Which vulnerable function is illustrated in this cartoon: Fe or Fi?
Make the call
Which vulnerable function is illustrated in this cartoon: Fe or Fi?
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 04-23-2011 at 12:34 PM. Reason: spoilerized 4 ur protekshinz
is this supposed to get under my skin or something? 'Cause I'm just bored. =(
I think it depends on the social context in which it is brought out: an inappropriate moment while you were discussing knitting, or in the presence of people with weak stomachs?
something about
more than one way to skin a cat
cat got your tongue
Role reversal of cats and humans, meaning we think cats are vicious with their playmates / victims, but humans are exponentially more vicious?
?
some sort of gross Se based humor. Gore fetish wankers.
No, I don't think so. I think the use of the human is to highlight the focus and attention on being a 'pet'.Originally Posted by Ryu
I think this cartoon is generally pro-evolution and aimed to make fun of people who aren't aware of how savage their pets' natural instincts are, and humans in general.
The human, or 'pet dog', goes out and slaughters living beings, then comes home through a doggy door, and is pet and nurtured by a 'human cat'. Like nothing drastic happened. Like it was no big deal to kill. The 'human cat' is overlooking the 'pet dog''s savage, inborn tendencies.
It is very symbolic. As a 2nd idea, it could also just be making fun of people who turn a blind eye to people's pasts, and love them for who they are now, in the moment. It could even be making fun of people's love for Michael Vick. Symbolically, how everyone ignores his brutalization of animals now, petting and nurturing him and relaxed with him now while casually watching tv in the last picture. I haven't seen the cartoon before and don't know.
time for
Se/Ni valuing, Fe-PoLR. Looks like ILI humour to me. It's mocking the Fe tendency to infer human emotions and internal processes in non-human things such as animals, by depicting how obscene it would be if an actual human did the things animals routinely do, thus demonstrating how alien animals' minds really are to us.
Quaero Veritas.
It's a trick question.
PoLR, guilty
HA fantasies,
creativeness.
Just look at the submissiveness.
(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
essentially what I get from this is the following
- The man is the cat's pet, it usually the reverse
- The man is without clothes, it is usually animals
- The man is seen savagely murdering animals, it is usually considered animalistic and not human
- The animals are shown as having human expressions
Essentially the idea is role reversal. The man is the animal and the animals are human, its a play on the distinction people have between animals and humans.
Immediately what stood out to me is "why am I so shocked at seeing a man do this, when its not shocking at all to see an animal do this". Either way it was because humans do not typically act as animals do. One can see this and say "That's because people have transcendended savagry" or you can say "People have lost touch with their instinctual/animalistic nature". I tend to think both are actually true.
Very entertaining answers so far, even (and even especially) if some were easily predictable. You know, since this thread has received any responses at all it's reasonable to assume that you all find contemplating this kind of Itchy & Scratchy Show material far more enjoyable than what's depicted here. I'll comment later after a few more doughty souls have steeled their loins and braved the PG-13 abattoir.
i don't think i can vote, my first thought was Fe polr probably because you posted it. i can see how it could be associated with ILIness because its presumably showing something about the truth of things and either not trying to be inoffensive or saying "hey if you can't get past the potential offensiveness you suck anyway" sort of?
i liked it. my thought when i saw it was the same as MD idea 1 (omg) but when i saw krig's thought i liked it better. ryu's thoughts made me(as usual) and ESC's were like lol what.
this play-by-play brought to you by the issues i have quoting people on my phone.
:(
Note: I neither produced nor appeared in the cartoon. My hope was that people would focus on its content, not the bastard who posted it. As such it was tagged NSFW to give fair warning and later spoilered to give the tremulous a moment to brace themselves.
To the rest of your comment: Hmmmmmmm...
I think people have just gotten smarter with their instinctual nature, and learned to control it and channel it.
You also:
1) Included a poll.
2) Asked a thought-provoking question.
3) Had NSFW in the title (I admit it made me curious!)
4) Had a picture to look at, much simpler/quicker than having to watch a video.
Four reasons off the top of my head, of why you got more responses to this thread than the other one. I wouldn't assume it's because of different preferences in the content.
Like omg!
I'll stay tuned!
HMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!111To the rest of your comment: Hmmmmmmm...
uh why is this NSFW?
and i dont think it has much to do with either Fe or Fi... just a simple and silly cartoon, such a clever statement!
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
You like naked people at work? What do you do for a living.
i draw naked people. lol
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
lol mountain dew fail.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Lmao.
WILL YOU DRAW ME JACK!
I'm being sensitive to the needs of pansies.
yes ofc are you cheap??Lmao.
WILL YOU DRAW ME JACK!
ah i see
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
and ESC's were like lol what.
(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
You're supposed to use your gay man hands to slap a gay man vote on the straight-up Fe- or Fi-PoLR poll.
My initial impression was similar, sans the explicit Darwinian bent. We are in accord for once.
Bonus points for a second thoughtful analysis.It is very symbolic. As a 2nd idea, it could also just be making fun of people who turn a blind eye to people's pasts, and love them for who they are now, in the moment. It could even be making fun of people's love for Michael Vick. Symbolically, how everyone ignores his brutalization of animals now, petting and nurturing him and relaxed with him now while casually watching tv in the last picture. I haven't seen the cartoon before and don't know.
I figured you'd swing that way (btw, have you done any actual farming or hunting in Canadia's farmland? if so and you aren't an ethical vegetarian then by dint of familiarity via repetition the sight of an animal's insides ought not to be especially off-putting). My dog, as an example, is a friendly and sensitive little mutt who is visibly saddened when she's informed that she has to remain home when I leave. She doesn't eat while I'm away, only resuming when I return, and she's quite beside herself when I make it back home. It's quite plain to see that she's searching her recollections when I tell her to fetch a bone or ball from somewhere in the house, or that she's thinking when I task her with figuring out how to get at a hard-to-access treat. Though her intellect isn't much in human terms (I'm essentially babysitting a hairy toddler) she learns quickly for a dog. We've established clear lines of communication through voice and gesture so that the dog is aware of my instructions and I'm cognizant of her pressing biological needs. I've never had any doubt that she's conscious of the world in a canine way and that she experiences various cognitive and emotional states. I also maintain that humans are animals, simply of a sort that possesses greater self-awareness than the others and the capacity for conceptual abstraction. Beyond things like the social complexity and technological advantage that greater cognitive ability brings I see few glaring division between us and other animals.
As to whether the cartoon as a whole or what it depicts are strictly ILI humor, an equal case could be made for it being that of an SLI, ILE, or SLE, and perhaps especially the last two as our destructive little human pet openly displays his pleasure by smiling throughout all the events shown. How often do you know of xLIs to do the same compared to xLEs?
I see what you did there.It's a trick question.
Just look at the submissiveness.
An interesting perspective. I'd characterize that by saying that humans still possess these same primitive animal drives but this base behavior is denied to us by social mores and by ourselves by personal conscience.
That makes good sense, though I could see SLIs, LIEs, and other types doing likewise as well.
Actually that was more the point I was exploring in the Broken Social Scene video typing thread. It's a brief study of four charactes I thought would be fun to type if anyone had the cojones to admit they'd sat through a video in which two dudes kissed (though the best bit for me is the goth girl; she's so perty and dreamily forbidding *sigh*). Even the 16types homo posse declined to offer their opinions on my typing of the characters. I am disappoint.or saying "hey if you can't get past the potential offensiveness you suck anyway" sort of?
Is a cartoon really so hard to stomach? It's no worse than Ren & Stimpy or Itchy & Scratchy on primetime TV, not to mention all the scatological humor prevalent in so many sitcoms (not to say these things are intrinsically good, merely pointing out their commonplace nature). And yes, it was an Se-ESI who showed this cartoon to me, and she's got a definite sweet tooth for provocative art, though she's got no interest in real or even realistic fake gore.
*DING DING DING DING DING* Foresight definitely sets us apart from the other critters on this funny little planet. Now our thoughts have converged twice. Maybe I'm turning ESE, too!
Thanks for the responses so far. They've been instructional.
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 04-24-2011 at 06:18 PM.
I've never actually been hunting myself, growing up on a farm, you get used to the occasional sight of animal insides. But even out on the farm, you very rarely see a naked man killing animals with his bare hands for fun.
The key words there are "in a canine way". As I see it, the point of the comic is essentially "Animals are not people". Obviously, animals have emotions (as anyone who's seen a frolicking calf should know), but the difference is that they're animal emotions, quite different from our own. The comic pokes fun at our human tendency to anthropomorphize animals and project human emotions (human Fe) onto them, by inverting the roles and emphasizing the differences (nudity and casual savagery, something that typically would indicate sociopathy or some other severe mental illness if a human acted like that). A fondness for this sort of inversion is something I've noticed very often in Ni types, to the point of being a characteristic feature.
You may or may not agree with the point of the comic, but that's a whole other discussion.
In theory just about any type could have produced that comic, but I found it to be more characteristic of the sort of thing ILIs typically produce. Not only the Ni humour based on inversion and mirroring, but also the fact that the comic is a string of bizarre images that we're expected to intuitively piece together ourselves. ILEs, for example, tend to have much more explicit and obvious punchlines (Weird Al for example), because their goal is to elicit an Fe reaction. ILIs tend to find more humour in jokes that leave people confused and uncertain of whether or not they should be laughing.
I dunno, overall it just seems pretty obviously ILI to me. IEI would be my second guess, due to the Ni.
Quaero Veritas.
Hm. The nudity wasn't so bad. I was expecting worse.
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.
WELL THEN YOU CERTAINLY MUST NOT HAVE SE POLR
Humans are conscious in a primate way, it's just of an enhanced sort (or so it anthropocentrically appears; aliens, angels, or even the rocks in our back yards may well have their own opinions on our supposed advanced state). So while the dog thinks like a dog and the human like a human, both exhibit patently animal consciousness. Though I examine other ontologies I generally gravitate toward those that are consonant with substance monism and reject supernaturalism. So in conjunction with this and an acceptance of evolution, I see no point in hominid development where a transition from animal to not-animal occurred. To think otherwise, in my opinion, is to adjudge the content of a social-linguistic construction as true.
Quite so, though I know a few xLEs whose idea of a good joke is to reduce someone to a bloody heap on the floor, so far less cheery forms of vulnerable Fi (don't care about you except that..) and mobilizing Fe (...everyone understand I'm not to be toyed with) would appear to be in play there as well.ILEs, for example, tend to have much more explicit and obvious punchlines (Weird Al for example), because their goal is to elicit an Fe reaction. ILIs tend to find more humour in jokes that leave people confused and uncertain of whether or not they should be laughing.
Example:
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 04-25-2011 at 08:06 AM.
I'd agree with your characterization as accurate. But I'd also add that I think people typically become acustomed to viewing the disparity between between nature and humanity from a negative or positive standpoint.
It's typical for people to spin this disparity as "Man has lost touch with nature" or "Society denies us our primitive animal drivers".
At the same stroke it's typical for people to spin it the opposite way as "Man has mastered and conquered nature, learning how to fashion raw materials into useful products, understanding the laws of nature, and allowing people to live longer lives with medical technology" or "Society has transcended the primitive savage mentality of early man and is now civilized and enlightened"
I'm saying that I think both are true. I think on the frontier of this collective enterprise, undertaking, or experiment known as humanity the challenge is set forth to move forward with advancement without forgetting who we are.
Now I'm not expecting this idea to be shared, as it is just my opinion, although thats the way that I personally spin it.
I like this in that it acknowledges the co-existence of the symbolic and the real, the concepts inherent in language and the objective properties that our words describe. Also that it situates humanity within nature as a participant rather than something that stands above or apart.
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 04-26-2011 at 01:55 AM.
Mr. Nakedbutt gives me a strong ILE vibe - no malice from him, but a "what-happens-if-I-do-this?" spree with some rotten consequences (I can imagine a cartoon Tom Green doing something like this)... leavingas the Polr! And that cat, like most cats, is SEI
to the dude and he's loving it!
WHAT IF THINGS WERE OPPOSITE
The end is nigh
This is why our cat doesn't go outside. My husband specifically said, "They go out and slaughter defenseless animals, and then hop up on your lap and you pet them like nothing happened." Anyway, he's Fe polr fwiw.
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.
I think probably
This isn't evil or 'cutting' to me in the slightest, because the person is just....ending the animals lives. It's actually therapeutic, because death is peaceful and everlasting and life is brutal and short. There is nothing cruel about it.
I never thought that like, because a bigger animal eats a lesser animal that means they're cruel. That's just stupid. When you're eating a mcdonalds hamburger, do you really have a superiority complex over eating a cow? No, you're just enjoying the meat and naturally one upping something on the food chain. It's so instinctual you don't even think about it. That's why even shy gentle people are eating meat and glomping it down.
The native americans understood this, but americans are weird and obsessed with cruelty so they like to think that mother nature is 'mean' or something. I'd rather be dead than be hurt. Being constantly hurt/put down makes you feel like there's no point in anything- that your existence was a sham, and being dead- you don't worry about that stuff, ever- cause you can't, cause you're dead.
What is really cutting to me, would be to make somebody live forever, and then emotionally torment them forever. Make them sad as possible...and just go on and on and on. With no let up or relief. Ever. It wouldn't be to actually physically harm them, but emotionally destroy them. That might include some physical pain, but not enough to kill them.
That's the worse thing you could do to somebody. I'll never understand why human beings think that murder is actually worse than hurting somebody's feelings. We like to tell the victim of hurt feelings to 'get over it and stop being emo' but all of a sudden we're all morally righteous if we see somebody kill somebody else. It makes no sense, and it's backwards. When you kill somebody- they have no feelings left to hurt. When you're cruel to somebody, it can sting for a lifetime and take that person years to get over it.
People of intense suffering tend to beg out PLEASE JUST KILL ME NOW. They just want it to end. They don't care about a better ideal, life. Or a gorgeous nice life. They just want to be dead, and they know death isn't the enemy. Life doesn't have to be the enemy either, but we obviously made a mess of things here, haven't we?
So all of a sudden, 'everything is fine and dandy' until that person kills somebody??? Killing somebody might actually be the most empathetic thing they ever did in their life.
Maybe it is a Fi-valuing thing but that makes no sense to me. When you're eating anything, you're not being cruel against what you eat; you're eating for your own survival. Which isn't the same thing as cruelty. Self-perseveration is just organically natural. I guess it's sorta like how we think people with more money than us are being 'cruel' to us, but really it's just not like that. ((although it's fun to tease them and pretend otherwise))My husband specifically said, "They go out and slaughter defenseless animals, and then hop up on your lap and you pet them like nothing happened." Anyway, he's Fe polr fwiw.
If there was nothing out there to kill mice and rodents, ie all the things cats hunt, then they would overrun the earth and cause everything to be out of balance. Nothing could exist, even *all* the rats themselves would die out if there wasn't cats to eat them lol. It's not cruel, it's actually the most compassionate thing on the planet. People are so weird. OMG DON'T STEP ON THE SPIDER LET IT LIVE.
*crunch*
Oops.
The problem is humans don't have a predator....except for other humans. We need a natural predator or we turn on ourselves. We need 'demons' to fight and something not real and 'other worldly to fight' or we end up killing each other. That is the most insane thing to me, cause I read somewhere that no other animal does that. (some chimpanzees do I think....) But I guess it makes sense. Everything in this world has to have a predator, even humans, so we have to fight and kill each other some time or even we would throw everything out of whack. (more so than we already do) =/
STUPID HUMANS I HATE YOU , YOU RUIN EVERYTHING I WISH I WAS A CUTE GAY SEAL OR SOMETHING. =(
Yea I sort of agree, but maybe a little different.This isn't evil or 'cutting' to me in the slightest, because the person is just....ending the animals lives. It's actually therapeutic, because death is peaceful and everlasting and life is brutal and short. There is nothing cruel about it.
I never thought that like, because a bigger animal eats a lesser animal that means they're cruel. That's just stupid. When you're eating a mcdonalds hamburger, do you really have a superiority complex over eating a cow? No, you're just enjoying the meat and naturally one upping something on the food chain. It's so instinctual you don't even think about it. That's why even shy gentle people are eating meat and glomping it down.
The native americans understood this, but americans are weird and obsessed with cruelty so they like to think that mother nature is 'mean' or something. I'd rather be dead than be hurt. Being constantly hurt/put down makes you feel like there's no point in anything- that your existence was a sham, and being dead- you don't worry about that stuff, ever- cause you can't, cause you're dead.
What is really cutting to me, would be to make somebody live forever, and then emotionally torment them forever. Make them sad as possible...and just go on and on and on. With no let up or relief. Ever. It wouldn't be to actually physically harm them, but emotionally destroy them. That might include some physical pain, but not enough to kill them.
That's the worse thing you could do to somebody. I'll never understand why human beings think that murder is actually worse than hurting somebody's feelings. We like to tell the victim of hurt feelings to 'get over it and stop being emo' but all of a sudden we're all morally righteous if we see somebody kill somebody else. It makes no sense, and it's backwards. When you kill somebody- they have no feelings left to hurt. When you're cruel to somebody, it can sting for a lifetime and take that person years to get over it.
People of intense suffering tend to beg out PLEASE JUST KILL ME NOW. They just want it to end. They don't care about a better ideal, life. Or a gorgeous nice life. They just want to be dead, and they know death isn't the enemy. Life doesn't have to be the enemy either, but we obviously made a mess of things here, haven't we?
So all of a sudden, 'everything is fine and dandy' until that person kills somebody??? Killing somebody might actually be the most empathetic thing they ever did in their life.
I think there is a certain give and take to the natural cycle, everything consumes and everything will eventually be consumed and everything is connected. I think you can view it in two ways, as a negative thing or a positive thing, and part of one's inner world is trying to see it and act on it as a positive, rather than a negative.
I think native cultures were more in touch with that fact. Killing animals and taking from the natural world to them was less an act of murder but a need they had to survive and they were somewhat appreciative of what the land had to offer. I think animals instinctively view it the same, I don't think a wolf kills its prey because it "hates" it, I think it kills its prey because it needs to survive. Also death was probably less feared and more accepted as a natural process, and more over birth and death, just as their are seasons were the plants die and are reborn, I think native cultures realized people died, gave birth, and were born again.
I wouldn't argue native cultures were "better" than our current situation, but I would argue that our current situation makes it hard to see things that way. Death is obviously looked at as something to defeat through science and killing is viewed horridly when people are confronted with it, but hardly even thought about in terms of consumerism. It's not that people are worse, its just their is too much machinery between them and nature. Modern society is disconnected from the natural paradigm.
I think I'm completely at peace with the notion of death, what I'm not at peace with is the idea of wasting my life, I think people don't fear death, but they fear not living fully. I think the increase of anxiety around death in modern society is also potentially due to the oppression people have, they feel too controlled and constrained to live fully and thus they fear death, were if you were a native, you may die at the hands of another animal or human, but you did so free and fighting rather than with a since of something you never got around to.
I think the struggle of survival is different for people presently, its turned more towards how to find meaning rather than how to survive. The equilibrium between security/survival-freedom/meaning has swung out of balance. People are very secure and can survive for a very long time, however they have trouble finding meaning and freedom in their lives.
I could quibble a few points but I'm in general agreement with your perspective.
I look at things like this as a matter of efficiency too - 16 pounds of grain becomes only one pound of meat, and vegans use much less resources than meat people in terms of water too, so I stay vegan and have been for 6 years
I figure the more horizontally arranged the food chain is (and lots of other power structures, for that matter), the better - more efficient, less cruel, less mercury working its way up the ranks of carnivorous fishes... I mean, cats have a valid reason, they can't make their own taurine and all, but I don't...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
