I have still not met the legendary EISNTFPJ. I'm quite disappointed.
I have still not met the legendary EISNTFPJ. I'm quite disappointed.
Bertrand's attempts of usage of Fi makes me nervous about the oncoming feeling of nausea, I'd thought LII for him at first, but - his thinking's might be a bit too confused for T as the lead, ILE could make more sense.
Also Sol - might not really be LSE, all I've seen is posting his own examples of types in various threads, some simplistic understanding of types - not theoretical, but at the same time doesn't listen to additional ideas - makes Ne rejecting possible, could be LSI with supervising by Bertrand - he's really the one pulling the strings.
But let's not get carried away, for typing is a bit bleh ...
May I tease you with cognition styles?
In case of @anndelise I think it points towards holographic panoramic cognition. So my choices are IEE or LII. Content however is usually ethically charged so I'm going to say IEE.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...18#post1242618
Making a lot from "nothing" by going through the layers... Far from for linear deterministic.
Sorry but that is what is so confusing about her while she still has lots of similarity with me.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Thanks for mistype, bro.
We all come full circle eventually. One thing that you might be able to help me with, though. IEIs are subjectivists, right? They supposedly don't believe in objective truths. Is that the same thing as an objective fact? One of my friends equates the word truth in its enumerable sense, ie the form that can have a plural, with the word fact. Is a truth the same thing as a fact? I think of a truth as a philosophy more than a fact. I think there are objective facts, but not really objective truths. This distinction has always confused me, the one about objective and subjective truths in the Merry/Serious Reinin dichotomy.
@thehotelambush -- thoughts?
Last edited by Aramas; 12-13-2017 at 06:35 AM.
Nah, I would place Bert in ILE supervision/benefactor ring.
Kind of high dimensional wanderings without no apparent purpose makes me think of EII. Hard case to crack still.
@Retsu77 has achieved LSE confirmed label due to his rants. Furthermore due to his inclinations Dialectical-Algortihmic type makes much more sense than Vortical-Synergetic. role is on the drama side than just expressing highs and lows.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I have mixed feelings about this terminology... Ti is "subjective" in that it relies on your framework of viewing the world which varies from person to person. But it is totally objective in that if you accept certain premises, you arrive at the same conclusion as anyone else who applies the same rules. Similarly it's not true that Te is somehow "generally accepted facts." Te is the process of empirical verification/falsification or gathering useful information which results in commonly accepted facts. And Ti is the process of logical deduction or checking for (in)consistency.
If there is a type that deserves to be called "subjectivist", and tends to dispute the whole idea of objective truth it would be IEI. This is also due to low Se. But you could see that in Ne egos also.
Yeah it's confirmation bias. I am aware of that.
I already know my type, dude. It was mentioned in the video - though I do wonder if I could be off. Ni/Se valuing is clear. The thinking vs feeling axis I'm less certain of.
But I can safely dismiss anyone who claims alpha or delta. I don't relate to those quadras at all. I'm scathing and cruel enough to be a Gamma but I am focused on societal issues and I enjoy having fun enough to be Beta. All the mistypes did was prove phrenology... errh, "VI" doesn't work.
not necessarily, two Ti valuers of equal dimensionality will only come to the same conclusion if given the same premises every time if they understand logic to operate in functionally the same way. In other words, what makes Ti Ti is that it is affect free in its reasoning, but that does not make it objective. It can still differentiate itself along what it believes to be the very rules of inference it follows. Truly objective rational principles are ones all judging functions share, F or T E or I
9 times out of 10 of course people who encounter eachother in time and space will share functionally similar notions of how Ti ought to proceed, but that is time bound more than anything. I guarantee you Ti of the (distant) past did not ensure same premises-> same conclusion. you might subsume "understanding of rules of logic itself" into base premises, but that simply makes the entire statement trivial, because yes its true that if people have identical understanding and identical premises of course the conclusion will be identical, but that is true across all rational functions. if you subtract that commonality out, Ti is subjective, like I said above, apart from the principles common to all rational functions.
So how would you go about determining Merry and serious? Or Ti and Te valuing in a real scenerio?
This is the problem I'm having: no one defines what the term "truth" means. It's one of those abstract nouns that could mean a lot of things.
Is a truth a true statement like - That pillow is yellow - or something else? And if so, what would it mean for that truth to be subjective or objective?
Would it be a good way to determine Te or Ti valuing to ask if someone accepts the mainstream orthodox opinion on the presence and cause of global warming?
Last edited by Aramas; 12-13-2017 at 05:16 PM.
That's because truths, like facts, are subject to change as we gain more experience and knowledge. Truth is another word for fact. If you read a statement that has "truth" in it just replace it with "fact" and it probably won't sound as abstract and won't change the way the person meant it although they might disagree on that.
I have used the concept of why leaves are green and not green before. We accept it is true, or a fact, that leaves are green when in reality they aren't. It is our perception that ultimately makes them appear green.
https://bensimonds.com/2013/05/30/li...-leaves-green/
Then you have "ultimate truths" which are a whole different subject. Since ultimate truths are generally more philosophical in nature and probably cannot be understood from a human perspective (even if some of us try).
Most people don't even know the facts so what they claim as facts are often just "faith" based on what someone else told them, even when it comes to science. I just told you about leaves but will you fact check it? If I want the facts I would have to go to the source but even then...
“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
I saw him for some time and using far more than you've said to suspect him as F type. Including nonverbal, where I've seen F-I traits. He's clearly not base T, as it's nonsense for them to use his chaotic style of messages. What I've pointed above.
> which by the by you do too
I do this from logical side. While he sometimes plays with fantasies which tries funny to rationalize with logical explanations. T type would did that lesser primitively. I saw a time when he've perverted what I said in the _near_ message, it was evident that his words are wrong and T would never did such.
The strangely low quality (in some places) of his logical thinking is the argument against T type.
So which one of those truths are we talking about with the Reinin dichotomy, facts or ultimate truths?
And yeah, I don't really care that much about the greenness of leaves. They're pretty. That's about as far as I go. I know that we perceive green because that's what our eyes and brains do as a result of processing photons that hit the retina at a certain wavelength. But that's about it. And yeah I don't bother checking sources much. I just have this internal sense of, "yeah that seems legit," or not. If I'm super interested, I look stuff up. But the greenness of leaves is not really something I'm all that into.
What if the answer to the question of objective/subjective truth is that it's an irrelevant question? Not like you can do anything about it either way.
I think facts are probably objective. But reality could be a projection of my mind. Who knows? Either way, knowing it won't change it.
Ultimate truths to me are of a spiritual/philosophical nature so would have nothing to do with these man made systems. Reinin is not an ultimate truth or fact in my perception. It is a concept used to help understand other concepts but no one fits neatly into Reinin just like no one fits neatly into their socionics, sun sign or numerology. It is all the same (trying to figure out someone's essence/cognition/personality), just different systems, but like you said, we each have some kind of internal sense of what is legit and what isn't. We are all subjective. Even the most objective of us, which are few on this forum. Then you have people who have their agendas and spread misinformation either on purpose or due to ignorance of the system.
For example we all look at the same person, like a typing video, or questionnaire and we will focus only on those aspects that support our position of that person's type. All information to the contrary will be filtered out, even what the person or their own mother says about them. Some people prefer Reinin , some Gulenko and some "classic socionics" (like @Sol) but they don't always prefer it because if they perceive themselves to be on the losing end of a debate they will switch teams and abandon their preferred socionist and go back to Aušra OR by adding enneagram/some other system. These "systems" can be correlated but there is no neat fit.
No one is listening to each other. They just talk past each other and focus on their preferred methods. It is kind of a mindfuck but if you like a good mindfuck then this is the place to be. I guess I should clarify there are some here that don't take it or themselves so seriously so they are not likely to fight about it.
Like the green leaf, it is all based on perception. That is why I used the leaf example. We might be able to attribute certain words, behavior or movements a person displays to a type but that is because perception is reality to most people. We just don't all share the same perception, even those of us with the same type.
Basically choose the source that feels legit is all you can do. I choose Jung. There are no great truths here but lots of fascinating viewpoints to consider then dismiss if they don't make sense.
“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
I wrote a very high-level overview about this in my articles 1 2. I have been meaning to write an article on the specific value dichotomies for a while. It's a complicated subject, but in theory can be derived if you know what the IM elements mean and what valuing a function means. When I learned socionics I read very little material on quadras or values dichotomies per se.
If you just ask them to answer yes or no - definitely not. If you ask them to explain why they do or don't accept it you may get some useful information regarding their thought process, and what kinds of thinking they prefer or are averse to.Would it be a good way to determine Te or Ti valuing to ask if someone accepts the mainstream orthodox opinion on the presence and cause of global warming?
Yes and fortunately socionics just makes shit up and completely shits in Jung's face. No thanks, bro.
You can't tell me Ti + Ne suddenly and magically changes to Te + Ni or something because that is absurd.
Ne ego is chaotic. That is how Ne functions in the ego, regardless of introverted thinking.
looking forward to you opening your own board so I can go on it and tell you all the ways I think you're wrong
oh wait, no one gives a fuck what you think, that's why you're here
your free thinking view is the totally unoriginal observation that people disagree over type, its not some courageous original voice of dissent, its literally the most low hanging criticism that anyone could make. and you're making it to a bunch of people who already know it all full well and acting as if you're somehow above it all while contributing literally less than nothing in order to resolve it. its like the cheapest form of moral and intellectual counterfeit credit there is and yet you're like "lol echo chamber" as if at the same time your very criticism isn't that everyone disagrees. you just seem profoundly confused, but weirdly arrogant about it at the same time. the most important thing to you seems to be feeling superior to people which just comes across as so profoundly insecure as to be pathetic beyond belief, actively disliking you is like a step up from the pity you engender and maybe that's your whole game with this trolling, which really just makes it all the more sad because your true position is downright subterranean. Jesus, dude, sort yourself out
guess he was part of the disagreement is normal "echo chamber"New ideas require at least a generation to take root. Psychological innovations even longer, since in this field more than any other practically everybody sets himself up as an authority
At least, not in thinking and structure of messages. In weak regions people may to be bad, including mb chaotic for J types.
Such in F region Ti base types may have chaotic behavior with women, jumping from one bed to other, and in the same time as J types prefering to have a stable wife which tolerates this and knows she's the only serious in his life.
I guess it is perceived by other people that don't have in their ego block as chaotic. For people with in the ego block, that function produce abstract structures, but it is only understandable for people that have strong conscious intuitive perception.
is cross-contextual and "out of the box".
Ti/Ni polrs seem most chaotic to me, especially in feeling egos