Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 89

Thread: Reinin dichotomy: Merry/Subjectivists vs Serious/Objectivists

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Reinin dichotomy: Merry/Subjectivists vs Serious/Objectivists

    CHEERFULNESS – SERIOUSNESS (subjectivity - objectivism)
    VESELOST – SEREZNOST (subektivizm - obektivizm)

    Cheerful, the subjectivists (I and II quadra):
    Veselye, oni zhe subektivisty (I i II kvadry):

    1. Cheerful are very good at noticing the general emotional background that accompanies contact with people (For example: enthusiasm, fun, stress and so on). Fun (And probably every other emotional experience) for them is allocated into a separate aspect of an activity (They can, for example, to a question on what they were doing answer: "We had fun" – the emotional aspect of the action is allocated)
    2. Cheerful does not perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity (in contrast to the serious, for which it is a form of ritual). They know/realize very well why they are getting acquainted (the purpose of this acquaintance – interest, business and so on). In contrast to the serious they do not divide the process of acquainting into consecutive stages. They can immediately establish/determine emotional distance in contact and adapt/regulate it. They overcome boundaries between them and strangers by emotional incandescence (It can either bring them together or move them apart). The "name" behind the person is of secondary relevance, interest is on the person, relations are paramount and so on – therefore they do not count formality as a necessary part of acquaintance.
    3. The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors – evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things – but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something – in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different – we'll do something else"
    4. "Verification of concepts" - the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. The perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
    5. Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions like "Let me present my point of view" "According to my understanding" "personal criteria" "it matches accepted beliefs" "I have concluded" "they insisted" and so on. They in detail describe verbal communication – especially their part in it, their "interventions" in the conversations and what they were (Or were not).

    Serious, the objectivists (III and IV kvadry):
    Sereznye, oni zhe obektivisty (III i IV kvadry):

    1. Serious are very bad at noticing the underlining emotional background, they do not perceive the emotional aspect of concepts/actions (for example "fun") separate from the concept/action itself and substitute them with their interpretations, concepts/words that have no direct emotional elements (Instead of the word "fun" they may use "entertainment", "leisure", "pleasure" and so on). They do not perceive the emotional exchange as a separate occurrence, they are inclined to mix it with other matters (They can have fun while working, when they are engaged in serious affairs, "just having fun")
    2. For the serious acquainting with new people is represented by a special ritual necessary for rapprochement with them (If this ritual was not carried out them the serious does not consider themselves acquainted, for example: "We did not introduce ourselves"). In situations of acquaintance for the serious it is easier if the affinity of contact (Emotional distance) is set externally i.e. the degree of emotional distance will be set by some sort of "mediator" (Whether this be a person, situation or something other) which allows to skip the first stage of establishing emotional distance and begin closer dialogue/contact. For overcoming boundaries between them and other people serious create (or they use already existing) "rules" or "rituals" for the step by step rapprochement. They are aware of all the stages of the process of acquainting (When the status changes from "strangers" to acquaintances). For the rapprochement for the serious it is important to know the name, title, any other thing that describes this new person – therefore formal representation is a very important stage of acquainting.
    3. In objectivists there is an idea of "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general (common) experience; they consider that there exist "true in general", "always correct" laws. They suppose that other people can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view (This allows the existence of "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore from the point of view of the objectivists, actions can be different – subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective (Where there is only one "correct", "best" 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 propositions on how to accomplish an action like the subjectivist) which they think are the best: "No – you will do it "the correct way"". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general – "objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "best" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
    4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts 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 the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".
    5. In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give mass of examples (All "correct" and "incorrect" actions are based on examples)

    Note

    During 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 with the serious attribute 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 hill) it is a typical "situation - intermediary" case, where the boundaries have been established by the intermediary.

    Hypothesis

    Dichotomy ethics – logic strengthens the attributes (Ethics strengthens cheerfulness, logic seriousness)

    Examples

    Cheerful (subjectivists):
    "Fun – lot's of emotions... company of friends, we exchange news, possibly go have a bite to eat, sing songs" "Fun – this is involvement, when you actively participate. When you look or read – these are instructions, fun – this is active, a state of constant excitement, something one cannot confuse with leisure/rest (a slack state)... perhaps fun for me it is – exciting contact, dialogue that (As oppose to a fight, quarrel and so on) bonds" "Reading books, opera – this is not fun... fun – lots of vitality" "Fun – a state of liberation where things do not seem serious" "Fun is pleasure, recklessness, everyone participates, dropping of boundaries" "If I'm in a company of new people and we do not introduce ourselves this to me has nothing to so with getting to know each other" "The majority of people with whom I "fray" - I do not know their name" "Anyone can follow established rules on how to engage contact, but it does not mean that you will actually get acquainted" "For me in company of others names are not important" "Only after a weak I remember what his name was even though we had already passionately kissed (About meeting her future husband)" "When I see that someone does something wrong, has problems with something, I first have to check if that is any of my business. If it concerns me, then my first reaction – to step back and give the proper way to "troubled person"... I have my own ideas on how to do things, "a mind of my own", as should be, but so does everyone else" "First you place the axe, then you explain why you did so" "I have considered what has been stated and conclude that is does concert to the given theme/topic"

    Serious (objectivists):
    "It is difficult for me to differentiate activity/work from fun. Fun... it is difficult to define" "I approach everything seriously, even rest" "It is always possible to find something прикольное in seriousness and vice versa" "To study/work is necessarily fun. Work without an entertainment element is impossible" "What constitutes "fun" – is not clear, what leisure is – that is clear, what is entertainment – that is as well" "It is important that I get introduced when I'm in company of people I never met before, or better yet, that they have been told a little about myself" "I engage other people in the manner suggested to me, I do not engage them if I do not know whether it will be "pleasant"" "I don't like it when other people "thrust" themselves upon me or when it is done on other people: suddenly my aunt, which I'm seeing for the first time, starts calling me her little "sugar-root" or some other thing like "[insert mushy expression here]" and so on." "The name is important, if a person does not say their name it often means that they do not want to have the conversation" "If it is done the wrong way? Oy! It is easier for me to grab it and do it myself then to waste my time explaining. In my opinion there is only one way to "hammer a nail"" "There are things with which it is clearly observable what is ineffective and if there are better ways of doing it. It's very irritating when a person consistently fails to see this and just keeps "hammering the nail backwards"" "When I see something performed "inappropriately" it makes my stomach churn" "It's great punishment when I see something that clearly contradicts common sense and I can do nothing about it. If I can interfere with the situation – I do, regardless if whether or not if it concerns me" "The methods/ways used by a person that steam from their experience (Are in their framework) – this is not the same thing as objective methods/ways of doing things (Evidenced by the results)"
    Merry: Alpha and Beta
    Serious: Gamma and Delta
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm definitely Serious.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm usually a Serious(objectivist).
    ex-nameless ixtp
    *** Warning - Risk of poor communication and late response.

  4. #4
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Merry
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree a bit with the quadra allotments, since I am of the Alpha Quadra but most definitely "serious" as described here.
    INTJ/INTj

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no way that I can identify with merry. It is absolutely certain that I am serious.

    Some of you might remember that I, in a couple of other threads, have talked about two kinds of philosophical thinking, two "camps", which I called subjectivists/relativists" versus "objectivists". I didn't realize then that what is described here in 3 (and under "serious" also in 4) is almost exactly the same dichotomy as the one I had in mind. Very interesting.

    Of course I am an objectivist in this sense. (And I was right about the INTjs being "subjectivists" ... )

  7. #7
    oyburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    somewhere overthere
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Merry for me.
    All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster

  8. #8
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Merry

  9. #9
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,634
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    There is no way that I can identify with merry. It is absolutely certain that I am serious.

    Some of you might remember that I, in a couple of other threads, have talked about two kinds of philosophical thinking, two "camps", which I called subjectivists/relativists" versus "objectivists". I didn't realize then that what is described here in 3 (and under "serious" also in 4) is almost exactly the same dichotomy as the one I had in mind. Very interesting.

    Of course I am an objectivist in this sense. (And I was right about the INTjs being "subjectivists" ... )
    Don't bullshit, Phaddy. The possibility of a paradigm shift doesn't exclude that trhough detailed analysis each logically incorrect paradigm is excluded, till only one remains.

    In any case, subjectivist.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know if i'd call an istj cheerful.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    There is no way that I can identify with merry. It is absolutely certain that I am serious.

    Some of you might remember that I, in a couple of other threads, have talked about two kinds of philosophical thinking, two "camps", which I called subjectivists/relativists" versus "objectivists". I didn't realize then that what is described here in 3 (and under "serious" also in 4) is almost exactly the same dichotomy as the one I had in mind. Very interesting.

    Of course I am an objectivist in this sense. (And I was right about the INTjs being "subjectivists" ... )
    Don't bullshit, Phaddy. The possibility of a paradigm shift doesn't exclude that trhough detailed analysis each logically incorrect paradigm is excluded, till only one remains.
    What do you mean "bullshit"? What is your point? I only made an observation which confirmed that I have the same view on one of many differences between INTjs and INTps as the one described in this dichotomy. What is the problem with that?

  12. #12
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I almost couldn't decide this when I picked the rest of the dichotomies, but I read it again and I'm clearly serious over cheerful. I must have been on drugs when I read it the first time and managed to identify with merry.

    My chart is wrong now. I'm not pleased. I'll update it when I have the chance.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  13. #13
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do not understand how I could be considered "serious" over "merry".
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  14. #14
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Someone really should change the labels of this dichotomy. When looking at it as Merry vs. Serious, you would think that the INTj would have to be "Serious." Likewise, the INTj (and all xxTxs) would most likely be included in the Objective label. There would most likely be additional dichotomies within quadras as well.

    The real dichotomy that it seems is being described is Connotative View vs. Denotative View, that is an implicit view versus an explicit view or reality.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  15. #15
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "What do you mean "bullshit"? What is your point? I only made an observation which confirmed that I have the same view on one of many differences between INTjs and INTps as the one described in this dichotomy. What is the problem with that?"

    Who are these INTjs you've "noticed" subjectivism in? I'm certainly not a "subjectivist," and I am also certainly an INTj, so don't try making blanket, or even quilted, statements like that.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  16. #16
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am Serious. No question whatsoever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    I do not understand how I could be considered "serious" over "merry".
    Yeah this dichotomy actually reflects or preference, and I think irrational can be mistaken for .
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Who are these INTjs you've "noticed" subjectivism in?
    I have noticed "subjectivism" -- in the sense defined in this dichotomy, which is roughly the same as the sense I tried to explain in the thread "Socrates" -- in the real life INTjs I know and also in texts written by philosophers those real life INTjs are drawn to.

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    I'm certainly not a "subjectivist," and I am also certainly an INTj, so don't try making blanket, or even quilted, statements like that.
    You are certainly an INTj? Well, contrary to me being an INTp, that is not yet a proven fact, since, for example, your answers to these dichotimies are not 100 % compatible with that hypothesis and you still, as far as I know, identify more with the MBTI descriptions of INTPs than with INTJs. That is not easy to explain if you are an INTj.

    I am not saying that you are not an INTj. You could be an INTj, but if you really are an INTj, then you have an incorrect view of yourselves in some respects. One thing is certain: If you are an INTj you simply must identify more with the IJ temperament than with the IP temperament as described here:

    http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=5697

    The whole discussion in that thread is very important if you want to determine for sure whether you are an INTj or an INTp.

  18. #18
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,634
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Phaedrus, why do you have to overcomplicate everything? Gawd. Don't you see how bloody annoying your attitude is, just because MS doesn't fit into your system of crap doesn't fucking mean he's not INTj.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Phaedrus, why do you have to overcomplicate everything? Gawd. Don't you see how bloody annoying your attitude is, just because MS doesn't fit into your system of crap doesn't fucking mean he's not INTj.
    What I said in my last post is absolutely 100 % true, and I am sick and tired of hearing bullshit comments like the one you just made.

  20. #20
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,634
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Phaedrus, why do you have to overcomplicate everything? Gawd. Don't you see how bloody annoying your attitude is, just because MS doesn't fit into your system of crap doesn't fucking mean he's not INTj.
    What I said in my last post is absolutely 100 % true, and I am sick and tired of hearing bullshit comments like the one you just made.
    Nonsense. If you only had a pair of eyes instead of just a brain hard-wired to the keyboard you'd notice his extreme INTj-ness. However, he's less than you.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  21. #21
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Reinin dichotomies: Reasonable/Resolute and Merry/Serious

    What do you know about the following Reinin dichotomies
    Reasonable / Resolute
    Merry / Obstinate

    I read them and for some weird reason I associated myself with Reasonable and Merry.

    I'm interested in some...more reliable descriptions of especially Merry/Serious category. Me being merry and reasonable would make me Alpha. Where serious would put me to...where...Delta? Gamma? (apparently it is Fe vs Te).

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Reinin dichotomies: Reasonable/Resolute and Merry/Obstin

    The opposite of Merry is Serious. The opposite of Obstinacy is Compliance.

    Why don't you first try to read for example Smilingeyes' exposition in Smilexian Socionics?

    oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=9033

  23. #23
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Reinin dichotomies: Reasonable/Resolute and Merry/Obstin

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    The opposite of Merry is Serious. The opposite of Obstinacy is Compliance.

    Why don't you first try to read for example Smilingeyes' exposition in Smilexian Socionics?

    oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=9033
    Urgh. That's a bug. It is getting late. Yes Merry and Serious. Reasonable and Resolute.

  24. #24
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Reinin dichotomies: Reasonable/Resolute and Merry/Obstin

    Apparently I am resolute after all and just mixing IP temperament and dichotomies.

    So forget about what I said about myself but please talk about the dichotomies. They are interesting.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    The real dichotomy that it seems is being described is Connotative View vs. Denotative View, that is an implicit view versus an explicit view or reality.
    This is a very important point that I seem to have missed when it was made. It is exactly my point point too. A very clear example of a Denotative view on language can be seen in the works of the Objectivist Bertrand Russell. Contrast him with someone like Michael Dummett, Richard Rorty, or anyone else of the anti-realists and you'll notice the difference.

  26. #26
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let's suppose that and are interest-based - and are resource-based.

    Subjectivists are based on interests, and Objectivists are based on resources.

    It's like Compliance/Obstinacy :

    Compliant has or in Inert conscious block (functions 1 and 4) and or in Contact conscious block (functions 2 and 3)
    Obstinate has or in Inert conscious block (functions 1 and 4) and or in Contact conscious block (functions 2 and 3)


    Hypothesis :

    Compliant / Obstinate == Resource-Protecting / Interest-Protecting.
    Objectivism / Subjectivism == Resource-Valuing / Interest-Valuing.

  27. #27
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    merry

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  28. #28
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not really sure which one I am - I think I decided Serious before.

    I recognise that people have different ways of seeing things, but I also think some ways are better than others (but not necessarily one way). I follow the way I see best, but feel unable to force it upon people, because that would be against some of the principles I hold (I act how I want others to act, even if this means they end up not acting that way, due to my passiveness).

    Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on
    If Subjectivists are aware of the differences of opinion in people, and objectivists aren't, then how are objectivists an 'objective' representation of reality? I think by objectivist they mean someone who makes things objective by ignoring anomalies, and getting a general picture of reality, rather than a 'real' one. Though subjectivists have a more specific + local picture - they may be aware of the finer details of many varied cultures for example, but not the general worldview.

    I think I'm probably Merry, because I think that relationships should just happen, rather than be several agonising stages - if it isn't well developed early on, it isn't worth bearing the pain of being in that person's company (although I wouldn't tell them that ).
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  29. #29
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Merry vs. Serious

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Merry: Alpha and Beta
    Serious: Gamma and Delta
    INTj: Merry?
    ESFp: Serious?

  30. #30
    ษminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Serious here.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  31. #31
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i actually identify with bits of both.

    4. "Verification of concepts" - the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. The perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
    this. i am unsteady in my understanding of whether i'm this way or not. this seems sort of central to understanding languages/dialects.


    on the other hand, i completely freak out if someone is overly friendly and "emotionally incandescent" with me on the first meeting, which points more towards serious.
    6w5 sx
    model Φ: -+0
    sloan - rcuei

  32. #32
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Having re-skimmed this, I'm not sure I agree with 3 through 5 of the descriptions. I could see how it might look this way in some cases from a "merry" perspective, but there are a lot of cases in which it doesn't apply.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  33. #33
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also, number 2 on the serious description is clearly written from a merry perspective. "Rituals" and "ceremonies" and "formalities" aren't the issue... Those are all external things, and Fi is internal. I think that's just what the Fe-valuing type who wrote it assumed as he stood on the outside looking into Fi-valuing behavior and trying to puzzle it out. I think I wrote about this once before in regards to how Fe valuing types see Fi valuing types.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The difference between a Connotative and a Denotative view on reality that Logos mentions in this thread is the exact the same difference as the one we have recently discussed here:

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18671

    Saul Kripke's causal theory of reference (see especially page 3 in the link) is a Denotative view on meaning and reality. Denotative views on language and the world should be contrasted with various theories of language meaning that can be called "cluster" theories. They are more common but also false. And the Connotative view on reality that INTjs have is one of the main reasons why they are relativists.

  35. #35
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are you sure that's the right thread?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Are you sure that's the right thread?
    Yes, but it's not the main topic of it. It is my discussion with crazedrat (starting somewhere on page 2, I think) about language meaning that is relevant. What crazedrat first describes and takes as his starting point is the "cluster" view on meaning, which is related to the Connotative view that Logos mentioned. I disagree with that view on meaning and offer an alternative view, which I believe is much more correct, and that view -- the causal theory of reference -- is related to the Denotative view.

  37. #37
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol no wonder I didn't see it
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  38. #38
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Very clearly merry/subjective. As are my brother, my sister-in-law and father and husband and everyone in my family of creation. My EII mother, however, is serious/objective. And it's evident.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  39. #39
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    I think I'm probably Merry, because I think that relationships should just happen, rather than be several agonising stages - if it isn't well developed early on, it isn't worth bearing the pain of being in that person's company (although I wouldn't tell them that ).
    I have to comment here that the use of "agonizing" in this sense is entirely appropriate, IMO.

    Although I am definitely aware of what stage a relationship is currently residing, I vehemently object to the concept that someone I am interested is "gating" me according to some obscure internal sense of propriety. It feels like artificially manipulating the natural course of a mutual exchange that would just develop by itself if given the chance.
    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  40. #40
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I'm definitely Serious.
    Hahahaha, that coupled with that massive post. Couldn't help but laugh.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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