Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 79

Thread: Videos of LII

  1. #1
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Videos of LII

    Bill de Blasio



    Gene Simmons



    Tom Matiatis



    EDIT:
    For reference, here is the LII I know from school:
    Last edited by Olduvai; 02-06-2014 at 08:34 PM.

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

  3. #3
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
    I only listened to a couple minutes of this, but I would say ESI or EII for Fr. Timothy Gallagher

  4. #4
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    I only listened to a couple minutes of this
    been listening to his podcasts
    http://www.discerninghearts.com/?page_id=1146

    good stuff

  5. #5
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here is more LII for all you budding socionists:

    Nevermind on KiwiFuel, but here is Bill Kurtis



    Dude from 0:00 to 1:43
    Last edited by Olduvai; 02-07-2014 at 09:58 AM.

  6. #6
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Apparently LII is everywhere:

    Nick Offerman

  7. #7
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nick Offerman is ILI.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  8. #8
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Nick Offerman is ILI.
    nah bruh

  9. #9
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    nah bruh
    nope
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  10. #10
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    nope
    yup

  11. #11
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    yup
    I know you are, but what am I
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  12. #12
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    I know you are, but what am I
    a biscuithead ?

  13. #13
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    At least I'm not a poo poo head.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  14. #14
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If by "poo poo head" you mean "has shit-for-brains", then you may indeed be "a poo poo head".

  15. #15
    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

    I lean towards the ILI typing for Nick Offerman. Some people have also suggested SLI for him. Doubt LII, but i'm not 100% set on any typing in socionics anymore.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  16. #16
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well I'm as confident as ever in my typing ability, and I say LII.

  17. #17
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    If by "poo poo head" you mean "has shit-for-brains", then you may indeed be "a poo poo head".
    You're a worthless troll and I'm putting you on ignore.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  18. #18
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    You're a worthless troll
    Again: nah bruh


    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    and I'm putting you on ignore.
    Your loss

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    TIM
    anatman
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nick Offerman is obvious SLI and so is his character Ron Swanson. And you all argue like little kids.

  20. #20
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Nick Offerman is obvious SLI
    Obviously not.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    and so is his character Ron Swanson.
    I don't watch the show. I think that makes me a better judge of his type.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    And you all argue like little kids.
    It's all just fun and games.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    TIM
    anatman
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I expected a better response. Come on, call me a shit-for-brains too!

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    Obviously not.
    Because LIIs love artisanship, wine, steak and growing a mustache? His personality emanates Si, he is an introvert and he is not an SEI => he is SLI. Don't say he is an LII just because you claim yourself to be IEE and do not feel attracted to him. He is first and foremost a Delta, at least more than an Alpha. That's more conclusive than any of your rigid, robotic and systematic 'Internal Object Statics' definitions which you use inconsistently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    I don't watch the show. I think that makes me a better judge of his type.
    Not really. He has a lot in common with his character. His character is a bit more extroverted and dramatic in comparison, but that is because of the mockumentary format of the show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    It's all just fun and games.
    Here you exhibit Ne-Si > Se-Ni and Fe-Ti > Fi-Te, just by saying that.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Put a vid of yourself in this thread, JoshuaBloom, just to end this argument once and for all.

  23. #23
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    I expected a better response. Come on, call me a shit-for-brains too!
    I only called him a shit-for-brains because he expected me to say "what's wrong with being a poo poo head", to which he would have responded "it means you have shit for brains".


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Because LIIs love artisanship, wine, steak and growing a mustache?
    You're telling me that no LII has loved or will ever love artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache? For your sake, I hope you're trolling me.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    His personality emanates Si
    Isn't Si the dual-seeking function of LII?

    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    he is an introvert
    LII = Logical Intuitive Introvert


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    and he is not an SEI => he is SLI.
    But if we're justifying SLI using Si, then we have to rule out not only SEI but also ESE and LSE, and saying "he is not SEI" is no way to rule out a type.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Don't say he is an LII just because you claim yourself to be IEE and do not feel attracted to him.
    lol, when did I ever say that?

    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    He is first and foremost a Delta, at least more than an Alpha.
    He is a "judicious" type. That means he values Si and Ne.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    That's more conclusive than any of your rigid, robotic and systematic 'Internal Object Statics' definitions which you use inconsistently.
    "Rigid", "robotic", and "systematic" = "Explicit Field Statics" or "Ne". That's some heavy devaluing right there

    What do you mean by "use inconsistently"?


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Not really. He has a lot in common with his character. His character is a bit more extroverted and dramatic in comparison, but that is because of the mockumentary format of the show.
    It makes me a better judge of his type because I can better separate "his personal qualities" from "Ron's personal qualities".


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Here you exhibit Ne-Si > Se-Ni and Fe-Ti > Fi-Te, just by saying that.
    How?

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    TIM
    anatman
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    I only called him a shit-for-brains because he expected me to say "what's wrong with being a poo poo head", to which he would have responded "it means you have shit for brains".
    I didn't ask why you called him that. How you argued like children is pretty clear to me, because I am viewing the entire thread right now. I do not care about it. I only said that because I was underwhelmed by the reaction. Take a hint.


    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    You're telling me that no LII has loved or will ever love artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache? For your sake, I hope you're trolling me.
    That is not what I meant. That's not all-or-nothing by any means. LIIs are weaker and less conscious in Si than SLIs. It is called Model A. I did not mean that LIIs cannot do what he does. The LII type is less capable and conscious of such things. The Super-id block is unconscious, valued and weak; it desires help from types that have the functions in their Ego block.


    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    Isn't Si the dual-seeking function of LII?
    No, the hidden agenda, but so what? Every type has Si as a function. My point was not just that he valued Si, but he had a predisposition towards it. LIIs do not emanate Si, because even though they want it, they are weak in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    LII = Logical Intuitive Introvert
    Yeah, LIIs are introverts, so are 7 other types. That is why I also add other reasons to eliminate 7 more types to reach to a conclusive typing. Logical conjunction, how does it work?


    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    But if we're justifying SLI using Si, then we have to rule out not only SEI but also ESE and LSE, and saying "he is not SEI" is no way to rule out a type.
    ESE and LSE are already ruled out because he is an introvert. I did not just end my reasons by saying he is Si-ego. I added other reasons. Way to think, BloJo. I ruled out SEI because he is not Fe-ego and he is closer to Delta ST values than Alpha SF values (remember, I also said that he is very clearly introverted). SEIs are not as subdued as him, not to say that SEIs have to be so. Real people who are also SEIs can be as quiet, traditional and industrious, but not the SEI type.


    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    He is a "judicious" type. That means he values Si and Ne.
    So? 8 types value Si and Ne. He would also be judicious if he were an LII but his judiciousness does not constrain him to an LII. Simple logic, isn't it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    It makes me a better judge of his type because I can better separate "his personal qualities" from "Ron's personal qualities".
    Yeah, right. How can you separate them when you do not know how the character is? Descriptive statements, like personalities, theories and usage of instruments, can be discerned more accurately when you get to know them and immerse yourself in them more. Only the type of emotional or normative judgments get skewed when you are too close. So what you are saying is perfectly equivalent to saying that it makes you a better judge of Socionics types to stay out of the field, ignore Augusta for betraying the field and dismiss classical Socionics. Real telling, right there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    How?
    Penchant for fun and games implies a general, albeit admittedly superficial, tendency for judicious and merry Reinin dichotomies.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Get her(?), Johannes. 8 posts are no match for 443.

  26. #26
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    I didn't ask why you called him that. How you argued like children is pretty clear to me, because I am viewing the entire thread right now. I do not care about it. I only said that because I was underwhelmed by the reaction. Take a hint.


    I know. Because you were underwhelmed by my reaction I explained to you why I reacted in such a way.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    That is not what I meant. That's not all-or-nothing by any means. LIIs are weaker and less conscious in Si than SLIs. It is called Model A. I did not mean that LIIs cannot do what he does. The LII type is less capable and conscious of such things. The Super-id block is unconscious, valued and weak; it desires help from types that have the functions in their Ego block.
    So if someone has weak Si they can't love artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache? So LII is worse at loving artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache than SLI?


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    No, the hidden agenda, but so what? Every type has Si as a function. My point was not just that he valued Si, but he had a predisposition towards it. LIIs do not emanate Si, because even though they want it, they are weak in it.
    I guess I personally equate "dual-seeking" with "hidden agenda". Also, I think you're hung up on Si as being solely about sensory pleasures.

    By "emanate" I assume you mean "talk about" or "convey information about". Perhaps by talking about what you consider to be Si, he is expressing his hidden agenda?


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Yeah, LIIs are introverts, so are 7 other types. That is why I also add other reasons to eliminate 7 more types to reach to a conclusive typing.

    ESE and LSE are already ruled out because he is an introvert. I did not just end my reasons by saying he is Si-ego.
    Your reasons were:
    Si + Introvert - SEI = SLI

    I don't agree with your methodology. First, I've already demonstrated how LII might "emanate" Si. Second, I'm not sure you even know Si when you see it, because "artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache" have nothing to do with it. Third, given how some "introverts" are actually "introverted extroverts" and vice versa, I don't think labeling him an introvert is a valid way to narrow down our list of possible types. Finally, simply saying "not-SEI" won't work. You need to show me why he uses Te > Fe, and "showing me" isn't just saying "he is not Fe-ego".


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Simple logic, isn't it?
    Logical conjunction, how does it work?
    I feel like you're deliberately trying to hit my PoLR here. Stop that.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Yeah, right. How can you separate them when you do not know how the character is?
    Because the only information I have about Offerman is information about Offerman. Someone who watches the show will have information about Offerman and information about Ron all mixed together in their head.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    So what you are saying is perfectly equivalent to saying that it makes you a better judge of Socionics types to stay out of the field
    lol, no


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    classical Socionics.
    There you go with that "classical Socionics" bullshit. You even used a capital "S"!
    There presently exists no definite explication of what exactly it is that constitutes so-called "Classical Socionics" theory - making it essentially a contentless buzz-phrase at best that could arbitrarily be used to represent an ulterior viewpoint. Furthermore, it seems to have inherited the same fundamental flaw suffered by the rest of Socionics in general, which is that the basic semantics used are in critical need of established and consistent denotation (see Redefinition).



    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Penchant for fun and games implies a general, albeit admittedly superficial, tendency for judicious and merry Reinin dichotomies.
    Penchant for fun and games means I have a penchant for fun and games, just like any other fucking human being. "Merry" and "serious" I think refer more to "preferred topics of discussion" - Alphas and Betas prefer "emotional and lighthearted discussion", whereas Gammas and Deltas prefer "personal and heavy-handed discussion".

  27. #27
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,272
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Offerman is SLI > ILI. LII no way.


    LII physician's need to hear validating, suggestive Fe from her Mother may be contributing to her feelings of shame.

    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  28. #28
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HereticWacey View Post
    Offerman is SLI > ILI. LII no way.


    LII physician's need to hear validating, suggestive Fe from her Mother may be contributing to her feelings of shame.

    There is a good chance that woman is actually LII. Nice find! I wish there was a video of her where she wasn't crying and reluctantly talking about her feelings.

    By the way, this video is *SO* NiFe.

    I disagree about Offerman, though. Listen to that emotivist monotone of his! The woman in your video I think has a similar emotivist monotone.
    Last edited by Olduvai; 02-10-2014 at 07:15 PM.

  29. #29
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,272
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's nice. Physician: "so she is allowed to use that biting, stinging tone? What would you have done?!" Byron: "That's what people do when they are upset".

    Later on: "As Dr. Phil would say, how's it working for you!" Audience and Byron laugh hard. "I made you laugh that's great", the physician says to Byron. Semi-duals.

    EDIT: by the way I do indeed see Byron as being a possible EIE>IEE. And, SLI's are often described as having that monotone voice. On another note, I preceive the clear rational, logical voice of an introverted thinker here with this physician.
    Last edited by wacey; 02-10-2014 at 07:25 PM.
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  30. #30
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay guys, I agree: Nick Offerman is no LII. The jury is still out on his actual type, though.

  31. #31
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,272
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's difficult to have a proper convo if you completely edit your posts from black to white, JB. Makes everyones responses to them look silly. I would just create a new post showing the transgression of your opinions, which makes it more authentic.
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  32. #32
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HereticWacey View Post
    It's difficult to have a proper convo if you completely edit your posts from black to white, JB.
    haha, fair enough. I need to be less hasty with my responses.


    Quote Originally Posted by HereticWacey View Post
    Makes everyones responses to them look silly. I would just create a new post showing the transgression of your opinions, which makes it more authentic.
    good idea by the way, I still think you might be EIE

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    TIM
    anatman
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    [/I]
    I know. Because you were underwhelmed by my reaction I explained to you why I reacted in such a way.




    So if someone has weak Si they can't love artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache? So LII is worse at loving artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache than SLI?




    I guess I personally equate "dual-seeking" with "hidden agenda". Also, I think you're hung up on Si as being solely about sensory pleasures.

    By "emanate" I assume you mean "talk about" or "convey information about". Perhaps by talking about what you consider to be Si, he is expressing his hidden agenda?




    Your reasons were:
    Si + Introvert - SEI = SLI

    I don't agree with your methodology. First, I've already demonstrated how LII might "emanate" Si. Second, I'm not sure you even know Si when you see it, because "artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache" have nothing to do with it. Third, given how some "introverts" are actually "introverted extroverts" and vice versa, I don't think labeling him an introvert is a valid way to narrow down our list of possible types. Finally, simply saying "not-SEI" won't work. You need to show me why he uses Te > Fe, and "showing me" isn't just saying "he is not Fe-ego".




    I feel like you're deliberately trying to hit my PoLR here. Stop that.




    Because the only information I have about Offerman is information about Offerman. Someone who watches the show will have information about Offerman and information about Ron all mixed together in their head.




    lol, no




    There you go with that "classical Socionics" bullshit. You even used a capital "S"!



    Penchant for fun and games means I have a penchant for fun and games, just like any other fucking human being. "Merry" and "serious" I think refer more to "preferred topics of discussion" - Alphas and Betas prefer "emotional and lighthearted discussion", whereas Gammas and Deltas prefer "personal and heavy-handed discussion".

    Maybe you have now resigned your statement that he is an LII, but I still find there to be more to say, as a measly 9-post noob.

    I did not just equate Si to "artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache". They are just concrete examples and his abstract reasons for liking them point to Si-ego. There is no way an LII would be so confident, competent and skilled in such generally Delta ST areas. If you personally equate hidden agenda with dual seeking, all intertype relations that change rationality (e.g. LII and ILE differ in rationality) fall apart. I was not hitting your PoLR, but merely pointing out that when you separated my reasons into different quotes you treated them as if I didn't say the other reasons, deliberately ignoring the other reasons so as to forge your own opinion out of them. I did not intend to justify my arguments just by asserting them. It is obvious, for example, that he is not an Fe-ego when you listen to him talk, but if I gave concrete reasons and examples you would just equate Fe to those concrete examples and keep mocking me for it, like you did with Si, and if I gave no concrete reasons you would say that it's not "showing you". You haven't demonstrated how LIIs might emanate Si; you just asserted that Si is the hidden agenda function of LIIs. But every type has Si as some function. In that case, emanating Si (or "emanating" Si, if you like to get hung up on incidental words like you did with Si) is something every type and every single human being does, and therefore it is trivial for you. You cannot just say that LIIs demonstrate Si by having them on their information metabolism, or you negate the importance of any IM (not function, because functions are the roles that IMs take in a particular type, like dual-seeking, and it separates Socionics from purely sequential function models as in MBTI), like in typing anyone. And merely quoting someone that said statements that oppose my opinions does not do anything. Talking about Socionics (I use the capital S because it is a proper noun) does not automatically make anyone an authority. This is what I mean by what goes in classical Socionics: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ical_socionics. When arguing, you have to agree to some kind of convention or you will get nowhere. Likewise, you have to find a way to convert your dichotomous IM definitions to physical acts and tendencies.


    Last edited by ideae; 02-11-2014 at 04:26 AM. Reason: You best put that underlined in your signatures.

  34. #34
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Maybe you have now resigned your statement that he is an LII, but I still find there to be more to say, as a measly 9-post noob.

    I did not just equate Si to "artisanship, wine, steak, and growing a mustache". They are just concrete examples and his abstract reasons for liking them point to Si-ego.
    No, they merely point to Si-valuing. To understand which functions he is strong in you must listen to him speak and analyze his words. Is he logical? If he is logical then his speech sounds "ordered", "deliberate", or "economical"; it is as if it is "more robotic" or "more automatic" than the speech of an ethical type. Does he speak of rules/conditions/fields or does he speak of objects/things/units? Does he speak in terms of "we" and "us" or does he speak in terms of "you" and "me"? Rules/conditions/fields and "we" and "us" would be Ti+Fe; objects/things/units and "you" and "me" would be Te+Fi. Another helpful tip for typing: ethical types often "slip up" when trying to accurately describe whatever phenomena, i.e. when attempting to relate a "fact". It's like they try to use one of their weak logical functions but can't, and so they revert back to using one of their strong functions. (Logical types can similarly "slip up" with their ethical functions, but it's more subtle and less frequent.)

    I also mix in some Reinin, specifically the constructivism/emotivism and positivism/negativism dichotomies. Constructivists seem very "balanced" and "glued together"; their mood doesn't fluctuate much, and if it does they never show it. Their speech flows naturally from low pitches to high pitches; it is an even gradient of intonations. Emotivists seem moodier and more "unstable"; it's as if their "current disposition" depends on their "current surroundings"; i.e. if their "current set of information" changes, then so does their "current set of thoughts and feelings". Another way to look at it: emotivists always have something to bitch about (SEE is the worst about this; no offense to anyone). Emotivists employ a "low pitch", "monotonous", "business-style" mode of speaking when relating information; their speech takes on an entirely different gradient of tones when they become emotional. It is as if they "switch" between two distinct "modes" of speaking.

    And everything you need to know about the positivism/negativism dichotomy is contained in the following quote:
    Figuratively speaking, if Positivists are shown the front side then they will be looking at the front side, while Negativists will try to look at its inverse. If this inverse is not readily apparent, they will start searching for it. Thus Negativists do not seek to present a "negative" or "pessimistic" view of things, but simply the inverse or the alternative one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    There is no way an LII would be so confident, competent and skilled in such generally Delta ST areas.
    With enough knowledge and willpower, "you can do anything you set your mind to, man", especially when you're as strong as SLI in Te and value Ne/Si. Assuming that whatever the hell you said (cigars, landscaping, idk) had anything to do with Si, which I don't think it did.



    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    If you personally equate hidden agenda with dual seeking, all intertype relations that change rationality (e.g. LII and ILE differ in rationality) fall apart.
    Yeah, that was me combining terms from Model A in my mind. My mistake.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    It is obvious, for example, that he is not an Fe-ego when you listen to him talk
    What you need to do is explain how by listening to him talk one might infer that he is not an Fe-ego. What physical clues give it away?


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    but if I gave concrete reasons and examples you would just equate Fe to those concrete examples and keep mocking me for it, like you did with Si, and if I gave no concrete reasons you would say that it's not "showing you".
    "Is an introvert" (so basically, "is quieter than most") and "emanates Si" isn't specific enough. I want to know the exact behaviors that collectively led you to those conclusions. What does "is an introvert" and "emanates Si" look like to you?


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    You haven't demonstrated how LIIs might emanate Si; you just asserted that Si is the hidden agenda function of LIIs.
    The hidden agenda function is also known as the mobilizing function:
    • Function 6 – mobilizing function. This is a weak and unconscious function which one often understands poorly. Nonetheless, this function has a strong influence over one's actions. Individuals requires assistance from someone who uses it confidently in order to understand it. Often an individual is only aware that they are totally unaware of how to use this function. At the same time, it's 2D function, so it's capable of collecting a number of easy receipts for daily needs. Being successful in aspects of this function makes one happy and motivated. (That's why it's called mobilizing.)
    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    But every type has Si as some function.
    True, but we ignore and/or disparage the information processed by our weak and unvalued functions. Next time you catch yourself "mocking" or "making fun of" something, take a second and think about "what sort of information" that "thing" relates to, and then think about "what sort of information" your "actual mockery" relates to. By "actual mockery" I mean "the words in themselves". The idea is that by "mocking", "disparaging", or "making fun of" something, you're emphasizing the importance of "one sort of information" and downplaying the importance of "another sort of information".


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    When arguing, you have to agree to some kind of convention or you will get nowhere.
    Indeed. I operate under the auspices of Model A, although I'm not so thrilled about its emphasis on the "spatial position" of functions; I talk in terms of "strong/weak" and "valued/unvalued" because I think it's less systematic and thus easier to understand (or at least, less to remember). I also abide by the rules of intertype relations. Here is how I would visually represent type ILE:
    Strength Valued Unvalued
    4 Ne Te
    3 Ti Ni
    2 Fe Se
    1 Si Fi
    For the sake of contrast, here is IEE:
    4 Ne Fe
    3 Fi Ni
    2 Te Se
    1 Si Ti
    For the sake of variety, here is LSI:
    4 Ti Si
    3 Se Te
    2 Ni Fi
    1 Fe Ne
    I think you get the picture.

    P.S. "strength" could be taken to mean "predominance in speech"
    Last edited by Olduvai; 02-11-2014 at 10:43 AM. Reason: Next time you feel like criticizing me, remember the bolded text

  35. #35
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HereticWacey View Post
    Offerman is SLI > ILI. LII no way.


    LII physician's need to hear validating, suggestive Fe from her Mother may be contributing to her feelings of shame.

    idk, Wacey. Check out this video of Jon Stewart interviewing Bill de Blasio:

    First, Bill de Blasio seems like much more of an asker than the woman in your video. He usually waits for Jon Stewart to finish his questions, possibly because of role-Fi; occasionally, though, he cuts Jon off, shifting the focus of the conversation back onto himself.
    Second, he displays a much more prominent "emotivist monotone".
    Third, this video leads me to tentatively type Jon Stewart IEE; if you can see it through the grainy, pixellated video quality, watch Stewart's body language. He hunches over his desk and looks small, like he's secretly intimidated. Furthermore, starting at 3:49 he begins to spew rambling Ne+Fi.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    TIM
    anatman
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    No, they merely point to Si-valuing. To understand which functions he is strong in you must listen to him speak and analyze his words. Is he logical? If he is logical then his speech sounds "ordered", "deliberate", or "economical"; it is as if it is "more robotic" or "more automatic" than the speech of an ethical type. Does he speak of rules/conditions/fields or does he speak of objects/things/units? Does he speak in terms of "we" and "us" or does he speak in terms of "you" and "me"? Rules/conditions/fields and "we" and "us" would be Ti+Fe; objects/things/units and "you" and "me" would be Te+Fi. Another helpful tip for typing: ethical types often "slip up" when trying to accurately describe whatever phenomena, i.e. when attempting to relate a "fact". It's like they try to use one of their weak logical functions but can't, and so they revert back to using one of their strong functions. (Logical types can similarly "slip up" with their ethical functions, but it's more subtle and less frequent.)

    I also mix in some Reinin, specifically the constructivism/emotivism and positivism/negativism dichotomies. Constructivists seem very "balanced" and "glued together"; their mood doesn't fluctuate much, and if it does they never show it. Their speech flows naturally from low pitches to high pitches; it is an even gradient of intonations. Emotivists seem moodier and more "unstable"; it's as if their "current disposition" depends on their "current surroundings"; i.e. if their "current set of information" changes, then so does their "current set of thoughts and feelings". Another way to look at it: emotivists always have something to bitch about (SEE is the worst about this; no offense to anyone). Emotivists employ a "low pitch", "monotonous", "business-style" mode of speaking when relating information; their speech takes on an entirely different gradient of tones when they become emotional. It is as if they "switch" between two distinct "modes" of speaking.

    And everything you need to know about the positivism/negativism dichotomy is contained in the following quote:





    With enough knowledge and willpower, "you can do anything you set your mind to, man", especially when you're as strong as SLI in Te and value Ne/Si. Assuming that whatever the hell you said (cigars, landscaping, idk) had anything to do with Si, which I don't think it did.





    Yeah, that was me combining terms from Model A in my mind. My mistake.




    What you need to do is explain how by listening to him talk one might infer that he is not an Fe-ego. What physical clues give it away?




    "Is an introvert" (so basically, "is quieter than most") and "emanates Si" isn't specific enough. I want to know the exact behaviors that collectively led you to those conclusions. What does "is an introvert" and "emanates Si" look like to you?




    The hidden agenda function is also known as the mobilizing function:




    True, but we ignore and/or disparage the information processed by our weak and unvalued functions. Next time you catch yourself "mocking" or "making fun of" something, take a second and think about "what sort of information" that "thing" relates to, and then think about "what sort of information" your "actual mockery" relates to. By "actual mockery" I mean "the words in themselves". The idea is that by "mocking", "disparaging", or "making fun of" something, you're emphasizing the importance of "one sort of information" and downplaying the importance of "another sort of information".




    Indeed. I operate under the auspices of Model A, although I'm not so thrilled about its emphasis on the "spatial position" of functions; I talk in terms of "strong/weak" and "valued/unvalued" because I think it's less systematic and thus easier to understand (or at least, less to remember). I also abide by the rules of intertype relations. Here is how I would visually represent type ILE:


    For the sake of contrast, here is IEE:

    For the sake of variety, here is LSI:


    I think you get the picture.

    P.S. "strength" could be taken to mean "predominance in speech"

    What I meant by the exaggerated "LIIs can in no way do Delta ST stuff" was that if they did, they wouldn't be LII. Strength is not predominance in speech because some guy stuck in his PoLR will keep talking about it and fixating on it without being strong in it. "...when you're as strong as SLI in Te" is not good defense when you just admitted that one ignores unvalued functions. Your depiction of emotivism has dynamic undertones. Talking about "we" and "us" also relates to aristocracy. By introvert I mean that he is always talking about how he himself sees the world and his own experiences. He is passive and his statements are directed towards himself. That's what I mean by introvert: turned (for Latin verto) inward. But whatever.

  37. #37
    Local Hero Saberstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Isle of Man
    TIM
    Robespierre
    Posts
    2,064
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In case we need to, here is a BASELINE Sensing Logical Intram:



    His obvious vulnerability (ie PAIN is Fe.) What the David Letterman interview.



    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.
    - John Piper


    Socionics -
    the16types.info

  38. #38
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm View Post
    In case we need to, here is a BASELINE Sensing Logical Intram:



    His obvious vulnerability (ie PAIN is Fe.) What the David Letterman interview.



    I only watched like 30 seconds of the second video, but based solely on that I would say SEI > SLI

  39. #39
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    What I meant by the exaggerated "LIIs can in no way do Delta ST stuff" was that if they did, they wouldn't be LII.
    Despite valuing Ne/Si and being just as adept as a Delta ST in Te. Right.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Strength is not predominance in speech because some guy stuck in his PoLR will keep talking about it and fixating on it without being strong in it.
    Did you even read what I wrote? Here:
    Another helpful tip for typing: ethical types often "slip up" when trying to accurately describe whatever phenomena, i.e. when attempting to relate a "fact". It's like they try to use one of their weak logical functions but can't, and so they revert back to using one of their strong functions.

    So basically, if a PoLR subject comes up, the type with the PoLR will not use his PoLR function to address the subject; instead, he will use one of his strong functions.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    "...when you're as strong as SLI in Te" is not good defense when you just admitted that one ignores unvalued functions.
    "Using unvalued functions" basically means "doing something you don't want to do".


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Your depiction of emotivism has dynamic undertones.
    "Dynamic" is a category of information; "emotivism" is a behavioral quality.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    Talking about "we" and "us" also relates to aristocracy.
    Disagree. "That kind of person" is something you would hear from an aristocratic type.


    Quote Originally Posted by ideae View Post
    By introvert I mean that he is always talking about how he himself sees the world and his own experiences. He is passive and his statements are directed towards himself. That's what I mean by introvert: turned (for Latin verto) inward. But whatever.
    "Turned inward" makes sense. Here's my take on extroversion/introversion:
    So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes"; thus we have the concepts of "extroversion" and "introversion".

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    TIM
    anatman
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes Bloem View Post
    Despite valuing Ne/Si and being just as adept as a Delta ST in Te. Right.




    Did you even read what I wrote? Here:

    [/I][/FONT][/COLOR]So basically, if a PoLR subject comes up, the type with the PoLR will not use his PoLR function to address the subject; instead, he will use one of his strong functions.




    "Using unvalued functions" basically means "doing something you don't want to do".




    "Dynamic" is a category of information; "emotivism" is a behavioral quality.




    Disagree. "That kind of person" is something you would hear from an aristocratic type.




    "Turned inward" makes sense. Here's my take on extroversion/introversion:
    "Despite valuing Ne/Si and being just as adept as a Delta ST in Te. Right."
    ""Using unvalued functions" basically means "doing something you don't want to do"."
    LIIs would not want to engage in Te. Pointing out similarities alone does not work, because while adept in Te, LIIs still won't look at it the same way. Show me devalued Te.

    Talking about the PoLR function ≠ Using the PoLR function.

    I meant dynamic as a Reinin dichotomy, not as a dichotomy of information elements, even though they relate. Your description of emotivist types sounded a bit like dynamic types as well. It is precisely because it conflates different things that it is a mistake.

    While aristocrats do think of people in terms of archetypes, like "that kind of person", they will also identify with their own kind and use "we".

    You criticize my own arguments but your only defense was "LIIs can be like that too."
    Last edited by ideae; 02-13-2014 at 10:53 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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