.
.
.
Last edited by kimuchuu; 10-17-2018 at 09:52 PM.
Te: it was quick. That was a fast way of doing that.
Fi: I love people. I feel bad for Bob. That isn't right. You should
Fe: That would make you welp (cry your eyes out).
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 05-23-2016 at 08:00 PM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
You should could be Te, Fi but also Se.
Taking a quick shot at this:
Si - "X feels good when it touches my skin."
Ne - "She's the kind of person who X. You can tell because she Y. Also, she reminds me of Z Person."
Te - "This is the way you do X."
Fi - "I like it when X." "I really like Y Person."
Se - "If you want X, you need to Y. Go do it now."
Ni - "It's not the right time for X yet. Be patient."
Fe - "X is amazing! Get excited!"
Ti - "That doesn't make sense. If X is true, it must be the case that Y."
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
I want to say this is Ne but I can also see this in a lot of Se seeking people.
“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars.” -Jack Kerouac, On the Road
Edit: I might think this for short periods of time but then the reality of it hits and I probably could not take as much of it as I think I want. I have enough of my own "madness".
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Should is a judgement call. When one said whenever or what should be done that is an ethical rule. For instance: one should not hit people.when is it okay? One should never do that.Originally Posted by Persephone
Se is a perception function not judging
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
That was actually good, but you forgot two important things: negative and interrogative forms:
Si + X feels good when it touches my skin, when I eat it, drink it etc.
Si - X doesn't feel good when it touches my skin...
Si ? Does X feel good when it touches my skin?
Se + If you want X, you need to do Y. Do it
Se - If you don't want X, don't do Y.
Se ? If I do X, will that lead me to Y? Should I do it?
Ne + She's the kind of person because Y is present.
Ne - She isn't the kind of person because Y is lacking.
Ne ? Could she be like a person X because she does Y?
Ni + It is the right time. Go!
Ni - It isn't the right time. Be patient!
Ni ? Is it the right time yet? Should I go or wait?
Fe + X is amazing! Exciting!
Fe - X is awful! Fuck that!
Fe ? Is x awful or good? Come on, let's figure it out!
Fi + I like it when X. I like you!
Fi - I dislike it when X. I hate you!
Fi ? How do I feel about this? Is it relatable?
Te + This is the way you do X because Y.
Te - This is not the way you do X because Y.
Te ? Is this the way to do X? What about Y?
Ti + That makes sense because if X is true then in the case Y = f(x), it must also be true
Ti - That doesn't make any sense because if X is false then in the case Y = f(x), it must also be false
Ti ? Does that make any sense? If I put false X into the case Y = f(x), what would happen? (kinda NeTi, but meh)
///
Anyhow, very nice!
I didn't "forget," as I didn't even think of it. I like your additions. (Did I just get schooled in Ne by an ESI? Haha) Nice work
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
Ni
“There are no facts, only interpretations.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Without reading others' first:
"I will dominate. Like a pro."
"Come on, smile."
"The gist is that it is a pull-push...but not consciously sought so much as unconsciously sought..."
In my world, I am just stating the obvious. And I often say "...that never occured to me". So, idk about Ne. Call it as you wish as long as I helped...I didn't "forget," as I didn't even think of it. I like your additions. (Did I just get schooled in Ne by an ESI? Haha) Nice work
Thanks a lot, now this song is stuck in my head.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
What kind ofWithout reading others' first:
Besides, before potatoes existed...there were no potatoes. Common sense...
You're quite welcome.Thanks a lot, now this song is stuck in my head.
The kind my SEI brother and I talk about...which Si-valuers tend to nod in agreement to and Se-valuers tend to react to like you did (discounting it as an utterly pointless thing to say).What kind of
Good you are seeingWhat kind of
Besides, before potatoes existed...there were no potatoes. Common sense...
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Good I am seeing? Se-eing or what?
Sorry, I don't understand
We should go on a date then.
Completely
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
So, something akin to how the Jung spoke?Blah. Sounds more like intelligence, not Ti.
Here is a great
"I welcome the unknown and enjoy taking on the perspective of some wild idea I could never know is true, just for that slight chance that, one of the times, I will actually know something real that nobody has ever thought before."
Ni
We shall be notes in that great Symphony
Whose cadence circles through the rhythmic spheres,
And all the live World’s throbbing heart shall be
One with our heart, the stealthy creeping years
Have lost their terrors now, we shall not die,
The Universe itself shall be our Immortality!
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Nice one. And of course they did, they determine the direction of energy movement.Yep, Jung is the man, and that quote is the essential
I may very much prefer this chart without the arrows instead. Wasn't sure if they needed to be there.
Sounds more likeBlah. Sounds more like intelligence, not Ti.
Here is a great
"I welcome the unknown and enjoy taking on the perspective of some wild idea I could never know is true, just for that slight chance that, one of the times, I will actually know something real that nobody has ever thought before."
Actually, that wasSounds more like
I believe communication in general is Base (Origin and content of the idea) in the direction of Creative (Delivery, form of the idea). All quotes should theoretically be composed of 2 elements, unless they are stripped of their content and simply examined by the form they take.
Even the sentence above. Effort to relay a recognized previously identified pattern delivered in an inference about the composition of communication. Ni + Fe.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
The thread is attempting to find examples of quotes for each IM, not for each type. Again, I don't think it is a special good example of aActually, that was
In regards polikujm's quote, a
“That is exactly the problem I love,” Ruslan Medzhitov told me recently. “It’s very big, it’s very fundamental, and completely unknown.”“If you think of all the major symptoms of allergic reactions–runny noses, tears, sneezing, coughing, itching, vomiting and diarrhoea–all of these things have one thing in common,” said Medzhitov. “They all have to do with expulsion."http://qz.com/689806/a-controversial...ave-allergies/“It’s never been done before, so we don’t know what the consequences will be,” says Medzhitov
This guy is a classic example of
Pretty sure formal logical reasoning is a great example ofBlah. Sounds more like intelligence, not Ti.
Here is a great
"I welcome the unknown and enjoy taking on the perspective of some wild idea I could never know is true, just for that slight chance that, one of the times, I will actually know something real that nobody has ever thought before."
The quote you gave is basically the definition of
In socionics formal logic isFormal logic is one of the most sure signs of higher intelligence, clearly not
The example as I presented it is simplistic, but I think it's valid...in a more complex situation, which would be almost any real-life situation, the Ti reasoning could still be broken down to that basic statement, I think.Blah. Sounds more like intelligence, not Ti.
Here is a great
"I welcome the unknown and enjoy taking on the perspective of some wild idea I could never know is true, just for that slight chance that, one of the times, I will actually know something real that nobody has ever thought before."
Ti-PoLR types (like myself) can have trouble w it bc, eg, we get distracted by different sources of Te, which we have a hard time prioritizing and (in my case at least) remembering all of...we can have trouble presenting clear, logical explanations of things, without either getting distracted/bogged down by part of the information we are presenting or contradicting ourselves without realizing it.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
Re: bolded -- of course Ti-PoLR doesn't mean unintelligent, and that's not what I'm saying. But Ti does have to do w logical consistency, which is what I'm saying XEEs have trouble w in their (our) explanations, moreso w more complex explanations or when giving reasons for beliefs that don't rely on hard evidence you can just point to.
Also, I (think I) can explain complex ideas in ways that make sense to others without logical inconsistencies, etc, but I don't like to be put on the spot to do it; I prefer to be able to take my time and craft it... and if I do give an explanation in the spot, I can see myself receiving (and probably deserving) criticism like the first example I posted in this thread. Maybe that's human > Ti PoLR, but it's my 2 cents, anyway
One more edit to add this: @Kim pointed out in the Ti PoLR thread how Ti types, or maybe just someone using Ti (too) meticulously, may pick out a slightly off word and say the XEE (or whomever is speaking, I guess) said something other than what they were actually trying to communicate, when the meaning should be clear (at the very least it's clear to the speaker and so, in ther mind, it should be clear to the listener as well). So I want to point out that the logical inconsistency may not *really* be a logical inconsistency although it might be interpreted that way by certain people/types.
Last edited by SongOfSapphire; 06-02-2016 at 05:46 PM.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
Si feels like.. taking the obvious to an art. Noticing there are apples on the table. Something was wet, and now it's dry. Or it's not dry yet but it probably will be in 15 min. Where should I step if it's wet now? Do I even want to step? Maybe I will just sit here. Or maybe I will walk on it, sometimes the wet feeling is pleasurable.
Or, in a macro-sense, where should I apply for work? I should only apply to things I know I can do. What can I reasonably manage?
"Will you smoke with me, Da Vinci?"
"Well, that depends on what's in the pipe."
"It is a mixture of tobacco and black hellebore and is rumored to induce visions and summon demons."
"Well, I believe in neither."
"Then why do you struggle so hard to keep both at bay?"
History is a lie that has been honed like a weapon by people who have suppressed the truth.
The knowledge you are destined to learn will upend the established order of things."
"How could you possibly know that?"
"You have heard the phrase 'Time is a river'? "
"Yes."
"What most fail to grasp is that the river is circular.
One man's death opens a doorway to the birth of the next.
Would you like to know how this particular doorway opened?"
"Yes."
"Be forewarned, then.
Some doorways lead into darkness."
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Ne
have: birds
want: orangutans
Si
this song feels like an orgasm
Posting Permissions
