Page 56 of 73 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066 ... LastLast
Results 2,201 to 2,240 of 2884

Thread: Your typing of forum members (archived '15-'17)

  1. #2201
    Skepteric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    Ne-LII 5w4
    Posts
    3,308
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FANXY CHILD View Post
    Precisely, this whole "You like apples, therefore ESE" thing is typology's biggest turn off. These knee jerk typings and much worse, the delusion most of people who engage in them, they are the ones who close to never accept the possibility of being wrong. And hell if you point to their flawed reasoning, then you're "in denial" because surely, a stranger who has only interacted with you a couple times know you better than you know yourself.


    Pots pointing fingers, lol
    A little hyperbole, but I agree with your point It points more toward weak logic than anything else.

  2. #2202
    A fox who wants to play, that's me Playing With Fire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    L type land
    Posts
    489
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Osifer View Post
    A little hyperbole, but I agree with your point It points more toward weak logic than anything else.
    A whole lot hyperbole, but that's me To be fair I know it's objectively exaggerated, but it's exactly like it sounds to me.

  3. #2203
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,830
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    yeah but rejecting socionics because you reject COTM is a strawman. just say exactly why you think socionics is flawed, not by tying COTM around its neck. the gravaman seems to be "people seems to change type" and socionics doesn't allow for that. but actually socionics gives many reasons why people seem to change type, and I've given some in this very thread. At the same time, it doesn't mean the same thing for me to believe something is true as it seems to be for a Ti base type so I'm comfortable with a degree of "flawedness" in socionics because it is useful. There seems to be an implicit premise that we are all working towards %100 systemic accuracy, which I think is off the table from the get go. We've had this talk before where LSI is looking for ways in which a thing could fail in its practical application and in doing so unwittingly prognosticates on an ideas potential. this is what I see happening here. the implications the project is somehow flawed seems to be frustration with not being able to see a way from its percieved imperfections and then a subsequent total rejection, which is not really how it has to be
    You're assuming a lot. I started looking into socionics 3-4 years before my join date, if what you say is true I would have abandoned it long ago, rather than sticking around. Noticing flaws in something is the first step to improving it, it doesn't imply a total rejection. You can criticize a thing and still see the value in it. You can want to find a real basis for things, look for application and verification while entertaining the idea. In other words, it's completely possible to withhold judgement on something while you work through it, test it and explore it. The "oh no one thing doesn't fit, let me throw the whole thing out" kind of thing isn't a Ti-base thing, because the way their cognition works is to continually piece things together - yes, they'll abandon something if there's nothing salvageable left of it, but criticizing and testing something doesn't mean a rejection of it.

  4. #2204
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    482 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    so true! its precisely why Fanxy and Phil also won't be going anywhere, even after rendering judgement

  5. #2205
    Skepteric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    Ne-LII 5w4
    Posts
    3,308
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    so true! its precisely why Fanxy and Phil also won't be going anywhere, even after rendering judgement
    To think is to judge. Pointing out flaws in ideas doesn't mean an outright rejection. It is important as a value because it imposes limitations on knowledge and prevents certainty where there isn't certainty in an objective sense. It creates a sense of intellectual humility. This keeps the mind open to new ideas, creativity, and may lead to new ways of attaining knowledge, which reinforce other values, such as curiosity and imagination. Typologists are huge intellectual turnoffs because they espouse too much certainty in their "knowing". I'm not opposed to knowing, only when you have justified reasons for being skeptical when justifications for their conclusions are weak. The typologists are more of an issue than the theory. The theory is much more open to interpretation, but some typologists are too dogmatic to allow it because it weakens their status as typologist in the eyes of the typology dogmatists.

  6. #2206
    Skepteric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    Ne-LII 5w4
    Posts
    3,308
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Typology should be more fun Bertrand!

  7. #2207

  8. #2208
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 LEFV
    Posts
    3,908
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    On the other hand ive seen ILEs being very sceptical. Coming up with all kinds of arguments why it cant work. Unlike the LII the ILE wants to understand the theory right away. If he has some problems accepting the structure he might loose his interest. The LII seems much more pragmatic.
    + vs -

    It is disturbing how easy it is to me to see logical fallacies. It is like LIIs don't care or see them. How I see it: there is a need for new name if you find those and better to keep it clean so you Gulenko's model G deserves lots of red marker under creative and demonstrative (and it is a fork more than its very own model). Do not generate confusion – keep it minimum – always exclaim weak points when you can see them arising.
    Sol mb F type due to his inability to think alternatives.


  9. #2209
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,772
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Adam Strange LIE (because he seems credible and just seems LIE)
    Alphamale ILE (just seems ILE)
    Bertrand xIE (because everything he writes is creative Ni, and also because he kept changing his type, which hints at EIE)
    Director Abbie LSE (because of her video and because I think she likes knitting)
    Reverie ESI (because of her video)
    Vespertine EII (mainly because it says "Hedgehog in the Fog" under the username, and that's such an EII thing to say, and also because (s)he posted a song from an album named "Music for Church cleaners vol. I and II")

    thats all
    Last edited by Tallmo; 08-15-2017 at 06:15 PM.

  10. #2210

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Osifer View Post
    To think is to judge. Pointing out flaws in ideas doesn't mean an outright rejection. It is important as a value because it imposes limitations on knowledge and prevents certainty where there isn't certainty in an objective sense. It creates a sense of intellectual humility. This keeps the mind open to new ideas, creativity, and may lead to new ways of attaining knowledge, which reinforce other values, such as curiosity and imagination. Typologists are huge intellectual turnoffs because they espouse too much certainty in their "knowing". I'm not opposed to knowing, only when you have justified reasons for being skeptical when justifications for their conclusions are weak. The typologists are more of an issue than the theory. The theory is much more open to interpretation, but some typologists are too dogmatic to allow it because it weakens their status as typologist in the eyes of the typology dogmatists.
    Yeah, to think is to judge. As for certainty - working with the data you have and no more, if the data allows for it, there can be certainty. Even if later with new data things have to be changed even to the point of a paradigm shift, that original data at that moment can be judged conclusively. This is often necessary, too. Or you'd never take action and stay in limbo instead. The theory (Socionics) being too open to interpretation is not a good thing in my eyes and this has nothing to do with status.

  11. #2211
    Skepteric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    Ne-LII 5w4
    Posts
    3,308
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Yeah, to think is to judge. As for certainty - working with the data you have and no more, if the data allows for it, there can be certainty. Even if later with new data things have to be changed even to the point of a paradigm shift, that original data at that moment can be judged conclusively. This is often necessary, too. Or you'd never take action and stay in limbo instead. The theory (Socionics) being too open to interpretation is not a good thing in my eyes and this has nothing to do with status.
    This is what I mean. Socionics lacks empirical data, so my conclusions are: Only accept the theory as much as evidence provides. I do not expect science to prove the theory correct, because scientific data already strongly suggests that our brains are much more similar than different, that do not have static dichotomic preferences, but preferences depending on the circumstances. Socionics lacks an underlying explanatory theory as to what decides the circumstantial preferences to begin with. This can lead to infinite regressions, so this does not help matters. Not that you cannot have a brain that works like one of the types predicts, it's just the theory doesn't encompass all humans in a scientifically valid way. What I mean by making the theory more open to interpretation is to allow individuals to use functions in a manner that they find useful, which would be dependent on culture, history, context, etc. The theory definitely has something useful to offer humanity. If socionicists only saw this, they theory would be less obscure, more useful, more accurate, etc. It's a win-win, imo.

    There are most certainly status concerned socionicists, who typify bully like behavior in their defense of their theory. It happens all of the time online. I don't think this applies to you personally, but others, yes.
    Last edited by Skepteric; 08-17-2017 at 02:39 PM.

  12. #2212

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Osifer View Post
    This is what I mean. Socionics lacks empirical data
    Eh sure many of the nuances of the various Socionics models do lack any way of operationalizing whatsoever and that's not by accident - if you tried to do that, you'd refute things real fast.

    But I wouldn't say that on the whole it's entirely imaginary ideas. I observed some of the stuff myself and there are some of the same ideas in different non-Socionics frameworks and studies do deal with them.


    so my conclusions are: Only accept the theory as much as evidence provides. I do not expect science to prove the theory correct, because scientific data already strongly suggests that our brains are much more similar than different, that do not have static dichotomic preferences, but preferences depending on the circumstances. Socionics lacks an underlying explanatory theory as to what decides the circumstantial preferences to begin with. This can lead to infinite regressions, so this does not help matters. Not that you cannot have a brain that works like one of the types predicts, it's just the theory doesn't encompass all humans in a scientifically valid way.
    I don't think Socionics was meant to claim our brains are entirely different. At least in my interpretation no. Everyone has all cognitions just with different emphases. And there are definitely some rather unchanging differences between the brains of different people. It isn't hard to find studies for that. Starting from studies on different inborn temperaments of babies to studies on different cognitions of different people. (Yup academic psychology studies)

    The questionable part is of course whether the static cognition differences in people are always arranged according to what the Socionics model claims.


    What I mean by making the theory more open to interpretation is to allow individuals to use functions in a manner that they find useful, which would be dependent on culture, history, context, etc. The theory definitely has something useful to offer humanity. If socionicists only saw this, they theory would be less obscure, more useful, more accurate, etc. It's a win-win, imo.
    Yeah, well I went beyond socionics constraints a while ago on analyzing cognition of people. It's not really even just 8 "functions" or IEs in my understanding. A bit more complex than that

    How would you sum it up as to what it is that Socionics theory can offer to humanity?

  13. #2213
    Skepteric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    Ne-LII 5w4
    Posts
    3,308
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Eh sure many of the nuances of the various Socionics models do lack any way of operationalizing whatsoever and that's not by accident - if you tried to do that, you'd refute things real fast.

    But I wouldn't say that on the whole it's entirely imaginary ideas. I observed some of the stuff myself and there are some of the same ideas in different non-Socionics frameworks and studies do deal with them.




    I don't think Socionics was meant to claim our brains are entirely different. At least in my interpretation no. Everyone has all cognitions just with different emphases. And there are definitely some rather unchanging differences between the brains of different people. It isn't hard to find studies for that. Starting from studies on different inborn temperaments of babies to studies on different cognitions of different people. (Yup academic psychology studies)

    The questionable part is of course whether the static cognition differences in people are always arranged according to what the Socionics model claims.




    Yeah, well I went beyond socionics constraints a while ago on analyzing cognition of people. It's not really even just 8 "functions" or IEs in my understanding. A bit more complex than that

    How would you sum it up as to what it is that Socionics theory can offer to humanity?
    Socionics offers a different angle to look at cognition. It adds to our knowledge of the human brain. It might just be it is because nothing else looks at human consciousness in such a way. It would only be more useful if the functions were treated as the ebb and flow of consciousness and people didn't latch onto small samples of consciousness and mistake the part for the whole. For example, I see you are using function x, so you HAVE to have x in ego. This seems silly, unscientific, biased, counterproductive, and useless. Many minds are more complex than simple categorical definitions based on flawed reasoning.

    Socionics counts as some knowledge about humans, and since knowledge benefits human, it has something to offer.

  14. #2214
    aka He Died With a Felafel Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,347
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Bertrand could be gamma NT imo
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

  15. #2215
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,558
    Mentioned
    125 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Delilah leaning ILI or LIE? I have him pegged as xLI - currently SLI - which he'll chew me out for if he ever returns.
    awldjkwepierpgokqweølfqøerlkfdaergnhtm¨å¨æ''-we-fqpoeufasdøflthøljwtlhkjrøtlhhhhhhhhhhsapfoeporipr
    "WELL I'M SORRY THAT I LIKE TO HAVE OPEN COMMUNICATION IN MY RELATIONSHIPS" - Galen 2k13

  16. #2216
    Don't leave me lost here forever crazymaisy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SE USA
    TIM
    ILI-Ni GAMMA
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wasp View Post
    @Delilah leaning ILI or LIE? I have him pegged as xLI - currently SLI - which he'll chew me out for if he ever returns.
    He's no Gamma {vibe.} I can't stand most of his posts so I blocked him. No offense meant, it just made my reading of the forums much better. I can view anything with a click if I want to based on context below a blocked post.
    Maisy
    ILI-Ni (INTp)
    I think in pictures, moving pictures...

    Recommended Music - ILI-Ni



    "And one peculiar point I see,
    As one of the many ones of me.
    As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
    Inside out, outside in, inside out, outside in,
    Perpetual change"


    Yes - The Yes Album - from "Perpetual Change" (written by Howe and Squire)

  17. #2217
    aka He Died With a Felafel Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,347
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazymaisy View Post
    He's no Gamma {vibe.} I can't stand most of his posts so I blocked him. No offense meant, it just made my reading of the forums much better. I can view anything with a click if I want to based on context below a blocked post.
    um, you apparently have me on ignore but are creepily on the lookout for things said about me by third parties? Sounds off-putting.
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

  18. #2218
    Don't leave me lost here forever crazymaisy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SE USA
    TIM
    ILI-Ni GAMMA
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    um, you apparently have me on ignore but are creepily on the lookout for things said about me by third parties? Sounds off-putting.
    I don't have you @Delilah, on Ignore.
    Maisy
    ILI-Ni (INTp)
    I think in pictures, moving pictures...

    Recommended Music - ILI-Ni



    "And one peculiar point I see,
    As one of the many ones of me.
    As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
    Inside out, outside in, inside out, outside in,
    Perpetual change"


    Yes - The Yes Album - from "Perpetual Change" (written by Howe and Squire)

  19. #2219
    aka He Died With a Felafel Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,347
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazymaisy View Post
    I don't have you @Delilah, on Ignore.
    Oh i see. Sorry then!
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

  20. #2220
    aka He Died With a Felafel Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,347
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm curious about @ouronis type; had an exchange in the chatbox and I got such a positive vibe like maybe quadra or neighbouring
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

  21. #2221

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Opinion about the type of @Sol

    He repeatedly said he couldn't decide which xSTj he was and then used ITR to decide.

    However, he's very unlike an LSE in that he's basically pushing his ideology all the time. LSE is less set on what they think of as correct and they don't push it. They care way more about practical efficiency than ideology of systems. They are also more open to different ideas with their Ne valuing.

    I may certainly disagree with some things in his particular ideology but I do notice a similarity in thinking in how we both reject unrealistic and illogical ideas that do not link to anything causally. Example: "It's early to talk about subtypes as there may to be a heap of important traits we don't know about and which has no reason to be linked with Jung's types". I also say things like that, about how there is no reason to link things to a certain system.

    All in all, I wouldn't just yet exclude LSI>LSE for him. Enneagram 1 is pretty much for sure tho'.
    Last edited by Myst; 10-04-2017 at 10:41 AM.

  22. #2222
    Kids Turned Out Fine Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    3w4
    Posts
    9,045
    Mentioned
    703 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Opinion about the type of @Sol

    He repeatedly said he couldn't decide which xSTj he was and then used ITR to decide.

    However, he's very unlike an LSE in that he's basically pushing his ideology all the time. LSE is less set on what they think of as correct and they don't push it. They care way more about practical efficiency than ideology of systems. They are also more open to different ideas with their Ne valuing.

    I may certainly disagree with some things in his particular ideology but I do notice a similarity in thinking in how we both reject unrealistic and illogical ideas that do not link to anything causally. Example: "It's early to talk about subtypes as there may to be a heap of important traits we don't know about and which has no reason to be linked with Jung's types". I also say things like that, about how there is no reason to link things to a certain system.

    All in all, I wouldn't just yet exclude LSI>LSE for him. Enneagram 1 is pretty much for sure tho'.
    I subcribe to that. Had the same suspicion, thanks for putting it into words @Myst. Yes to the second paragraph in particular^ This all would explain our blatant interpersonal disagreements in literally everything and his inability to see different points of view to his methods (essentially - values) while emphasizing one way, one system, his rules, in the most accurate inflexible way possible. Since he's here, at least kind of? seems fairly expressed, not devalued whatsoever. Gotta ask the EIIs here how attacked they feel. Meanwhile, I'm playing around leaving a trail of PoLR chaos. In many ways we are the opposite of a quadra spectrum - LSI > LSE.
    Last edited by Chae; 10-04-2017 at 01:56 PM.

  23. #2223
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,607
    Mentioned
    725 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    I'm curious about @ouronis type; had an exchange in the chatbox and I got such a positive vibe like maybe quadra or neighbouring
    I feel the same way but ended up agreeing w/ LII for some reason. I think bcuz of the way he prompts me to consider other POVs when I'm stomping on about something and his Fe receptiveness like w/ @Suz.

  24. #2224
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,830
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    I subcribe to that. Had the same suspicion, thanks for putting it into words . Yes to the second paragraph in particular^ This all would explain our blatant interpersonal disagreements in literally everything and his inability to see different points of view to his methods (essentially - values) while emphasizing one way, one system, his rules, in the most accurate inflexible way possible. Since he's here, at least kind of? seems fairly expressed, not devalued whatsoever. Gotta ask the EIIs here how attacked they feel. Meanwhile, I'm playing around leaving a trail of PoLR chaos. In many ways we are the opposite of a quadra spectrum - LSI > LSE.
    Hm. Kind of depends on what you mean. The way I see @Sol is serious over merry.

    From:http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...ry_and_serious
    Merry

    *Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.

    *'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..

    *Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.

    *They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').

    *“Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.”

    Serious

    *Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.

    *Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.

    *Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.

    *They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).

    *“It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'”


    The bold particularly in serious vs the bolded more perspective-based view in the merry quadras. But the other parts as well. You may be clashing for other reasons perhaps?

  25. #2225

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    I subcribe to that. Had the same suspicion, thanks for putting it into words @Myst. Yes to the second paragraph in particular^ This all would explain our blatant interpersonal disagreements in literally everything and his inability to see different points of view to his methods (essentially - values) while emphasizing one way, one system, his rules, in the most accurate inflexible way possible. Since he's here, at least kind of? seems fairly expressed, not devalued whatsoever. Gotta ask the EIIs here how attacked they feel. Meanwhile, I'm playing around leaving a trail of PoLR chaos. In many ways we are the opposite of a quadra spectrum - LSI > LSE.
    Lol "leaving a trail of Ti PoLR chaos" Anyway, you're not the first Ne ego on the forum that says he values Se, hm. And np

  26. #2226
    Kids Turned Out Fine Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    3w4
    Posts
    9,045
    Mentioned
    703 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Hm. Kind of depends on what you mean. The way I see @Sol is serious over merry.

    From:http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...ry_and_serious
    Merry

    *Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.

    *'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..

    *Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.

    *They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').

    *“Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.”

    Serious

    *Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.

    *Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.

    *Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.

    *They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).

    *“It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'”


    The bold particularly in serious vs the bolded more perspective-based view in the merry quadras. But the other parts as well. You may be clashing for other reasons perhaps?
    Am critical of the dichotomy, strong logics mess with it already, blurring the lines. What you highlighted in the serious section rather pinpoints some aspects of rationality quite accurately! Which is true in his case.

    Surely, there are more reasons, and I've written that often mwehh


  27. #2227

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,438
    Mentioned
    851 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    He repeatedly said he couldn't decide which xSTj he was and then used ITR to decide.
    I'm using IR always when type. So you may look my EII examples, type them and understand that they are not EIE or good IR for LSI. Similarly you may do with other my examples. If I'd was LSI, then you'd see systematic error in my typing of switching good IR to bad IR for LSE.

    > They care way more about practical efficiency than ideology of systems.

    This ideology is mainly Fi, Ne and also I see it as a way to make the society and people more effective.

    I have Si valued, - for example I came to my 1st date with a girl in life with a cake and jasmin tea.
    I'm not shy as introverts in common see themselves (I was lead singer in school chorus in beginning classes).
    I like to search for data, alternatives - Te.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  28. #2228
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,830
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    Am critical of the dichotomy, strong logics mess with it already, blurring the lines. What you highlighted in the serious section rather pinpoints some aspects of rationality quite accurately! Which is true in his case.
    Logic may tend somewhat more to the objectivist side overall (and ethical to the subjectivist,) but the bolded is Te vs Ti more than anything. This dichotomy simply splits Ti/Fe and Te/Fi. Rationality doesn't factor in.

    You can ignore the part about entertainment and anyone suggesting a serious demeanor in objectivists via
    In this research, the hypothesis about the quadra related nature of entertainment has been show to be untrue. Also proven to be untrue was the widespread conviction that people of Serious types will not publicly display and behave in a "childish" manner. Probably in the majority of such cases (for example when adult people roll themselves down a snow hill), the situation serves as an intermediary and relaxes the existing interpersonal boundaries.
    but the rest holds true, and it's based on the nature of Te/Fi vs that of Ti/Fe.

  29. #2229

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    I'm using IR always when type. So you may look my EII examples, type them and understand that they are not EIE or good IR for LSI. Similarly you may do with other my examples. If I'd was LSI, then you'd see systematic error in my typing of switching good IR to bad IR for LSE.
    I'm curious to get through your compilation yeah


    > They care way more about practical efficiency than ideology of systems.

    This ideology is mainly Fi, Ne and also I see it as a way to make the society and people more effective.
    You are rather explicit in expressing it, though, Ti is explicit and Fi isn't. But anyway, you know your own mind best, I just posted about observations and my interpretation of them.


    I have Si valued, - for example I came to my 1st date with a girl in life with a cake and jasmin tea.
    I'm not shy as introverts in common see themselves (I was lead singer in school chorus in beginning classes).
    I like to search for data, alternatives - Te.
    LSI has stronger Si than LSE actually Not every introvert is shy. Analyzing data impersonally is Logic in general.

    Anyway as I said, I don't know you too closely.

  30. #2230

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    Am critical of the dichotomy, strong logics mess with it already, blurring the lines. What you highlighted in the serious section rather pinpoints some aspects of rationality quite accurately! Which is true in his case.
    FWIW, the way I relate to the Te/Ti bits of the dichotomy:

    My opinion is definitely that everyone thinks for themselves but I do set my own view in an absolute way (that's the Ne PoLR part). According to that, I see some reasoning as correct and other reasoning as incorrect. Otoh I will discuss with others how they define things and in this way I do exchange views with them. Also, certain parts of my worldview I formed in a way that they can allow for really big paradigm shift too. It's not all that simple.

    I will ask why something was done incorrectly. Asking "who" instead of "why" just sounds weird to me, unless it's about who is to be held accountable for it, then of course I will want to know. As for optimums, that depends whether I need to compare it to something else or it's already obvious in the situation based on whatever pre-set standard, etc. (I guess that counts as Ti comparison, too, tho')

    The bit on the correct way of doing something: that's important to me if e.g. I need consistency in data for analysis. I will also happily give instructions on how to do something to someone if they need it. If someone is doing something in a way that's incredibly bad, I will fix it for them. I will leave them alone if it's not that bad. I never think of one right way otherwise unless needed for Ti reasons such as consistency (as I said above). I haven't seen it in @Sol either. Nor the opposite - I simply don't know about this aspect regarding him. What I did see was the Ti part, "propose (or impose) another conception of the situation".

    As for objective truths: I think there is such a thing in theory as Absolute Truth, but I believe we can only always get closer and closer to it. I otherwise always look at things as dependent on subjective (but explicit) criteria of the user. Like if someone asks me, which smartphone I recommend for them, I will always start with asking, what do they want to use it for, what are their preferences. Definitely think that there are objectively reasoned and correct things and then there are subjectively felt things too, I don't care for those as much, unless I can logically justify according to some explicit criteria as well. That criteria is subjective in the sense that not everyone will have the same but is objective because of being impersonal.


    I think a good way to differentiate Ti from Te overall is, Ti will still be willing to analyze to exchange and examine views of the parties more deeply, where Te will already want to drop it and move on from the discussion/argument. This is still heuristics, I've seen some ILIs that will argue for decently long, and I won't argue long over Ne topics lol. And the Objectivist/Subjectivist dichotomy does seem to include things that could be interpreted as Irrationality vs Rationality, too. Easy to have overlap. Same issue with Se/Ne valuing, for the perspectives part. So this stuff is a bit too ambiguous on that level of analysis.
    Last edited by Myst; 10-04-2017 at 07:26 PM.

  31. #2231

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,438
    Mentioned
    851 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    LSI has stronger Si than LSE actually
    My idea was - non-valued functions are lesser expressed in the behavior as have lesser of interest. Also, ego functions are strongest, but other would change nothing as people prefer to stay away from non-valued ones anywhere they can.
    Most introverts perceive themselves as shy. Just a strong factor against introversion. I'm not centered on myself and mostly seek for external stimulus, it's boring for me to stay "with myself" (yep, I'm boring for myself too )

    > Analyzing data impersonally is Logic in general.

    When I buy something not cheap I have a _pleasure_ from gathering the info about the stuff - models, comments, alternatives. I may choose such for days. It's Te behavior.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  32. #2232

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    My idea was - non-valued functions are lesser expressed in the behavior as have lesser of interest. Also, ego functions are strongest, but other would change nothing as people prefer to stay away from non-valued ones anywhere they can.
    Ok, I see. I take Demonstrative function into account pretty strongly because that matches my experiences. Jung also had an approach that looked at things in a similar way. So I would be TiSi under that Jungian take. But what's decisive factor here for me is my own observations of myself and of others.

    So yeah I personally don't always stay away from Si. It isn't a too conscious focus, that's the difference compared to Se, but it's still a strong part of my worldview, as a big part of the grounding for it. Publicly I do prefer to go for Se otherwise but I'm able to do Si "caretaking", just not too "in the face", because I don't care enough to openly discuss Si much and so that approach is a good fit for taking care of Si PoLR


    Most introverts perceive themselves as shy. Just a strong factor against introversion. I'm not centered on myself and mostly seek for external stimulus, it's boring for me to stay "with myself" (yep, I'm boring for myself too )
    I'm the same way, I don't like to have too much focus on myself, I'd rather focus on what's in front of me, on the task, etc, but the personal self is Feeling anyway.

    If you meant you don't like to work alone, then that sounds like extraversion.


    > Analyzing data impersonally is Logic in general.

    When I buy something not cheap I have a _pleasure_ from gathering the info about the stuff - models, comments, alternatives. I may choose such for days. It's Te behavior.
    Hmm wow "pleasure" is a strong word for me for that lol. I will also spend days on this but I'm just emotionally neutral. Well I guess I enjoy the part where I analyze and make decisions... but the information gathering part is just neutral for me.

  33. #2233

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,438
    Mentioned
    851 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I take Demonstrative function into account pretty strongly because that matches my experiences. <...> I'd rather focus on what's in front of me, on the task, etc
    I'd want to look at your video to check your type.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  34. #2234

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    I'd want to look at your video to check your type.
    I'll see about that.

    Btw, to make the above picture more complete, I do have clear introverted bits too, e.g. I'm fine with working alone, working with people is my secondary mode only, and same for spending my free time, alone vs secondary mode with people, friends, sometimes party, etc

  35. #2235

    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Hm. Kind of depends on what you mean. The way I see @Sol is serious over merry.

    From:http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...ry_and_serious
    Merry

    *Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.

    *'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..

    *Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.

    *They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').

    *“Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.”

    Serious

    *Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.

    *Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.

    *Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.

    *They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).

    *“It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'”


    The bold particularly in serious vs the bolded more perspective-based view in the merry quadras. But the other parts as well. You may be clashing for other reasons perhaps?
    Interesting.

    pro merry quadra:


    - I always explain why I came to a certain conclusion, explain the reason behind my opinions/results on tests aka 'break down' the exact way I was going and trying to understand my result and the result of others in online tests for example, to explain differences in results, because I believe that a result can be manipulated through a certain way of thinking/pattern and thus differ from the result of the other. Hard to explain, sorry meh for explaining it so badly. I also have a huge knack for explaining why I did things and the reasoning behind it, so that the other person 'indeed' understands for real where I am coming from, which can be annoying, because I do that repeatedly until I think the other person has understood for real where I am coming from.

    - I have a hard time concentrating on stuff without occasional light and fun breaks. I always try to turn the situation somewhat into a fun one/ lighten the atmosphere to make it less heavy irl. So I like to break free from too much work at once, because I cannot concentrate that long. Not sure about the seperating work and fun thing.. is that seperating fun and work? I think work could be fun if you do your dream job, but that could be a general opinion, lol.

    - I also relate to the 'I have my own logic' thing which can clash with other individuals, because everyone definitely does have their own logic of how things should be done. So arguing is a way of trying to win over your logic by explaining my own.

    - I do relate to loving when everyone participates in something, having one goal and reaching towards it, feeling everyone flow together and getting high on that group feel.

    pro serious quadra:

    - Though I relate to the "WHO did it that way" in the way that I do think experts/ people with a lot of experience and who invested lots of time in something etc. have a better say on things than someone who doesn't know shit about a topic which might be related to aristocracy as someone who has a title should probably know better (though it depends on if I agree with their logic and person overall), I am still mistrusting though if I am ultra sure of something and someone else proposes something I don't think is right.. so I question it a lot and try to make sense of it by my own.. like again and again and again until I get it (I basically repeat shit a lot in my head, like a loop haha).

    - I do relate to the imposing a 'correct' way onto people, especially in the past, because I was and sometimes still am convinced my way is the best way, working on it though lol. Not sure if this is related to Ti Ha or low valued Ti at all.

    - Because I can be shy I can use external settings as a way to approach people or get to know other people, like an organisation, official party, homework (approach a potential love interest, because I do not want to make my interest so clear, not sure if it is related to 'serious' quadra values at all or more of a basic human thing haha.) I can be somewhat formal or distant at times (plus being German lmao), though mostly because I am intimidated, shy or not sure yet on how to approach the person if I do not know them yet, this changes though as soon as we are familiar. Need some time to warm up a little, when the people intimidate me too much/ not sure if I can trust them.

    Oh and so basically serious quadras see work as fun or how can I understand the last sentence? Is that why serious quadras are often described as the workaholics? In that case I am not seeing work and fun as the same, I remember having a friend who was very fixated on working together when I also thought we should do something non-work related and relaxing just to enjoy each othr's company at times. Might not be socionics related at all again, haha.
    Last edited by MaviTilki; 10-04-2017 at 11:12 PM.

  36. #2236
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,830
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaviTilki
    Oh and so basically serious quadras see work as fun or how can I understand the last sentence? Is that why serious quadras are often described as the workaholics? In that case I am not seeing work and fun as the same, I remember having a friend who was very fixated on working together when I also thought we should do something non-work related and relaxing just to enjoy each othr's company at times. Might not be socionics related at all again, haha.
    The work and fun part can be ignored. From the link I posted when they ran experiments that didn't pan out. So, that part doesn't really mean anything. The biggest distinction should be between the actual thought processes. For you, those fit the merry quadra. I bolded sections related to actual thought process (rather than behavior) that were found to be meaningful distinctions and what element they're related to from your post. This dichotomy attempts to separate Ti/Fe and Te/Fi.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaviTilki View Post
    Interesting.

    pro merry quadra:


    - I always explain why I came to a certain conclusion, explain the reason behind my opinions/results on tests aka 'break down' the exact way I was going and trying to understand my result and the result of others in online tests for example, to explain differences in results, because I believe that a result can be manipulated through a certain way of thinking/pattern and thus differ from the result of the other. Hard to explain, sorry meh for explaining it so badly. I also have a huge knack for explaining why I did things and the reasoning behind it, so that the other person 'indeed' understands for real where I am coming from, which can be annoying, because I do that repeatedly until I think the other person has understood for real where I am coming from. - Ti related

    - I have a hard time concentrating on stuff without occasional light and fun breaks. I always try to turn the situation somewhat into a fun one/ lighten the atmosphere to make it less heavy irl. So I like to break free from too much work at once, because I cannot concentrate that long. Not sure about the seperating work and fun thing.. is that seperating fun and work? I think work could be fun if you do your dream job, but that could be a general opinion, lol.

    - I also relate to the 'I have my own logic' thing which can clash with other individuals, because everyone definitely does have their own logic of how things should be done. So arguing is a way of trying to win with your logic by explaining for me in a way. -Ti related

    - I do relate to loving when everyone participates in something, having one goal and reaching towards it, feeling everyone flow together and getting high on that group feel. - Fe!

    pro serious quadra:

    - Though I relate to the "WHO did it that way" in the way that I do think experts/ people with a lot of experience and who invested lots of time in something etc. have a better say on things than someone who doesn't know shit about a topic which might be related to aristocracy as someone who has a title should probably know better (though it depends on if I agree with their logic and person overall), I am still mistrusting though if I am ultra sure of something and someone else proposes something I don't think is right.. so I question it a lot and try to make sense of it by my own.. like again and again and again until I get it (I basically repeat shit a lot in my head, like a loop haha). -Ti related

    - I do relate to the imposing a 'correct' way onto people, especially in the past, because I was and sometimes still am convinced my way is the best way, working on it though lol. Not sure if this is related to Ti Ha or low valued Ti at all. -and this maybe Te

    - Because I can be shy I can use external settings as a way to approach people or get to know other people (approach a potential love interest, because I do not want to make my interest so clear, not sure if it is related to 'serious' quadra values at all or more of a basic human thing haha.) I can be somewhat formal or distant at times (plus being German lmao), though mostly because I am intimidated, shy or not sure yet on how to approach the person if I do not know them yet, this changes though as soon as we are familiar. Need some time to warm up a little, when the people intimidate me too much/ not sure if I can trust them. - some introversion and aristocracy


    Here's more detail expanding on the distinctions from that same link but with the parts that aren't meaningful removed:


    Subjectivists/Merry

    Subjectivists are good at noticing the general emotional background that accompanies contact with people (For example: enthusiasm, fun, stress and so on).

    The Subjectivist, in contrast to the Objectivist, is not inclined to derive "objectively accurate" rules and regularities, generalizing for this purpose his own experiences and experiences of others. Instead, the Subjectivist assumes that other people have different criteria and their own views on any situation, therefore he determines whether his or someone else's actions were correct or incorrect by comparing them with his "subjective" view—he evaluates them in accordance to his personal concepts, "his system", his intentions, and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (or impose) not the "correct way" or another way to do things, but an entire conceptual framework on the subject i.e. they do not say "Do this differently" but rather "Look at it in another way". They do not think, in contrast to Objectivists, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something—in their opinion, there are many different ways of looking at and approaching a given situation. When they feel something was done incorrectly, they will likely ask: "What are you doing?" (In contrast to Objectivists who are likely to ask "Who does it this way?"). When they speak of optimality, they mean optimality within the framework of their idea or concept, within the framework of their subjective approach (from which point of view is it most optimal and in comparison to what). Therefore they strive to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (to verify concepts): "If this is what is meant, we do this, if something else is meant, we do it differently."

    "Comparison and verification of concepts" is a common phenomenon among Subjectivists. It concerns not only their methods, but also their understanding, terminology, and so on. Subjectivists are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently. They perceive terminology as well as actions of other people as a part of the subjective concept inseparable from personal opinion, position, intent, etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall call it this way". In contrast to Objectivists who perceive terminology as "objective", Subjectivists understand personal differences behind terminilogy (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them ("Well you say this, but I think it's not so, but so-and-so").

    Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions such as "From my point of view", "According to my understanding", "To my knowledge", "personal criteria", "it corresponds to my understanding" "I have concluded" "he insisted" and so on. They describe verbal communication in detail—how their intervention in the situation is transpiring or why it's not happening.

    Serious/Objectivists

    Objectivists have a notion of what constitutes "objectively known" facts, rules, laws, regularities held in general (common) experience; in their perception there exist rules and guidelines that are "true in general" and "always correct". They suppose that other people can have their own views and positions, but do not consider that any action can be viewed as correct/incorrect only from a certain point of view (they allow for the existence of "objectively correct" actions). Therefore, from the point of view of an Objectivist, actions can be different—subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective, where there is only one "correct", "most effective" way to do something. Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (not their views or concepts like Subjectivists) which they think are the best: "No, do it the right way". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general—"objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "generally optimal" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they do not compare and verify concepts, but instead check whether the other person knows the "correct", "generally accepted", "established" concepts and terms.

    In contrast to Subjectivists, Objectivists are not inclined to compare and verify concepts. They assume that these can have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one)—often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently, within a different conceptual framework. They operate with concepts such as "objective reality", "unequivocal facts", and do not attempt to verify concepts: "This is called with this term". They consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "really is" (they acknowledge only a certain picture of the world, one that is "objectively true"): "You say it's like this, while in reality is like that".

    In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give a lot of examples (all "correct" and "incorrect" modes of actions are depicted in these examples).
    Last edited by squark; 10-05-2017 at 04:13 AM. Reason: spoiler tags to declutter

  37. #2237
    aka He Died With a Felafel Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,347
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    I feel the same way but ended up agreeing w/ LII for some reason. I think bcuz of the way he prompts me to consider other POVs when I'm stomping on about something and his Fe receptiveness like w/ @Suz.
    Lol without intending to open that can of worms of what is what function-wise, but that is what i think of as Ni haha. Like different perspectives within the box; whereas Ne i seem to see as something totally outside of the box and therefore irrelevant to me frequently we could argue this forever lol
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

  38. #2238
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,607
    Mentioned
    725 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    Lol without intending to open that can of worms of what is what function-wise, but that is what i think of as Ni haha. Like different perspectives within the box; whereas Ne i seem to see as something totally outside of the box and therefore irrelevant to me frequently we could argue this forever lol
    I dunno, I do find it disarming in a not-unpleasant way.

  39. #2239

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaviTilki View Post
    I also relate to the 'I have my own logic' thing which can clash with other individuals, because everyone definitely does have their own logic of how things should be done. So arguing is a way of trying to win over your logic by explaining my own.
    Absolutely. With the Te types it's more like, some of them can enter arguments for a while, but I do not get to actually exchange reasonings with them. See more on this below:


    ...something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.

    Often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently, within a different conceptual framework.
    This is when some people get upset that they cannot make me accept their view because I disagree and I explain why I disagree but they just keep thinking there is only one objective truth that's being discussed and if I disagree they just think that I was simply incapable of understanding that one objective truth.


    Oh and so basically serious quadras see work as fun or how can I understand the last sentence? Is that why serious quadras are often described as the workaholics?
    I dunno about Te/Fi types, I personally don't see work as fun like actively having fun. It's an OK and necessary activity but it's not the same. I can still work a lot despite that.



    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    Lol without intending to open that can of worms of what is what function-wise, but that is what i think of as Ni haha. Like different perspectives within the box; whereas Ne i seem to see as something totally outside of the box and therefore irrelevant to me frequently we could argue this forever lol
    LIIs do have nice Ni that I like, actually. But then their Ne comes out and that gets to be too much lol.

    Superego can initially look interesting.

  40. #2240
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,772
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's up with Pinolines type changes? From EII to ILE to ESI

    And Bertrand went from ESI to LIE to EIE to EII ??

Posting Permissions

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