Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: I Am Tupid

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I Am Tupid

    Edited for gayness.

  2. #2
    Koneko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I sort of agree

    I remember the Thinking against Feeling discussion was way harder for me than all other 3 dichotomies together...

    As a programmer professionaly and a sort of an intellectual-wannabe it wasn't easy to realize why exactly was on my superego but it all made sense -exactly- when I realized it was a matter of "Decision Pattern".

    I imagine one's personality in what skills mean -does- has quite much to do with your social self. I shall add... that what comes from a compulsive decision pattern on human psyche determines which instances are naturally called-on the most, and repetitive usage easily translates on a skill's development.

    In a way, my profession develops in an unnatural fashion counting on my intraversion's interpersonal-safety for 12hs every day, but naturally, I can't be "Analyst" if anyone is interacting with me, because then such decision pattern switches back to natural and brings back my until then silent that develops itself in turn sinking the other back, and that would affect my judging -anywere- that's not work, even being alone.

    True analysts I know personally are logical not just when they work or study, but all of the time, their every decision in everyday matters is built on the basis of Benefit as you name it, while mines are capriciously sewed on pure dissected analyzed Emotion.

    Whenever I put my mind on a thing as simple as deciding to eat a cookie or not or which are the most accurate love expresions to tell my wife an insane ethical arithmetic (quite lagging one sometimes) comes in action for a maximization on feeling results.

    So... I agree with you in what feeling doesn't means logical unintelligence but I do still feel even when readily prepared to do my excercise like a bird underwater breathing from a snorkel half my every day. And besides is itself sometimes a powerful enough tool to show off a non-present .

    So if you noticed that intelligence hidden on the ENFp I may imagine that's because from a viewpoint they are The Ethical-Searchers,

    Just as
    ENFj can be the Ethical-Entrepreneur,
    INFp the Ethical-Critic and
    INFj the Ethical-Analyst.
    Balzac

  3. #3
    Koneko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default By the way

    By the way ^^;; I also thought about the selfish usage of skills as a means of confusing types each other and the need to talk about good and evil subtypes....

    ...because I had to believe myself i'm INFj - Evil Subtype before accepting the whole profile ^^;;;

    What's your type by the way, may I ask?
    Balzac

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're Benefit/Emotion thing makes a lot of sense, Transigent.

    One question I have, and I especially want to get the F point of view on this:
    It is probably just my T bias, but doesn't Benefit(T) seem so much more...beneficial( :wink: ) than emotion? In other words: better?

    I'm not trying to knock F types. I'm just trying to apply Tranisigent's theory, but when I do, it seems that the concept of Benefit outweighs Emotion in terms of utility.
    TiNe, LII, INTj, etc.
    "I feel like I should be making a sarcastic comment right now, but you're just so cute!" - Shego, Kim Possible

  6. #6
    Koneko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hm... your type -is- puzzling. Where exactly your introspective perception begins and where does your socionic knowledge going way too coherently with the model-a's you already know about isn't really clear...

    I can't seem to decide spontaneously whether you're statics or dynamics in grammar...

    Statics grammar themselves are more complex to sew, but in your text, I may suppose there's intelligence beyond plain compulsiveness about writing well using subjunctive modes, linking, prothasis-apodosis sentences. Your sentences seems to "breath" when going back to dynamics whereever it won't mean a lack of intuitive detail...

    I'd say you're a *complex* Dynamics.
    And INTP, INFP, ISFP, ISTP are the intraverts in that game
    (Note apart. ExxP/IxxJ = Statics, ExxJ/IxxP = Dynamics)

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I don't really feel at the mercy of
    Just in case you're having doubts about what's for your psyche...
    In mine, is the hateful skill that would make me "breath" anyone's mood around me, in a way I can tell from the very first time which are -exactly- the words that would make my interlocutor go mad enough to kill me; and from such instant discovery, a edifies a neurotic indirect speechstyle that's carefully and instinctively taylored for the current intorlocutor setting those weakspots as far from any emitted word as possible. As for why an INFj isn't that much harmful even knowing that much, it's because it lack's the necessary to make use of it and fears too much the other one's in turn; so we always "attack" by artistically ignoring others.

    As a concrete symptom of having as first function, being unable to look others straightly at their eyes is an overwhelming example, since it's -then- when others pass thru your defense line and you're at their mercy. Nailing my eyes on somebody else's is going shamefully naked, an imprudent self-unforgivable small suicide an INFj can't allow itself to perform in anyone else but their utmost beloved and at the same time confident ones (at no others but their identical INFj and maybe their lookalikes INTj and their comparatives ISFj, and in very-very exceptional situations, even if they're close ones)

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    My "smoothing" function (utilitarian) is
    That might have helped as an Evil- self-mercy description... if nothing of it sounds and it even sounds like a nuisance and loss of time, it has chances of being your -correction- function, on your ID answering to having on your Ego. If it doens't feels even a loss-of-time and moreover feels aggressive or amusing, it might be somewhere else on your model, between your Superego or your Superid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I hate
    That factor is interesting as it opens the chance of both ISFp and INFp types. I do love it to see other's acts of active evil benefit gain. If you hate it ISFp is a chance as well because:

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I like
    Both INFp and ISFp have those three functions on their Superego and Superid where they more help than harm, triggering a -thing- for perceiving them on others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    Ah, if I want something done PERFECT I will call an ISFj or INTj...
    Just like if I wanted to know who my friends really are, I would call an INTj or an ISTj...
    Either as an INFp or ISFp you're in good terms with those types.
    As INFp
    INTJ = Beneficiary (Harmless relationship)
    ISTJ = Activity (Amusing relationship)
    ISFJ = Benefactor (Asymetric self-benefit relationship)

    As ISFp
    ISTJ = Beneficiary (Harmless relationship)
    INTJ = Activity (Amusing relationship)
    ISFJ = Quasi-Identical (Superficial kinship relationship)

    ISFp's also love people and fit for plenty if that description...

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I have been around so many people, and have adopted so many philosophies that it is difficult to say which one is "truly" me...
    INFp's also do get along with lots of people as ISFp does, but INFp does with mainly -eccentric- ones.

    The millon's question would be...
    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I can't seem to use
    Does it turns you on in a way? or just nags a little? That is... would that be corrective or suggestive? And the same question about .

    Your notions are very intuitive to suppose you're ISFp but you may be very excercised on secondary functions as well, so it's not odd to ask oneself.

    If i were to guess right now... yes... you're an INFp ^^
    Balzac

  7. #7
    Koneko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What is "better"?

    Quote Originally Posted by XcaliburGirl
    It is probably just my T bias, but doesn't Benefit(T) seem so much more...beneficial( :wink: ) than emotion? In other words: better?
    It is more profitable indeed in terms of utility, no F type would deny it. The subtle disregard there is one of axiological nature. Since it's the word "better" itself which has a different meaning at a subconscious level between F and T types.

    Anything is "better" for an F if it's more emotinally profitable.
    Anything is "better" for an T if it's more utilitary profitable.

    Your would be enough to let you understand both viewpoints Choosing -rightly- doesn't makes us happy as it does for a T regardless if we actually can or not.

    It's not hard to get convinced that X, subject, Y, object, "X wants Y", "X likes Y" are propositions feasible to truth or falseness. Hence the same sylogisms Ti does use of are core of Fi as well, just that the fuel that feeds them and the ideal they chase are all way different content. Ethical sylogisms should look insane and meaningless for true people while they're the natural excersise for a , and that be abstracted on the constructive bias for - comparison as well but I don't think I need to go further. Ehitcs -are- rational, just may not be -interesting-, and -interest- is where the difference lies on.

    Quote Originally Posted by XcaliburGirl
    I'm not trying to knock F types.
    You're not knocking me at all I'm actually glad and lucky that others can guide the world to what it's convenient while I can delight myself in the art of caprice. I'm more fearful that you T types get mad at my attitude instead
    Balzac

Posting Permissions

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