Does the following comment strike you as something a Fi/Te type would say? Does it strike you as something a Fe/Ti type would say?
"Negative reactions to abortion are just as valid a factor in the abortion issue as rational for/against arguments."
Does the following comment strike you as something a Fi/Te type would say? Does it strike you as something a Fe/Ti type would say?
"Negative reactions to abortion are just as valid a factor in the abortion issue as rational for/against arguments."
Sounds like something I would believe (and hopefully sane people as well.)
Welp, it's definitely a Negativist style of thought.
So that would mean either Holographic or Dialectical-Algorthmic style of cognition, or, to answer your real question, LII or ILI. So we've narrowed it down to him being an Introverted NT.Positivists primarily perceive the positive side of any phenomenon, and often turn a blind eye to the negative. Negativists won't overlook problems, and simultaneously mitigate any positive aspects to their situation of interest.
As for which one he is, well, there's not enough information here to tell whether he's static or dynamic, inductive or deductive. So you'll have to be on the watch for anything like that if you aim to prove him LII.
Shh sir knight, don't let everybody know who's type is in contention. To do so will introduce bias into peoples selections.
Not enough info to conclude male/female either.
Anyway, it looks like the person is putting two perspectives on a scale:
On the left side we have Ethics and on the right we have Reason. The person is saying Ethics is just as valid as Reason. Isn't that Dialectical-Algorithmic? It looks like the person is synthesizing two opposing viewpoints, don't you think?
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
It could also be Holographic, analyzing a given object (abortion) from multiple different angles (rationality, ethics, reactions positive or negative) and so achieving a holistic view. I mean, one single line of text won't tell us anything beyond one or two facets of your cognitive style. If we had some big, meaty paragraphs to dig into, we could come up with a more thorough, honest appraisal of your cognitive type, but, well, you are rather inclined towards brevity.
I agree with the comment in question.
impossible to say.
analyzing a single line with accuracy is the work of charlatans.
Sounds Fi/Te to me. But maybe that's shallow. When I say things like that, I take it a step further to say that the negative reactions are the result of an intuition of something bad that actually exists in the practice itself, rather than allowing for the reaction itself to have an influence on how people should behave.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
By "negative reactions" do we only mean negative emotional reactions?
I've never been of the opinion that simply finding something to be gross is a valid argument for or against anything. That just sounds like something that someone with really poor debate skills would pull out, that something is inherently "wrong" so it's bad. Well then, what makes it bad or wrong? Do you have any sort of evidence or information that exemplifies how your position is more than just a passional knee-jerk reaction? If you don't have any means of providing an argument that exists outside of yourself, like evidence, then that side of the argument doesn't belong in any sort of scientific sphere. This isn't meant to slight the passional side of people, but the most convincing arguments about some hot button issue like abortion will have to be scientific in nature.
Oddly enough, this seems like a logical statement to me considering that most people's positions on the issue are based on their feelings about it. Arguments about abortion are never-ending because underneath it all "you feel how you feel." And so if that's what is behind a position then of course I would see it as equally valid (it is the position). I mean this is largely an ethical issue (it can't be resolved logically). If we could answer the question of when the embryo becomes a person that might change things, but even the concept of a person is a murky one, especially considering that to some that embryo is considered to have an immortal soul from the moment of conception, something that we can't prove or disprove.
I mean I don't see how science can answer the question of "when does a cell soup become a person" because then we'd have to define a person based on some kind of cellular definition. Even if trying to pinpoint the moment that sentience is born in the cell soup, that itself can't really be isolated either because how can we really know when awareness begins (how are we even defining 'awareness'?).
what sort of scientific evidence would push the debate one way or another? if it were something like, "the fetus is viable and aware at X weeks," then there is still a value judgement being made as to whether its ok or not to abort a viable and aware fetus. i'm going to be more convinced by actual facts than someone saying "this is how i feel," of course. but i think that you can't deal with it as a completely impersonal and objective issue without taking too much for granted.
Can't type a sentence out of context.
Stan is not my real name.
Questions like "when a fetus actually constitutes as a human", "at what stage is it sentient", etc. Of course there are going to be value judgments out there, and they're not at all bad things, but in terms of scientific debate I just don't see a good place for them. Once you bring up "this is how I feel about the matter," you reach an intellectual stalemate because there's nowhere anybody can go from there. You can't persuade a person to feel differently about something without providing a convincing reason for them to feel any differently.
OP: Don't you people have better things to do than harrass ESC? Seriously. You think he's mistyped. We get it already. Correct or incorrect, pestering people just makes you look like an ass. Find something better to do with your time.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
oh shit I was totally unaware that this thread was in response to ESC
carry on lol
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Aw come on, how can you not love watching this? It's like a spaghetti western!
The sun is low in the sky, obscured by a thick cloud of dust kicked up by beating hooves. Riding atop majestic white horses, The Posse has come to town. They hitch their horses at the posts in front of the saloon. Their leader is a mean looking sonuvabitch dressed all in white, a gleaming six gun on each hip. With one spurred bootheel he kicks in the door and casts an evil gaze on the patrons of the bar. He utters, "Git!" in one deep, guttural syllable, driving them all away, save for one.
He sits in a dark corner, dressed all in black. His hat-brim tipped low over his eyes, sipping away at some cheap watered-down scotch. The Man in White leads his men into the space, and they form a half-circle around him, hands twitching as they finger the leather of their holsters, ready to draw and plug the poor bastard if he makes a single solitary move.
"Ain't room in Gammatown for you Mister. You can leave peaceably. Or you can leave dead," says the Man in White.
What will happen next?! God, the suspense is killing me!
As someone who has been heckled about being "typed wrong", it's still harassment. It has all the psychological effects of being "genuinely" harassed.
Ryene, it's generally a bad policy to assign a person malevolent intentions without having a strong case for doing so. Notice that I did not include ESC's name in the poll or in the original post. I had no intention of turning this into an attack ESC thread. In fact, I preferred people not know he posted the comment in question as this would surely influence responses.
Since you've called my character into question, I'll do my best to explain my intentions in creating this thread. ESC and I disagreed over whether the semantics and general form of expression/delivery of this sentence were, on the whole, more representative of Te/Fi or Fe/Ti. The point of contention was never over whether ESC is ILI or LII; obviously it would make no sense to type a person based on a single sentence. However, ESC and I each have our own respective cognitive biases (I suspect he is LII, he thinks himself ILI) and I was aware that this could be skewing our ability to appropriately analyze the sentence. So, I figured I'd solicit the more objective opinions of forum members, which would simultaneously provide ESC and I with outside perspective and potentially provide us with insight into how we are being mislead by our own biases. Moreover, while I honestly sort of expected most would say the sentence provides nothing by which to differentiate vertness of J functions, I fully expected the question to engender some interesting responses. It has certainly delivered in this regard.
I admire your empathy and willingness to stick up for somebody, but nobody is under attack here. I'd appreciate it if you'd give me the benefit of the doubt next time. I may occasionally let some of my less noble impulses get a hold of me, but I certainly don't post here for the sake of trashing other people.
Eggy Puffman, what in tarnation are you trying to say? What's "still harassment." How are you defining harassment? How does this apply to you or to ESC? What, in your opinion, are the psychological effects of harassment?As someone who has been heckled about being "typed wrong", it's still harassment. It has all the psychological effects of being "genuinely" harassed.
If you're gonna accuse others of wrongdoing, have the good sense and decency to justify yourself.
Last edited by Timmy; 05-09-2011 at 10:58 PM.
clap, clap, clap.analyzing a single line with accuracy is the work of charlatans.
Aren't negative reactions the same as giving reasons (rational explanation)? Why would you feel that something is wrong if you didn't have a reason for it? That's silly...
But I am loathe to type the statement, as ESC above said, it says 'negative reactions' (most closely meaning F) and 'rational arguments' (most closely meaning T). You can't really go beyond that, it's too general a statement to apply the specific domain distinctions of Te/Ti or Fi/Fe.
story was cool too ^.^
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.
Other people have made threads and posts bludgeoning ESC with their opinions. When I saw the quote was his/hers, I assumed you were doing the same thing. Not that it makes my actions any less incorrect; but it shows where I was coming from on the issue.
Alright. I made an inaccurate assumption, and I apologize for that.Notice that I did not include ESC's name in the poll or in the original post. I had no intention of turning this into an attack ESC thread. In fact, I preferred people not know he posted the comment in question as this would surely influence responses.
Since you've called my character into question, I'll do my best to explain my intentions in creating this thread. ESC and I disagreed over whether the semantics and general form of expression/delivery of this sentence were, on the whole, more representative of Te/Fi or Fe/Ti. The point of contention was never over whether ESC is ILI or LII; obviously it would make no sense to type a person based on a single sentence. However, ESC and I each have our own respective cognitive biases (I suspect he is LII, he thinks himself ILI) and I was aware that this could be skewing our ability to appropriately analyze the sentence. So, I figured I'd solicit the more objective opinions of forum members, which would simultaneously provide ESC and I with outside perspective and potentially provide us with insight into how we are being mislead by our own biases. Moreover, while I honestly sort of expected most would say the sentence provides nothing by which to differentiate vertness of J functions, I fully expected the question to engender some interesting responses. It has certainly delivered in this regard.
Aw, he threw me a bone. On a serious note, I shall try to remember to check first next time.I admire your empathy and willingness to stick up for somebody, but nobody is under attack here. I'd appreciate it if you'd give me the benefit of the doubt next time. I may occasionally let some of my less noble impulses get a hold of me, but I certainly don't post here for the sake of trashing other people.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor