True and pissed version of me

[nondescript]

So you've seen me post. You've seen how I think. That's nothing new by this point. But I am sick and tired of answering questions! And in every type there's at least something I don't like. My confidence jumps between extremely sure to extremely unsure. The tear between reality 1(nature), reality 2(nurture) and various theories further aggravates me! I AM SO PISSED!

people look my video and everyone sees differently. One see Se, others see Fe, while others see Ne. GOD BLIND ME! IT'S TOO MUCH FOR MY FKED UP T!!!

Fk these types! I am what I am and that is ME !!! Really...what are these types important for anyhow? EVERYTHING can be overcome with a bit of faith and a bit of willpower. Hell, Buddhist monks on Tibet can lower their heart rate to 15 ppm(!!!) and to sleep on bed of nails(!!!). I find all of this a major case of crap tbh. Pure, intangible case of crap. Why would an intabgible thing interest me? And why is it better than astrology hm?


...really so mad! If you want, I can fetch my vid and look over it all you want. I know you'll get off on that anyhow

REALLY SORRY for !

edit: time for massive dump of horseshit! Yeah, did you think it'd go without that? Well, tough luck! Better luck next time!

[Pookie]

Youre dramatic

[nondescript]

Youre dramatic

Of course I am! This is what happens when shitpickles surround you! I mean Asuryan save me!

Which types are dramatic?

(shiiiiiiiit )

[Capitalist Pig]

i read none of this but you should probably calm down

[nondescript]

i read none of this but you should probably calm down

I am doing it for fun now. Can't you tell?

[Aylen]

I giggled at your post. It did seem dramatic but ultimately something most people, I personally know, also conclude over time. Then they can actually have fun with these concepts and not take them so serious.

I like astrology.. Depending on the type I am either Scorpio rising or Scorpio sun. Either way I have a scorpion inside me.

[ouronis]

K good for you.

[nondescript]

I giggled at your post. It did seem dramatic but ultimately something most people, I personally know, also conclude over time. Then they can actually have fun with these concepts and not take them so serious.

I like astrology.. Depending on the type I am either Scorpio rising or Scorpio sun. Either way I have a scorpion inside me.

You mean depending on house system?

Yeahm it varies greatly, but that's because their purpose(purpose of house systems) varies greatly as well. As I'm sure you know.

There is just this person who insists I am ESE and is a bit thick about it.

[lirpa]

Here's some Fiona Apple, maybe this will help

[Suz]

You mean depending on house system?

Yeahm it varies greatly, but that's because their purpose(purpose of house systems) varies greatly as well. As I'm sure you know.

There is just this person who insists I am ESE and is a bit thick about it.

If you resonate most with gamma SF then that's what it is... ignore the people who say they know you better than you do. There are a bunch of people around here who like to do that, i guess it makes them feel important or something.

[marooned]

Say something, I'm giving up on you
I'm sorry that I couldn't get to you
Anywhere I would've followed you
Say something, I'm giving up on you

(^you to us...)

[darya]

if it takes you this much time to identify the IE's in your ego and after all this reading can't understand the difference between Fe and Se, you should take up something like gardening - more productive and in line with your mental capabilities.

[nondescript]

Say something, I'm giving up on you
I'm sorry that I couldn't get to you
Anywhere I would've followed you
Say something, I'm giving up on you

(^you to us...)

Those are very nice lyrics. Thanks!

Yes, I am gamma SF. Whether extro or intro is always up for debate, but I happen to think it's intro because I am not keen at all on conquest as See's are. But the defence? OH YEAH! You better believe it. But then again(lol hello HP!), ... I understand CD very well, but that could be for outside reasons. I REALLY doubt that one can understand HP because of outside reasons(unless a person's family is filled with detectives to the top /shrug). There's that.

It's not that I doubt, but when a person is adamant, I tend to suspect it could be true. Also, that was very not in line with Fe darya...

[summerprincess]

If you think that types don't matter than why are you on a Sociotyping forum? Lol...and they honestly really don't mean shit and have basically no scientific validation. It's just a fun hobby for me personally and they make personal sense to me, but I'm a kinda mystical person who likes to entertain many different ideas. Anybody who 100% believes in the theory of Socionics and its validity is an idiot

[Olduvai]

I'd say you're LIE. Your unbridled ebullience suggests Positivism > Negativism. Your tendency to jump from thought to thought suggests Emotivism > Constructivism. Your disdain for the intangible suggests unvalued Ne. Your knowledge of technology suggests Te > Fe (what is 4DX and how does it differ from IMAX?? also, Djem So FTW). Your reluctance to be "sharp and senseless" suggests FiTe > FeTi. Your obsession with vivid sensory stimuli suggests Se valuation (I think of Si as stuff like gentle touches, soft caresses, and warm embraces). Your desire for connection suggests Fi valuation. Your extensive knowledge of theoretical concepts and imaginary constructs suggests Intuition > Sensation (for example, I don't think a Sensor would know about the seven forms of lightsaber combat).

You remind me of this kid I used to play tennis with. Your energy, your dynamism -- it's the exact same as his. Dude was a total motormouth. And he loved to give me shit about my grip. He'd constantly tell me I needed to change it to something more conventional (I use an extreme western grip). He had all sorts of suggestions for how I could improve my game. He told me about a tennis instruction website I'd never heard of before (which was surprising -- I've done quite a bit of research on the subject). He came up with drills that we could do. But we ultimately parted ways becuz he couldn't handle how stubborn I was with my grip (fuck that eastern grip bullshit, hawaiian all the way).

If you want a Alpha SF, you needn't look further than Clay from this season of Big Brother:

And if we're talking Beta STs, Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty is the quinessential LSI:

And I think that Jackie from Big Brother is SEE:


Finally, some questions:
How aware are you of your personal feelings?
How adept are you at understanding how a particular object functions, i.e. what its purpose is?
Do naturally analyze peoples' statements for logical consistency and/or validity?
How protective are you of your personal resources, including your time?

I wish I could think of more questions but I'm tired and don't feel like thinking.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

haha cool freakout


choose your horseshit wisely

[Myst]

I'd say you're LIE. Your unbridled ebullience suggests Positivism > Negativism. Your tendency to jump from thought to thought suggests Emotivism > Constructivism. Your disdain for the intangible suggests unvalued Ne. Your knowledge of technology suggests Te > Fe (what is 4DX and how does it differ from IMAX?? also, Djem So FTW). Your reluctance to be "sharp and senseless" suggests FiTe > FeTi. Your obsession with vivid sensory stimuli suggests Se valuation (I think of Si as stuff like gentle touches, soft caresses, and warm embraces). Your desire for connection suggests Fi valuation. Your extensive knowledge of theoretical concepts and imaginary constructs suggests Intuition > Sensation (for example, I don't think a Sensor would know about the seven forms of lightsaber combat).

You remind me of this kid I used to play tennis with. Your energy, your dynamism -- it's the exact same as his. Dude was a total motormouth. And he loved to give me shit about my grip. He'd constantly tell me I needed to change it to something more conventional (I use an extreme western grip). He had all sorts of suggestions for how I could improve my game. He told me about a tennis instruction website I'd never heard of before (which was surprising -- I've done quite a bit of research on the subject). He came up with drills that we could do. But we ultimately parted ways becuz he couldn't handle how stubborn I was with my grip (fuck that eastern grip bullshit, hawaiian all the way).

Wow such a superficial analysis.... a lot of it isn't quite relevant to typing. I like the list of questions though and want to see what OP answers to them, heh

@nondescript Gamma SF still makes sense to me

[Olduvai]

Wow such a superficial analysis....

Wow, such an unconstructive and inconsiderate thing to say.... At least have the balls/decency to back it up with some reasoning.

Besides, I don't think what anyone else has said has been any deeper or more nuanced. You yourself haven't even given an analysis. You're just parroting what other people have said becuz you're too scared to make a call.

a lot of it isn't quite relevant to typing.

The anecdote about my former hitting partner is kind of irrelevant, but everything else is solid evidence.

I like the list of questions though and want to see what OP answers to them, heh

Thanks, I came up with them all by myself I'm sure OP's answers to them will provide further evidence in favor of LIE.

Gamma SF still makes sense to me

A good reason to not take your opinion seriously.

[Myst]

Wow, such an unconstructive and inconsiderate thing to say.... At least have the balls/decency to back it up with some reasoning.

Besides, I don't think what anyone else has said has been any deeper or more nuanced. You yourself haven't even given an analysis. You're just parroting what other people have said becuz you're too scared to make a call.

Reading bullshit into my lines about my motivations is not gonna do any good. You're very very off there with these assumptions, wtf.


I did give OP an analysis in his other type thread before.

My reasoning for your analysis is as follows below if it was not obvious why I find it superficial beyond how I already pointed out that in general the "evidence" has low relevance;

The anecdote about my former hitting partner is kind of irrelevant, but everything else is solid evidence.

No, not solid evidence, simply playing around with weak-ish correlations between concrete traits and type is no good to find what information processing one does in their head.

Some examples:

Your unbridled ebullience suggests Positivism > Negativism

No, it can come from other factors.

Your tendency to jump from thought to thought suggests Emotivism > Constructivism

This is even less related.

Your knowledge of technology suggests Te > Fe

I'm quite sure that Ti valuing types can have this knowledge too.

Etc.

Thanks, I came up with them all by myself I'm sure OP's answers to them will provide further evidence in favor of LIE.

Well we will see that. *skepticism*

A good reason to not take your opinion seriously.

Because I don't agree with you? LOL

Ah and I see gamma SF primarily because of his posts on the forum so far indicating Fi valuing, high S with weak and devalued Ne and Ti. If OP is interested I will gladly find those posts for him.

[Olduvai]

Reading bullshit into my lines about my motivations is not gonna do any good. You're very very off there with these assumptions, wtf.

lolok

I did give OP an analysis in his other type thread before.

Sorry, I must've missed it. I'll give it a look-see when I have the time.

No, not solid evidence, simply playing around with weak-ish correlations between concrete traits and type is no good to find what information processing one does in their head.

I think behaviors and tendencies have a great deal to do with information processing.

No, it can come from other factors.

In the context of socionics I think it's a surefire indicator. Negativists are prickly and grumbly, positivists are ebullient and carefree.

This is even less related.

Absolutely not. Emotivists tend to be tangential and free-form in their speech, constructivists tend to stick to a point/topic of conversation.

I'm quite sure that Ti valuing types can have this knowledge too.

Okay, I'll give you that. But Te is often associated with factual information, which is what OP was offering there. Plus, you're the one who thinks he's a Te-ego.

Well we will see that. *skepticism*

*Confidence* We will indeed.

Because I don't agree with you? LOL

No, becuz you think he's Gamma SF.

Ah and I see gamma SF primarily because of his posts on the forum so far indicating Fi valuing, high S with weak and devalued Ne and Ti. If OP is interested I will gladly find those posts for him.

So we agree on some things. Nice.

[Myst]

I think behaviors and tendencies have a great deal to do with information processing.

There is a link but I find the correlations too weak; it's not a one to one relation as behaviours can result from different factors, information processing can't be derived from them directly.

If you were to try and using such operationalizations of definitions you tried put all those traits together for every representative of each socionics type, you'd often end up with observations contradicting this version of the theory.

In the context of socionics I think it's a surefire indicator. Negativists are prickly and grumbly, positivists are ebullient and carefree.

It cannot be a surefire indicator as these are just behavioural traits again while the concept of negativism/positivism is not about that.

Also, as above, I'm sure observations would not match up.

Absolutely not. Emotivists tend to be tangential and free-form in their speech, constructivists tend to stick to a point/topic of conversation.

"Tend to be", like, 60% of the time? That'd be a pretty weak trend for my liking if trying to type someone.

Okay, I'll give you that. But Te is often associated with factual information, which is what OP was offering there. Plus, you're the one who thinks he's a Te-ego.

Er, you mean Te valuing, not Te ego, yea?

Anyhow, yes I happen to think Te valuing for him, just not strong enough Te to be in ego.

*Confidence* We will indeed.

Lol..

No, becuz you think he's Gamma SF.

And how's that a reason for anything regarding the quality of my opinion on his type?

So we agree on some things. Nice.

Sure, @nondescript's not gonna escape Gamma quadra that easily

[Olduvai]

There is a link but I find the correlations too weak; it's not a one to one relation as behaviours can result from different factors, information processing can't be derived from them directly.

It's evidence in favor of. It isn't much, but it's there.

If you were to try and using such operationalizations of definitions you tried put all those traits together for every representative of each socionics type, you'd often end up with observations contradicting this version of the theory.

I feel like that's true no matter how you choose to define your concepts. Socionics is pretty vague and imprecise.

It cannot be a surefire indicator as these are just behavioural traits again while the concept of negativism/positivism is not about that.

Figuratively speaking, if a positivist is shown the "front side", they will continue to look at the front side. A negativist, on the other hand, will try to find the "back side". Positivists generally accept things at face value (at least initially), whereas negativists are virtually always doubtful. Negstivists are quick to contradict/invalidate. Positivists are a bit more willing to entertain ideas. You'll more often hear negativists use invalidating words or phrases ("no", "you're wrong", "bullshit", etc) when expressing disagreement than you will positivists, who are more likely to voice their skepticism by painting the topic in an ironic or absurdist light. Hence why negativists come off as prickly.

"Tend to be", like, 60% of the time? That'd be a pretty weak trend for my liking if trying to type someone.

How about "more often than not".

Er, you mean Te valuing, not Te ego, yea?

Yeah, my bad.

Anyhow, yes I happen to think Te valuing for him, just not strong enough Te to be in ego.

Well, maybe I can find some nore evidence for strong Te.

And how's that a reason for anything regarding the quality of my opinion on his type?

It was kind of a joke. As in, "it's ridiculous that you'd type him gamma sf becuz that obviously isn't the case".

Sure, nondescript not gonna escape Gamma quadra that easily

Dude knows about obscure nerdy shit like the 7 forms of lightsaber combat. He even has a favorite form. He's also very familiar with abstract theoretical concepts (socionics, jung, etc). I just don't think a sensor would venture that far outside of the immediately tangible. They'd be lost in the woods.

[Myst]

It's evidence in favor of. It isn't much, but it's there.

You sounded more confident of the LIE typing originally, lol

I feel like that's true no matter how you choose to define your concepts. Socionics is pretty vague and imprecise.

I find the real core definitions are not vague. Imprecise sure in terms of the basic IE categories being really broad meaning you have to be careful at what conclusions you can draw based on them.

Figuratively speaking, if a positivist is shown the "front side", they will continue to look at the front side. A negativist, on the other hand, will try to find the "back side". Positivists generally accept things at face value (at least initially), whereas negativists are virtually always doubtful. Negstivists are quick to contradict/invalidate. Positivists are a bit more willing to entertain ideas. You'll more often hear negativists use invalidating words or phrases ("no", "you're wrong", "bullshit", etc) when expressing disagreement than you will positivists, who are more likely to voice their skepticism by painting the topic in an ironic or absurdist light. Hence why negativists come off as prickly.

My problem with this is that I can relate to both sides of such descriptions of the dichotomies. The same with trying to apply it to other people too. All the reinin dichotomies if looked at in this way turn out bullshit whereas if I look at their core definitions from a Model A standpoint I can find some validity to some of the reinin dichotomies ...though I'm still a bit doubtful on that too

How about "more often than not".

Doesn't help, lol

Well, maybe I can find some nore evidence for strong Te.

Do try. Is @nondescript interested still, though? Let us know.

It was kind of a joke. As in, "it's ridiculous that you'd type him gamma sf becuz that obviously isn't the case".

Huh ok, would never have guessed it was a joke... IRL these things are easier.

Dude knows about obscure nerdy shit like the 7 forms of lightsaber combat. He even has a favorite form. He's also very familiar with abstract theoretical concepts (socionics, jung, etc). I just don't think a sensor would venture that far outside of the immediately tangible. They'd be lost in the woods.

I like reading Jung thus I can't be a sensor? No one on this forum is S type, as well? What sort of reasoning is this? Reeks of superficial MBTI bollocks, sorry.

Tbh, it did give me a hard time at first and OP does seem lost in this theory so far, lol.

So say, the difference is more like, S types will struggle a bit with N stuff, takes more time to process it but it's not like it's impossible. Also the examples here can be approached via other IEs too, not just Ne/Ni, which also helps in processing such topics.

[Olduvai]

I find the real core definitions are not vague. Imprecise sure in terms of the basic IE categories being really broad meaning you have to be careful at what conclusions you can draw based on them.

Don't vague and imprecise basically mean the same thing? Anyway, I think the lack of consensus around typings proves my point. Not that I favor a consensus-based approach to typing. Not yet, at least.

My problem with this is that I can relate to both sides of such descriptions of the dichotomies. The same with trying to apply it to other people too.

huh, I think the distinction in this case is pretty clear.

Sometimes Positivism / Negativism is taken for criticalness, under which interpretation Positivists are often depicted as always accepting and never critical of anything. This, of course, does not hold up to scrutiny of statements of Positivist types. Positivist types will critically analyze the information that they have received, but the manner in which they relay their criticisms differs from Negativist types. Positivist types are more inclined to voice affirmative statements designed to point out contradictions, or depict the topics in an ironic or absurdist light in order to demonstrate their disbelief or critique something that they've found to be untrue; while criticisms delivered by Negativist types contains a higher proportion of negating, eliminating, or invalidating statements and propositions. Negativists are as if excluding, "cutting off", or barring information (or people) that they've found to be lacking by their standards. In general, Positivists are initially more open and accepting of new information (or people), but later may reject it; while Negativists have a larger initial barrier to "entry" of new information (or people), but have greater difficulty rejecting something that they have already accepted.

All the reinin dichotomies if looked at in this way turn out bullshit whereas if I look at their core definitions from a Model A standpoint I can find some validity to some of the reinin dichotomies ...though I'm still a bit doubtful on that too

I'll admit, I do find the basis for the reinin dichotomies a bit shakey. Not the methodology they used to arrive at the possibility of more dichotomies, but how they actually "filled" those dichotomies and named them.

Doesn't help, lol

Oh stop, yes it does. Don't be so dense.

Do try. Is @nondescript interested still, though? Let us know.

Yeah, seriously @nondescript, we're trying to give you some answers!

Another possible correlation:

Ok, I think, nah scratch that, BELIEVE this is it! The full truth that fits me both in MBTI and in Socio(stereotypes discarded). So, if anyone has ANYTHING more to add, please feel free to. Otherwise I'll lock the thread because it has done its purpose and oh boy did it do it perfectly!

I'll be humble and just say:

Thank you! (an awesome character ended his story like that and who am I to disagree with him?)

Positivists, in contrast to Negativists, who seem too cautious and mistrustful due to their propensity search for and carefully investigate alternatives to anything, more often make an impression of being too single-minded, opinionated and stubborn, too oriented at "one answer", promoting and enforcing a singular opinion, viewpoint, or interpretation.

I like reading Jung thus I can't be a sensor?

Well, do you have any other theoretical/conceptual pursuits/interests? Do you have a diverse taste in music that includes many obscure artists and/or genres? Are you skeptical of astronomy, cosmology, and/or space exploration? Do you like sci fi/fantasy?

No one on this forum is S type, as well?

Not very many I'd say.

What sort of reasoning is this? Reeks of superficial MBTI bollocks, sorry.

Oh yeah, let's just compare it to MBTI, that way we can dismiss it more easily! And you call into question my reasoning...

Either way, I happen to think MBTI has some validity. Its concept of Fi in particular makes a lot more sense to me than Aushra's boneheaded "internal static properties of fields, like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, WTF/GTFO" bullshit. Hers sounds mechanical and contrived, MBTI's sounds empirical and derived.

So say, the difference is more like, S types will struggle a bit with N stuff, takes more time to process it but it's not like it's impossible.

Well, it depends on the type. A N-PoLR can only experience N stuff, they can't educate themselves on the topic because they lack the capacity for understanding norms.

[GuavaDrunk]

Space exploration is all engineering and concrete problems and "Oh look a mountain, let's climb it!" How's that not sensory, I ask thee?

[glam]

Space exploration is all engineering and concrete problems and "Oh look a mountain, let's climb it!" How's that not sensory, I ask thee?

yea i actually thought the quintessential astronaut type was LSE or something. realistically, there is no room for procedural error or creative imagination when you're sending humans to alien worlds. now the types of the people on the ground (manning the computers and such) may be a different story.

[Olduvai]

engineering and concrete problems

Sounds like Te to me

realistically, there is no room for procedural error or creative imagination when you're sending humans to alien worlds.

There is when you're dreaming up propulsion systems or even just considering the possibility of sending people into outer space.

[glam]

There is when you're dreaming up propulsion systems or even just considering the possibility of sending people into outer space.

yes of course, i agree. i was referring more to the people who actually go into space.

[Myst]

Don't vague and imprecise basically mean the same thing?

Nope, vague to me: ambiguous, not clear in meaning; imprecise: not precise but it doesn't mean it can't still be specified in a way to have clear meaning.

There can be overlap but they are not the same thing to me.

Anyway, I think the lack of consensus around typings proves my point. Not that I favor a consensus-based approach to typing. Not yet, at least.

The lack of consensus comes from how typology fans all have different theories in their heads about concrete manifestations of the information processing.

huh, I think the distinction in this case is pretty clear.

No because I can be doing both.

I'll admit, I do find the basis for the reinin dichotomies a bit shakey. Not the methodology they used to arrive at the possibility of more dichotomies, but how they actually "filled" those dichotomies and named them.

Right.

Oh stop, yes it does. Don't be so dense.

If anyone is being dense here, that's not me. How on earth would it specify a *definite* type when something to base the type on is just "more often than not" related to type? Not better than my example number of 60%. Which is what my "doesn't help" comment referred to.

Another possible correlation:

Too many "possible" unverified correlations for my liking.

Well, do you have any other theoretical/conceptual pursuits/interests? Do you have a diverse taste in music that includes many obscure artists and/or genres? Are you skeptical of astronomy, cosmology, and/or space exploration? Do you like sci fi/fantasy?

That question was rhetorical, I know full well I'm S type, no need to analyse this. I do in general like things that have a basis in reality and many scientific theories do. Socionics and its jungian origins are not considered scientific but I still prefer to link it to reality.

Oh yeah, let's just compare it to MBTI, that way we can dismiss it more easily! And you call into question my reasoning...

No, what I was referring to was the popular stereotyped thinking by MBTI fans.

Either way, I happen to think MBTI has some validity. Its concept of Fi in particular makes a lot more sense to me than Aushra's boneheaded "internal static properties of fields, like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, WTF/GTFO" bullshit. Hers sounds mechanical and contrived, MBTI's sounds empirical and derived.

Sure, that theory is correlated to Big 5 and shit like that.

Well, it depends on the type. A N-PoLR can only experience N stuff, they can't educate themselves on the topic because they lack the capacity for understanding norms.

N PoLR also has 2D N HA so they can. And many topics can be processed by other IEs too as I said.

[GuavaDrunk]

Sounds like Te to me

SLI and LSE reporting on deck, SAH!

There is when you're dreaming up propulsion systems or even just considering the possibility of sending people into outer space.

It's kinda sad and condescending to bar some types from curiosity and creativity. There may be trends for which types are *most often* something, but not enough to make a generalisation of it. Secondly, by your logic you'd need someone with a deep understanding of the way literal objects work with each other; while you could be hyper-picky and argue Se is "too static", how on earth you will bar Delta STs I know not.

ETA: The duration of your mission in space is exactly when you need creative thinking with objects, what if something breaks?

[Olduvai]

The lack of consensus comes from how typology fans all have different theories in their heads about concrete manifestations of the information processing.

Right, which is what you criticized me for doing. Even though everyone else does it. But apparently I'm superficial.

No because I can be doing both.

Not really:

No, not solid evidence

No, it can come from other factors.

This is even less related.

Nope, vague to me

Too many "possible" unverified correlations for my liking.

No, what I was referring to was the popular stereotyped thinking by MBTI fans.

No because I can be doing both.

criticisms delivered by Negativist types contains a higher proportion of negating, eliminating, or invalidating statements and propositions. Negativists are as if excluding, "cutting off", or barring information (or people) that they've found to be lacking by their standards.

If anyone is being dense here, that's not me. How on earth would it specify a *definite* type when something to base the type on is just "more often than not" related to type? Not better than my example number of 60%. Which is what my "doesn't help" comment referred to.

No, it's definitely you. Ease your standards for a bit, this isn't science. I understand what you're saying and I respect your opinion but I think you're being stubborn and closed-minded (if not for the right reasons).

Too many "possible" unverified correlations for my liking.

You're so picky.

That question was rhetorical, I know full well I'm S type, no need to analyse this.

I doubt that but okay.

I do in general like things that have a basis in reality and many scientific theories do. Socionics and its jungian origins are not considered scientific but I still prefer to link it to reality.

Basis in reality =/= sensation. Logic has a basis in reality.

No, what I was referring to was the popular stereotyped thinking by MBTI fans.

You're lumping my thoughts into the same category as your reviled MBTI fans (MBTI is such a dirty word! err... acronym). You're taking the easy way out. I doubt you've even seriously considered the possibility that MBTI fans might be correct in their "stereotyped thinking".

Sure, that theory is correlated to Big 5 and shit like that.

I don't know anything about the Big 5.

N PoLR also has 2D N HA so they can. And many topics can be processed by other IEs too as I said.

But if a topic is somehow inherently Ne, then it can't be processed by Ni. Not to mention there's behaviors that accompany these preferences, meaning someone with Ne-PoLR simply wouldnt be interested in exploring such topics, even if they're rudimentarily capable of processing them via Ni.

[glam]

It's kinda sad and condescending to bar some types from curiosity and creativity. There may be trends for which types are *most often* something, but not enough to make a generalisation of it. Secondly, by your logic you'd need someone with a deep understanding of the way literal objects work with each other; while you could be hyper-picky and argue Se is "too static", how on earth you will bar Delta STs I know not.

ETA: The duration of your mission in space is exactly when you need creative thinking with objects, what if something breaks?

sorry, didn't mean to seem condescending. whenever i make generalized comments about types, i worry about people taking it the wrong way. i'm just too lazy to qualify every post i make with a disclaimer: NOT ALL PEOPLE OF A TYPE ARE NECESSARILY LIKE THIS, etc. etc....

re: the bolded, i think Delta STs can be creative in that way for sure. like the main character in the film Interstellar, i think he is LSE.

from what i understand about astronauts & space travel: you must follow orders, you must follow procedure, you cannot deviate, you must get the job done, you must work hard and be disclipined, etc. - maybe things are different in the event of an emergency, but usually there's procedure for that too. you also have to be hardy and fit, and perhaps a bit of a "survivalist". i don't see this kind of structured, austere lifestyle in space as a typical "creative" person's preferred arena. but i see the LSE type as stereotypically fitting these qualities.

[GuavaDrunk]

sorry, didn't mean to seem condescending. whenever i make generalized comments about types, i worry about people taking it the wrong way. i'm just too lazy to qualify every post i make with a disclaimer: NOT ALL PEOPLE OF A TYPE ARE NECESSARILY LIKE THIS, etc. etc....

re: the bolded, i think Delta STs can be creative in that way for sure. like the main character in the film Interstellar, i think he is LSE.

from what i understand about astronauts & space travel: you must follow orders, you must follow procedure, you cannot deviate, you must get the job done, you must work hard and be disclipined, etc. - maybe things are different in the event of an emergency, but usually there's procedure for that too. you also have to be hardy and fit, and perhaps a bit of a "survivalist". i don't see this kind of structured, austere lifestyle in space as a typical "creative" person's preferred arena. but i see the LSE type as stereotypically fitting these qualities.

The 'condescension' part wasn't directed at you. Your perception of working in space agrees with mine, which is admittedly informed by sci-fi. Have you read Gateway by Frederick Pohl? S'pretty cool.

... [/derail]?

[glam]

The 'condescension' part wasn't directed at you. Your perception of working in space agrees with mine, which is admittedly informed by sci-fi. Have you read Gateway by Frederick Pohl? S'pretty cool.

... [/derail]?

no i haven't... i haven't read much fiction lately, sadly. thanks for the recommendation (:

[GuavaDrunk]

@Olduvai :

Loose correlations lead to assumptions, which in large, rowdy groups lead to unreliable conclusions. There comes a point where these lead to assuming a banana is purple because you assumed it was blue, and before that green, from the original yellow. The steps are reasonable, the outcome is not. (There may exist species of purple bananas, but the series of assumptions is still not reasonable. Let's please ignore these species for this exercise and assume all bananas are yellow.)

[Myst]

There is when you're dreaming up propulsion systems or even just considering the possibility of sending people into outer space.

OK that way of thinking sounds the kind of N I don't do myself.. seems more specific to N than the generic idea of whether only N types can involve themselves in a so called "N" topic in whatever way.

As a contrast, I consider in my thinking what I find realistically achievable. This doesn't mean that I think space exploration is not achievable if I actually see a realistic way to do it. And so yeah that's not randomly playing with possibilities but dealing with more solid considerations.

Right, which is what you criticized me for doing. Even though everyone else does it. But apparently I'm superficial.

I criticize when I see something I find wrong. Not meant in a personal way tho'.

Not really:

I've also been seen as a positivist by many here. I can easily see the positivist sounding statements too.

The things you listed simply stem from disagreement anyway, lol. If I was in agreement I would say more affirmative things.

No, it's definitely you. Ease your standards for a bit, this isn't science. I understand what you're saying and I respect your opinion but I think you're being stubborn and closed-minded (if not for the right reasons).

Closed minded because I don't like guessing based on ambiguous pieces of data?

My standards are what they are.

You're so picky.

Yes lol

I doubt that but okay.

I even have N PoLR...

But if you want data collection I'm happy to answer your earlier questions:

1) Well, do you have any other theoretical/conceptual pursuits/interests?

Sure, anything I can analyse logically that I can use for furthering a concrete goal.

2) Do you have a diverse taste in music that includes many obscure artists and/or genres?

I'm not very obscure though I'm not exactly conventional either.. I do have a problem with some of the too "weird" stuff

3) Are you skeptical of astronomy, cosmology, and/or space exploration?

That depends on what my logical evaluation tells me.

4) Do you like sci fi/fantasy?

Some sci-fi books are written well with interesting philosophies and action packed stuff and whatever good story lines so yes those are awesome reads

Other ones I found boring.

Fantasy genre... not into it usually, a lot of it weirds me out a bit for some reason

Basis in reality =/= sensation. Logic has a basis in reality.

I wasn't being specific enough there. I need to link things to actual experience. But yes, it's logic too.

You're lumping my thoughts into the same category as your reviled MBTI fans (MBTI is such a dirty word! err... acronym). You're taking the easy way out. I doubt you've even seriously considered the possibility that MBTI fans might be correct in their "stereotyped thinking".

I don't think MBTI is a dirty expression actually , as I said, I was referring to a phenomenon on many MBTI forums

It's true I find your approach very similar to that one.

I don't know why you are making those assumptions about me again but they are off. I've actually evaluated things and I find these kinds of stereotypical generalizations aren't useful for much.

But if a topic is somehow inherently Ne, then it can't be processed by Ni. Not to mention there's behaviors that accompany these preferences, meaning someone with Ne-PoLR simply wouldnt be interested in exploring such topics, even if they're rudimentarily capable of processing them via Ni.

Sure that makes sense - but, which topics do you think are exclusively Ne? Got some examples in mind?

[Olduvai]

OK that way of thinking sounds the kind of N I don't do myself.. seems more specific to N than the generic idea of whether only N types can involve themselves in a so called "N" topic in whatever way.

It's about how you approach the topic. S types will either avoid it entirely, approach it with skepticism, or develop only a naive understanding of it. I mean if there really is such thing as a Ne topic then Se types will avoid it as it goes against their preferences. They might reluctantly engage with it for a time, perhaps out of courtesy for someone else, but in the end it's not something they're going to be interested in.

As a contrast, I consider in my thinking what I find realistically achievable. This doesn't mean that I think space exploration is not achievable if I actually see a realistic way to do it. And so yeah that's not randomly playing with possibilities but dealing with more solid considerations.

Well yeah, that's what happens when you're a logical type.

I criticize when I see something I find wrong. Not meant in a personal way tho'.

Seeing as I'm doing the same thing as everybody else (although I would say I do it better), you must be quite the critic. At least I would hope so.

I've also been seen as a positivist by many here. I can easily see the positivist sounding statements too.

Your speech contains a large proportion of negating/eliminating/invalidating statements/propositions.

The things you listed simply stem from disagreement anyway, lol. If I was in agreement I would say more affirmative things.

But the point is you're voicing your disagreement in a particular way.

Closed minded because I don't like guessing based on ambiguous pieces of data?

No, closed minded because you think legitimate evidence is ambiguous data.

My standards are what they are.

Yes, excessive.

I wasn't being specific enough there. I need to link things to actual experience. But yes, it's logic too.

"Link things to actual experience"? What are these "things" and what is this "actual experience"?

I don't know why you are making those assumptions about me again but they are off. I've actually evaluated things and I find these kinds of stereotypical generalizations aren't useful for much.

Well then I'd say you haven't evaluated them.

Sure that makes sense - but, which topics do you think are exclusively Ne? Got some examples in mind?

Not really, I'll have to get back to you. I've had some major disagreements with people I'd consider sensors over whether it's possible to accurately observe faraway celestial bodies. They seem to think that if you can't directly observe it then you can't know anything about it. I tried to explain that we have indirect methods of collecting data that have been tested and proven, but they wouldn't have it. There've been some other disagreements but I can't remember what they were over.

[Myst]

@Olduvai

Looks like your concept of what S preference is tainted with examples of some stupid people. I have a problem with that stereotype and I'm not the only one who does. You need to rethink your definitions.

Also the way you assume things about me out of thin air is something I really don't want to waste time on.

I'm ok with discussing S/N or why the reinin dichotomies are crap but not those crazy assumptions.

So with that in mind, see my comments below.

It's about how you approach the topic. S types will either avoid it entirely, approach it with skepticism, or develop only a naive understanding of it. I mean if there really is such thing as a Ne topic then Se types will avoid it as it goes against their preferences. They might reluctantly engage with it for a time, perhaps out of courtesy for someone else, but in the end it's not something they're going to be interested in.

In my case, if I have a concrete goal with it for which there is a realistic approach to realize the goal, the topic is OK. Now with travel in space it's obviously not likely I'll ever get involved in that so quite honestly I don't spend time on that topic much.

If you do get examples of a "pure Ne topic" I'm all ears

Well yeah, that's what happens when you're a logical type.

Logic + Sensing.

"Link things to actual experience"? What are these "things" and what is this "actual experience"?

Example, training theory, I use its principles verified by my own experience in sports.

Another example, understanding of how computer hardware works to interface with software, from my experience when actually working with the hardware.

Not really, I'll have to get back to you. I've had some major disagreements with people I'd consider sensors over whether it's possible to accurately observe faraway celestial bodies. They seem to think that if you can't directly observe it then you can't know anything about it. I tried to explain that we have indirect methods of collecting data that have been tested and proven, but they wouldn't have it. There've been some other disagreements but I can't remember what they were over.

Ah, those people were just plain stupid then. It's pretty clear that if the data you observe is consistent then it has a logical meaning. It's not the same thing as directly seeing the planets, sure, but analysis of concrete data collected still can make sense. By that I strictly mean a reliance on logic being applied that is derived from previous analysis that was originally matched with actual tangible observations. Not something out of thin air. And that's why it's a science.

Your speech contains a large proportion of negating/eliminating/invalidating statements/propositions. But the point is you're voicing your disagreement in a particular way.

I get that was your point but trust me that reinin dichotomy is just bs in the way described. You can check out a lot of my posts where I sound more positivist than negativist (if going by those descriptions). It might be topic dependent which one I am being, I'm not sure what it depends on exactly though.

If the core definition of negativism is the way of thinking like this then I am definitely not negativist though: "Example: LII, negativist: "This is very much how I process information. I compare of what something logically cannot be, so then I know what something can be. I always seem to look for what's not there in general in order to arrive at what's there."" ....That's just not how I understand and learn something.

Otoh this fits me as a glove: "Positivists, (...) oriented at "one answer", promoting and enforcing a singular opinion, viewpoint, or interpretation."

No, closed minded because you think legitimate evidence is ambiguous data.

You said it's not a scientific theory so no legitimate evidence. It's just ambiguous shit that you based the LIE typing on.

Yes, excessive.

Excessive only to you.

Seeing as I'm doing the same thing as everybody else (although I would say I do it better), you must be quite the critic. At least I would hope so.

I am

Well then I'd say you haven't evaluated them.

You can't be serious, what's this extreme disconnect from reality on your part? I mean you know nothing about me and you did agree the theory if operationalized into such stereotypes is lacking.

[nondescript]

Don't vague and imprecise basically mean the same thing? Anyway, I think the lack of consensus around typings proves my point. Not that I favor a consensus-based approach to typing. Not yet, at least.




huh, I think the distinction in this case is pretty clear.





I'll admit, I do find the basis for the reinin dichotomies a bit shakey. Not the methodology they used to arrive at the possibility of more dichotomies, but how they actually "filled" those dichotomies and named them.




Oh stop, yes it does. Don't be so dense.




Yeah, seriously @nondescript, we're trying to give you some answers!

Another possible correlation:





Well, do you have any other theoretical/conceptual pursuits/interests? Do you have a diverse taste in music that includes many obscure artists and/or genres? Are you skeptical of astronomy, cosmology, and/or space exploration? Do you like sci fi/fantasy?




Not very many I'd say.




Oh yeah, let's just compare it to MBTI, that way we can dismiss it more easily! And you call into question my reasoning...

Either way, I happen to think MBTI has some validity. Its concept of Fi in particular makes a lot more sense to me than Aushra's boneheaded "internal static properties of fields, like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, WTF/GTFO" bullshit. Hers sounds mechanical and contrived, MBTI's sounds empirical and derived.




Well, it depends on the type. A N-PoLR can only experience N stuff, they can't educate themselves on the topic because they lack the capacity for understanding norms.

Ah, ok. What did you have in mind?

[nondescript]

I'd say you're LIE. Your unbridled ebullience suggests Positivism > Negativism. Your tendency to jump from thought to thought suggests Emotivism > Constructivism. Your disdain for the intangible suggests unvalued Ne. Your knowledge of technology suggests Te > Fe (what is 4DX and how does it differ from IMAX?? also, Djem So FTW). Your reluctance to be "sharp and senseless" suggests FiTe > FeTi. Your obsession with vivid sensory stimuli suggests Se valuation (I think of Si as stuff like gentle touches, soft caresses, and warm embraces). Your desire for connection suggests Fi valuation. Your extensive knowledge of theoretical concepts and imaginary constructs suggests Intuition > Sensation (for example, I don't think a Sensor would know about the seven forms of lightsaber combat).

You remind me of this kid I used to play tennis with. Your energy, your dynamism -- it's the exact same as his. Dude was a total motormouth. And he loved to give me shit about my grip. He'd constantly tell me I needed to change it to something more conventional (I use an extreme western grip). He had all sorts of suggestions for how I could improve my game. He told me about a tennis instruction website I'd never heard of before (which was surprising -- I've done quite a bit of research on the subject). He came up with drills that we could do. But we ultimately parted ways becuz he couldn't handle how stubborn I was with my grip (fuck that eastern grip bullshit, hawaiian all the way).

If you want a Alpha SF, you needn't look further than Clay from this season of Big Brother:

And if we're talking Beta STs, Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty is the quinessential LSI:

And I think that Jackie from Big Brother is SEE:


Finally, some questions:
1. How aware are you of your personal feelings?
2. How adept are you at understanding how a particular object functions, i.e. what its purpose is?
3. Do naturally analyze peoples' statements for logical consistency and/or validity?
4. How protective are you of your personal resources, including your time?

I wish I could think of more questions but I'm tired and don't feel like thinking.

I wanted to answer some of these. It can't hurt.

1. I kinda am not, but both this and my Explosive nature could have a medical explanation. I was reading about eds and it said that an explosive personality could be because of a faulty limbic system. And not feeling emotions(I feel them like some chargeup instead of how they should feel like) + being Explosive could very well lead to a faulty amygdala or whatever. Sadly, I currently have no resources to spend on this kind of endeavour. But to answer the question: NOT REALLY, unless they're overexcited. That's exactly why I feel only rage. I don't even feel fear, only repulsion, disgust, that kind of thing.

2. I ask someone or read somewhere. Why? Ah how Adept am I? I kinda am not. But I like it when someone explains how to detect functionalities, efficiencies, act in the moment etc.

3. No, just no. Everyone is free to speak to their heart's desire even if it's balderdash.

4. My resources are free to be manipulated in order to reach a desired outcome. However, up to a point. I will not overspend, purchase on a whim etc.