It would be the most useful one. IDK if FI and Fe would also be neccesary.
Can we make a Te/Ti test
It would be the most useful one. IDK if FI and Fe would also be neccesary.
How much do you ask for these services?
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
What exactly do you mean: a test that determines whether you are Ti- or Te-leading, a test that determines whether you have Ti or Te somewhere in your ego block, or a test that determines whether you are Ti- or Te-valuing?
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Short Test
R U Serious? If so Te.
R U Kidden me? If so Ti.
Although I don't know if it works better coming from the target or being addressed to the target... or at all
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
http://lifepowercoaching.blogspot.co....html?spref=twOriginally Posted by Typhon
Rates are hourly unless otherwise indicated.
Career Coaching - $25
Leadership Coaching - $25
Marketing - $500 per hour
Self Help Coaching:
Dating and Mating Coaching - $5000
Employee Selection - $150
Casting Assistance - $5000 per week;
$2500 per day
Emotional Coaching - $250
Jury Selection Consultation - $10,000 per day;
maximum 12 hour day;
$24,000 minimum per trial
In goodness and integrity:
For those who seek emotional coaching and
who do not have the financial means to afford
the services that I offer, you may contact me
by email to discuss reduced rates. Help, assistance,
community, and kindness should always be available
to everyone as all human being are equals and worthy
of the same loving care.
Wrong! Short test:
A. It must be so!
B. It must be done!
It's a great idea, but like Ashton said you'd just have people arguing against it to keep thinking of themselves as the type they think they are.
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.
el oh el
A more elaborate test of five questions:
Q: 2+2=5?
A: Incorrect.
B: It's four.
Q: 2+2=5?
A: Incorrect.
B: Apparently four...
Q: 2+2=5?
A: Incorrect.
B: I think it's four, what about you?
Q: 2+2=5?
A: Incorrect.
B: It's just my opinion it's four, of course...
Q: 2+2=5?
A: Incorrect.
B: Yes, dear, it's five... show me the next question.
---
If you got more A's than B's then you are Ti, otherwise you're Te.
Pro-Te: I'm always thinking of how to get more money flowing into the hands of more people.
Pro-Ti: I only concern myself with the finances of people I know.
Pro-Ti: who gives a damn what other people think?
Pro-Te: I do.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Te: it's like this.
Ti: it's like this and that, and you could also see it like that or this, but in some circumstances it behaves like this, and not that.
Te: efficient
Ti: thouroughness
This sounds more like Ni vs Ne communication values, where the flip-sided Se vs Si is more like 'qualitative vs descriptive details.'
another possible example:
What is Pi?
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Introverted perception, that is, Ni or Si.
(^ that was my first thought w/o seeing your examples.)
Obviously, your example sucks. I don't know what Te did to you and why you accuse it of lying, but the general trend is that it tries to give the most accurate information possible, not a false one! How dare you.
What is this?
Pi = 3,41 is unprecise, but not wrong. There are a lot of children in the elementary school who use it and the teacher won't say it is wrong. It isn't the goal of Te to be precise imho, but rather to simplify the information so it can be used more efficiently. Just as several people already said: Ti is precise, but maybe hard to use/to understand, wheras Te might leave out details just to make it easier.
You could take the mp3 and wav music format as another example: the wav format records the music as it is and includes everything, even sounds which can't be heard by humans. The person who invented the mp3 left out exactly these parts and made the files much smaller which was extremely practical given the limited capacity of the first mp3-players.
Hello Mister, I think you're looking for Miss Fi.
I think Te-Creatives are more precise than Te-Bases, but depending of what they do. Normally Te-Base know more clearly how much they need for their purposes (2 digits are enough) then their Irrational counterparts, right? We can call that "the precision of approximation".
wav recording only produces a quantized approximation of the original analog signal, and if it's CD quality it isn't encoding anything higher than the standard human can hear. You'd have to encode at >44kHz to include ultrasound. mp3 compression reduces those portions of a signal that the human ear is least likely to notice, such as retaining a loud cymbal crash but removing the remainder of the signal for a short period, not just audio events that are imperceptible.
Dear xxk0rps3yxx, you make me so happy when you talk things you don't understand. I just love parrots! However, what is the point of this post?
When you comprehend audio sampling and perceptual compression it'll make perfect sense to you.
@k0rps:
Well, it's not that I'd know much about audio codecs, but this was how I remembered it could be explained in layman's terms. I wasn't actually sure about wav, I just chose it because those files are often huge compared to mp3s.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Having some (not much) experience with this I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about, also missing the point. One thing I don't know: what has "perceptual compression" to do with audio? All I found about it is "Cartesian Perceptual Compression" which is a file format for compressing black-and-white images.
Regarding MD's post, you just learned some conventions by heart, therefore being wrong, while he is incidentally right (he is probably too polite to tell you):
- WAV format is accurate digital recording, I don't know where you can get more "accurate" recording than that, all depends on the frequency you use and the precision of your gear. Digital signal is digital signal, you can't just compare it to analog, neither you can have truly analog signal recorded, including the so-called "analog recordings", like vinyl and magnetic tape: there are relief and respectively magentic particles (quantization). Therefore you can't reproduce exactly the "original sound" and digital waveform recordings are nowdays certainly more accurate than anything "analog recording" you ever met, you don't even need to read this somewhere to know (do parrots know what deduction is?);
- having 20kHz as the standard max, CD quality can actually record ultrasound "higher than the standard human can hear", it's anything between 20k and 22.05k (44.1k/2). In practical terms that's irrelevant, using truncated numbers is ok, but you're using a truncated knowledge
- doesn't a low level sound qualify as imperceptible, the same as a too low or too high frequency one, smart-ass? MD talked about "sounds which can't be heard by humans", which include both, your "corrections" are bogus, stop pretending you're smarter than you actually are.
---
Edit (off-topic): k0rpsey, I give you a chance to prove you're not a total noob regarding audio recordings. Do you know in what aspect analog recordings are, at least in theory, superior to digital recordings?
Last edited by The Ineffable; 05-17-2011 at 10:58 AM.
This should be fun since last time we got into it you were incapable of telling a pipe from a painting or understanding that 2+2=4 is a social construction.
mp3 compression selects portions of audio signals for elimination or retention according to psychoacoustic models that anticipate what a conceptualized ear/brain will perceive. Thus it is a type of perceptual compression. If you actually understood this you wouldn't argue the point.
Non sequitur. Also wrong. wav versus mp3 can be compared to VHS versus Pixelvision. Both produce a recognizable recording but the former retains more of the original signal as received.Regarding MD's post, you just learned some conventions by heart, therefore being wrong, while he is incidentally right (he is probably too polite to tell you):
Says the wikiparrot. Firstly I said nothing about accuracy in wav recording. Secondly, accuracy issues with that format are dependent on bit depth and sample rate, not to mention all that goes into creating and capturing a quality signal before it even reaches the recorder. Thirdly, a recording isn't the original sound, it's the product of a recorder within an environment where the original sound occurred, and if it's an album we're speaking of then the original recording has undergone extensive modification. So that original signal is long gone before the album ever makes it to your stereo.- WAV format is accurate digital recording, I don't know where you can get more "accurate" recording than that, all depends on the frequency you use and the precision of your gear. Digital signal is digital signal, you can't just compare it to analog, neither you can have truly analog signal recorded, including the so-called "analog recordings", like vinyl and magnetic tape: there are relief and respectively magentic particles (quantization). Therefore you can't reproduce exactly the "original sound" and digital waveform recordings are nowdays certainly more accurate than anything "analog recording" you ever met, you don't even need to read this somewhere to know (do parrots know what deduction is?);
You're a presumptuous idiot. Here's another free lesson, and don't choke on the- having 20kHz as the standard max, CD quality can actually record ultrasound "higher than the standard human can hear", it's anything between 20k and 22.05k (44.1k/2). In practical terms that's irrelevant, using truncated numbers is ok, but you're using a truncated knowledge: By dint of having smaller aural organs and lacking damage to cochlear hairs, children have a higher hearing range than adults and are often capable of perceiving signals up to about 22.5 kHz (though some adults can also hear these higher signals; however you'll find that most lose their upper register hearing over time, and elderly people tend to prefer a great deal of treble in their music simply so they can hear it without muddle). As such, CDs are generally encoded at 44.1 kHz to capture the full spectral range of the AF band (initial recording, however, is a different story; I routinely record at 24-bit/96 kHz to produce a hi-rez audio sample for further production before dithering the final mastered result down to 16-bit/44.1 kHz for burning to CD). Furthermore, high frequency audio events which aren't immediately perceptible on their own can still affect other portions of the AF band, so they're included for that reason, not to mention that the sample rate should always be at least x2 that of the highest anticipated frequency to avoid signal loss, phase distortion, etc. Spend time with a spectrogram and you'll understand what's going on.
OK, nit-picking know-nothing, I'll pretend to take your ironic advice, just like you're pretending to be in a position to justifiably criticize from your vantage of total ignorance. The problems with recording and reproducing very low frequencies, say <40 Hz, stem from requiring a large membrane to pick up the sound in a mic or upon the eardrum. Likewise, a large speaker cone is required to produce these sounds. If you've ever worked with or encountered a 22" subwoofer you'd know the bass signals it puts out are mostly noticeable in the guts and bones, not the ears. So even if you record a very low freq signal electrically straight from source to recorder without the intervention of air or microphones, or even synthesize it straight to hard drive, you've still got to have very large speakers to reproduce it.doesn't a low level sound qualify as imperceptible, the same as a too low or too high frequency one, smart-ass? MD talked about "sounds which can't be heard by humans", which include both, your "corrections" are bogus, stop pretending you're smarter than you actually are.
Secondly, the sounds that "can't be heard by humans" sometimes includes whatever's going on at the same time as prominent audio events that overshadow all else in the moment in which they're strongest. Again, a loud cymbal crash is a good example as it momentarily obscures underlying sounds in the same manner that a swipe of a flashlight across one's eyes in a dimmed room will momentarily blind one to everything in the field of vision except that flash. The psychoacoustic modeling of perceptual compression like mp3 takes advantage of this to reduce signal data accordingly.
You've gotten enough free lessons. There are 52,034,856,324,856 answers to that hotly debated question scattered from one end of the internet to the other, each one ranging from the reasonable to the ridiculous. Look them all up. And if you're producing black metal then quality recordings are well beside the point because your fundamental tones are buried by reverb and noise, not to mention tryhard posturing.Edit (off-topic): k0rpsey, I give you a chance to prove you're not a total noob regarding audio recordings. Do you know in what aspect analog recordings are, at least in theory, superior to digital recordings?
I'm waiting for a 'Back To Analog' social movement, as more people realize that mp3 and CD sound quality sucks compared to the old record players and cassettes. I imagine the new thing won't be record players or magnetic tape, but something else. It will capture all the sounds analog used to capture, but in a tiny format that can be saved on an ipod. I can hear some of what's missing in an MP3 and on a CD, and I don't like it that it's missing. So we need a non-digital, analog-like storage method. It seems like something we could do with today's technology.
Well, there is a vinyl resurgence. It won't supplant digital, but it's a nice alternative.
I read an article once on how different generations get accustomed to the side effects associated with the defects of the sound-storage format they grow up with. Vinyl crackle, tape hiss, and now compression artifacts like ringing and graininess. Maybe we even prefer to have these defects added in for warmth and character, as opposed to completely "pure"-sounding recordings ... not sure.
I know some producers who use plug-ins during mixing to add analog-like sounds. There is no one right solution, anyway; it depends on the music itself, to some extent, and the aesthetic preferences of the people involved in the production process.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I endorse such a test just to watch ethicals get confused.
Take it easy, I wasn't arguing, I just asked you about that format about which I could find no source connecting it to audio.
Not the same thing. Your comparison would *perhaps* be similar to comparing CD quality to mono 11k/8bit wavs, if anything.
Tell me, on what wiki you find that analog recordings are not fully analog because materials can't be continuous? That's not even normally addressed, as technical constraints (purity of materials, tools) make that irrelevant.
You actually talked about accuracy of wav since your first sentence and that was all the point of the initial matter.
Bullshit:You're a presumptuous idiot. Here's another free lesson, and don't choke on the
1. There's no such bound of 22.5 kHz (in fact it's 22.05kHz) in the hearing of children; they can hear high frequencies up to 20k, perhaps more, parhaps less. May I call you a liar if you can't post a source? This time I can tell with high conviction you're not parroting anyone, you made it up
2. You actually yourself put the condition of what "standard human can hear", which is 20-20k. What you write here is total bull to create the impression you're knowledgeable.
Here's the real reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44.1_kHz#Why_44.1_kHz.3F#. As you see, it actually captures ultra-sound, though the additional band is useful only for processing, the exact frequency was choosen purely conventionally, based on its compatibility with PAL and NTSC (one that synchronizes with those frequencies > 40k). What can I say, sweet k0rpsey, your naivity is amusing sometimes...
Please spare yourself, no one talked about sensors, human ear, mebranes & al. I agree with your second paragraph (the cymbal stuff), but:
- in your original post you talked about removing the last part of the cymbal sound, which is exactly "low sound", not sound masking, what you currently discuss. I addressed this precisely because I deduced that you read the cymbal example somewhere but you didn't figure out it's about sound masking, as long as you discussed the sound level. Nothing handier than contradiction to detect wankers
- MD said "sounds which can't be heard by humans", which cover all imperceptible sounds, be them because of frequency, loudness, masking or anything else. Take a deep breath and get over it, for your sake.
LOL, the I expected that. Obviously, because you could not found the answer on the internet, you believe there is no answer. What I asked you was to use your brain, which you can't, as long as you believe you found your salvation in that debate that actually addresses the practical aspect, which largely depends on the hardware.
The answer is: while the sample rate is limited based on the quantization of the materials, the dynamic range (for simplicity: amplitude) can be reproduced, theoretically, with infinite accuracy, in the case of analog recording. That is because you can press the material or magnetize the particles as much as you need, without (obvious) limitations. Digital signal will always quantize each sample based on the bith depth resolution, thing you talked about but apparently don't know very well what it means.
---
I give you another chance to change my opinion on you of being a total noob with a trap question, but this time answer me on PM if you are capable to, because we're pachydermatously off-topic now
Say no more
You don't even comprehend the articles you're citing. Ultrasound isn't involved. I wasn't aware of the need for lowpass filtering before, which accounts for the ~44kHz sample rate versus ~40kHz but beyond that the numbers and principles I rattled off the top of my head are correct. You're just flouncing about playing semantic games in desperate search of attention while your dingbat girlfriend is away.
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 05-17-2011 at 10:24 PM.
Because they're the most important/best elements?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Te/Fe seems easier to me in real life, based on watching how groups of people interact. Fe valuers will naturally seek ethical consensus, and Te valuers naturally seek logical consensus. Then you have the other side, Ti/Fi, that are much more individualized.
I don't see how one of Fe or Fi would be more personal than the other, per se, object/subject are just the way they are oriented.
Actual testing seems difficult and would be good to use examples, like videos of groups of people.
Possible.
Ti- Establishing something as a basis for which other things can be compared and contrasted to, mainly definitions of words, something in established authority, written or otherwise.
Te- Processes facts; they speak for themselves.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Perceptual and social constructs that are self reinforcing. You can grow to like ugly. For instance tanning is now popular in the US where it used to be paleness was prized. Theres a myriad of explanations for that. With vinyl it's also popular because it's nostalgic and a hipsterish trend, plus the physical medium expirience and album art are a big part of vinyl resurgence. The mastering is also different, there's usually a different team for the cd and the vinyl. That alone is a massive difference.
Possible.
I would think different mastering engineers, plus the favored dynamic range compression and mastering for loudness on cd as the biggest difference. Which do I prefer? It's quite subjective, I'm not a zealot for either format, it depends on the objective quality as well as the subjective mastering of each.
Ti and Te are the same thing
Logical in Nature and Thinking
Ti is introverted thinking, which involves systems of logic which are largely subjective
Te is extroverted thinking, which involves discrete singular logical entity which are largely objective observations
However it is key to realize Ti is merely the sum of various logical entity which have been associated into a subjective system of classification or categorization, a logical set theory of sorts.
Another common fallacy is this concept of a human either being Te or Ti, but not both, Model clearly defines every type as containing both psychological functions. It also clearly defines all thinking types (ST and NT club) as having both strong Ti and Te, but merely preferring one above the other.
The crux of this is the pairing of the logical function with a perceptual function.
Objective (extroverted) Perceptual functions pair with Subjective (introverted) Value/Judgment functions.
While the opposite is true for objective judgment functions.
The Nature of Pi (introverted perceptual functions) is more weave like and algorithmic, so the cognition of the PiJe ego is one in which discrete value elements are weaved together into broad comprehensive outlooks or perceptions.
The Nature of Pe (extroverted perceptual function) is more discrete, its a singular observation. These singular observations or realizations work in tandem with a more systemic system of values.
Te and Pi is like weaving facts together into a process diagram, or iterative mathematics.
Ti and Pe is like performing a transformation unto a matrix.
Both however will remain strong in Thinking types, the key critical difference is a preferred outlook or frame of reference. It's like a right hand convention or a left hand convention. Do you prefer your logic Te or Ti? Either way they are the same thing, extroversion and introversion of functions are merely preferential, whilst the actual strong functions, the dichtomy between thinking/feeling and sensing/intuition form the basis for strength/weakness. Finally the temperament completes the cycle for a unique type.
Merely by selecting a club and temperament you immediately exptrapolate 3 peices of information.....
1) The strengths/weaknesses
2) The cognitive preference of those strengths/weaknesses
3) The flow of this cognitive process (i.e. NiTe or TeNi)
I don't think it's anything like "discreetness". St/Dy means, overall, Static conceives persistent stuff, properties while Dynamic new stuff or temporary. For instance:
"Bruce Wayne is Batman" - Static (though it can be Dynamic, in some situations)
"Batman did this mess" - Dynamic
"Batman is strong" - this can be Static or Dynamic, usually people use their valued preferences.
---
Say you have two boxers, Billy and Johnny, their record is:
- Billy 1 : Johnny 0
- Billy 1 : Johnny 0
- Billy 0 : Johnny 1
- Billy 1 : Johnny 0
Today they fought and Johnny won. Who is the better fighter? The truth is somewhere in the middle, but:
Se: Johhny, he won, he's stronger, he's better, his value/superiority is in himself. Proofs: a champion fighter will win over a low-class one; the usefulness of training.
Te: Billy, he won more times so far, Johhny won this time but may loose again in the future. Proofs: champion fighters take a beat sometimes, then they may return to top; usefulness of knowledge, tactics, how-to's.
(There's no rule of thumb how to interpret "knowledge", it may mean "it makes you more valuable" (St) or merely "you learn what to do" (Dy))
Both are correct, though Static focusses on "being" while Dynamic on "happening", however, this "happening" is not necessarily events, it can consist of conclusions based on observations, for example "all (observed) humans have max 2 heads". Dynamic may also be Introverted (Pi), not referring to actual observations, eg "curiosity kills the cat" (alternatively "curiosity may not necessarily kill the cat").
Certainly not.
the objective/subjective qualifier is distributed the opposite way.Ti is introverted thinking, which involves systems of logic which are largely subjective
Te is extroverted thinking, which involves discrete singular logical entity which are largely objective observations
Te deals with facts expressed of subjective content: observations (like you mention). Ti deals with facts expressed of the actual world, which can only mentally be reached by constructing systematic compositions from observational content.
or rather, i'm trolling and you can argue it both ways when you don't specify whether you're talking about ontological or epistemic subjectivity/objectivity.
the important thing to realize is that one can not unearth a fact of reality from observation alone if that fact is not directly within the array of subjective inputs of the person (i.e. in direct contact with the person's sensory organs). the vast majority of facts of reality are compositionally established.
You said this previously, I may want to use the notions, but I have to ask you: what do you mean by these? In my understanding:
- Ontological o/s ~ Xe/Xi
- Epistemic o/s ~ S,T/N,F
Is this correct?
well...
Pe is "objective" in the ontological sense. Ji is too, because it is applied to Pe.
Je is "objective" in the epistemic sense. Pi is too, because it is what Je is applied to.
now if i am to trust the subjective/objective qualification as commonly interpreted to be signified by introvert/extrovert (which i am not singularly inclined to do, but anyway), i reach by means of inference:
P = ontology
J = epistemics
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
