statement made without being aware or taking in a significant number of facts from what i can see, ironic considering when it is to be a global statement.

As for people forming their own opinions, pretty sure this just doesn't happen in art

Actually, Oxford dictionary defines art as:

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:

Considering it is beauty or emotional based, it could well be an argumen for art to stay out of parts which are also suited with some factual info or logical thinking, I suppose you've seen Bono trying to bring art to current affairs.

Ah, Bono. Maybe a good work of art might reveal something that might not otherwise be apparent but doesn't impose an opinion on it? The artist's meaning is to make you think about the topic but not, as Bono might, dictate what's right and wrong with logical thinking laced into his art. I agree with the point that art should not be just facts and logical thinking but I do think it should get involved and is probably one of the most powerful tools to influence current affairs.

For example, Brave New World is not a manual on everything that's wrong in society. The author is suggesting that if people carry on the way they're going we might end up in a world like the one he's described. Clearly, Huxley thought that was a negative thing hence why he satirised that way of thinking in the novel but refrains from explicitly saying so. I guess he's using his art form to express his opinion hoping that you might read into his novel what his intentions were and for it to emotionally impact on you. An interesting work of art might be an ambiguous one where there is not a clear interpretation so it's entirely subjective and a bad work of art being one where the message is shown in such a way that you have the opposite opinion. I think the cat example has the potential to be very good or very bad. It's not ambiguous but people can either 'get it' or just interpret the artist as being a horrible person creating mindless acts of violence and writing the art off as inhumane nonsense without reflecting on themselves.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

THE PHENOMEN OF THE BLACK EYED CHILDREN.

Imagine this. You and your better half are on your way home after a late night out on the town. You pull into a convenience store, and you wait in the car while he runs in for something. You’re sitting there in the dark waiting for him to return when suddenly you get an inexplicable, overwhelming feeling of terror. You sit up a little straighter and glance toward the driver’s side window. There staring in at you are two children – but not just any children. These are “Black Eyed Children,” and they want to get into the car with you.

Sound like something from a horror movie? Well, it’s not. It’s as real as it gets. According to David Weatherly, a paranormal investigator and author, who has written a book called “Black Eyed Children,” incidents or visitations by these strange children are occurring worldwide. They have one simple request, they want to come in. They appear on doorsteps, at car windows, hotel rooms and even boats.


Witnesses report these weird children asking to come into the house to use the phone or for a ride home because they’re lost or they forgot something. They speak in a demanding monotone and regardless of what is said to them, they don’t say much more than “Let us in. We won’t hurt you. This won’t take long.”Weatherly says there are thousands of reported sightings of these Black Eyed Children. Sometimes they travel in pairs, sometimes in groups and sometimes you’ll see just one. They knock on doors and tap on windows all over the world, asking to be let in.

Their most outstanding feature is their solid black eyes, eyes completely void of color or light, showing no pupils, no irises. Witnesses say looking into these eyes evokes intense feelings of terror.

Could they be wearing black contact lenses? Weatherly agrees that this may be true in some cases; however, black lenses covering the entire surface of the eye would not only be expensive, but extremely uncomfortable.

These strange Black Eyed Children, who can appear or vanish at a moment’s notice, seem to be between the ages of 8 and 16. Their skin is pale or pasty colored, described by some as looking plastic or artificial, and their mannerisms are odd. Witnesses describe their clothing as odd and drab – blue jeans and a hoodie or very old-fashioned, handmade clothing. Bizarre electrical phenomena occurs when they are around, such as a garage door inexplicably opening.

When a man in Dallas arrived home, he saw a boy at his door who repeated “I think it’s food time. You should invite me inside.” The man’s protective pit bull came running toward the front door, but as it got closer to the boy, it whimpered and ran away, hiding under the bed for days afterward.
A man named Paul was home alone when someone knocked on this door. He opened it and saw two kids about 10 years old standing on his steps with their heads down. They said, “Hey, we just thought we’d stop in for a bit.” The kids insisted they be let into the house. Thinking they had the wrong house, Paul stepped forward to get a better look and made eye contact. Their eyes were solid black, including the sclera.
Jason Offutt, another researcher into the Black Eyed Children phenomenon, gives this account:

Around 10:45 on a warm night, as 18-year-old Carris Holdsworth approached her apartment in Lisburn, Northern Ireland, she saw two teenagers in hoodies and jeans standing in her yard with their backs to her. As she attempted to slip away unseen, she fumbled in her purse for pepper spray. At that very moment, the boys turned to face her and, as if reading her mind, one said, “No need for that, we just want to borrow your phone, miss.” When she caught a glimpse of their pitch black eyes, not a trace of white or a pupil, she panicked and raced to her apartment, locking the door behind her. The boys following close behind, knocked on her door. She ignored it. After a second knock, fearing for her safety she phoned a friend to come over. When the friend arrived, the boys ran away.
What exactly is this growing phenomena? Who are these sinister appearing black-eyed children? Are they inter-dimensional beings who feed off the energy of fear they create. Are they be alien-human hybrids. Are they demonic entities? Are they simply a modern urban legend born of the computer age?

Weatherly believes they may have some sort of demonic origin because in some reports these black-eyed children vanish into thin air, and some witnesses report a run of bad luck after an encounter with these children.

[whittgenstein]

THE PHENOMEN OF THE BLACK EYED CHILDREN.

To borrow an eloquent quote from @Words, "sounds like a lot of bollocks."

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

Si kid