@Sol lse seems right
@Sol lse seems right
Whats ti polr like in logicals?Originally Posted by Bertrand
Wacey - sei?
Adam STrange - SLE
Reverie - i dunno why but recently i've been thinking LII
Lungs - i'm curious why way back lungs switched from EII to ESI?
raver - tough one, Strong N (Ne? )
Minde - EII i dunno why but i don't doubt this one at all lol
Bertrand - LIE i think i'll stick with this one for a while and see if it plays out right?
Pastel - real sweet it seems lol, introvert vibes
fox - i dunno, feels alpha sometimes, like more of a live and let live than beta at least, dunno why
Tallmo - sei i think s/he got it right lol
hatchback (full name?) - seems beta for some reason, i dunno why
that's all for now
Lol, I’d make a bad SEI. I’m not fat, I don’t like to cook and foodies make me go ——————————-___________........._______\___.....
A few things otoh:
-Feeling more at home w gamma than delta on the forum and frustrated about how I was misperceived when understood to be eii compared to esi
-coming to terms with why I was incompatible with my sli ex. Maybe he doesn't represent all caregivers but I found him suffocating
-typing my brother and dad both beta st. Especially wrt my sle brother who I enjoy spending time with & we are pretty sympathetic and understanding w eachother, conflict doesn't make sense
If I'm esi im a pretty abstract-thinking, reflective, and somewhat relativistic one. If I'm eii I'm a pretty disagreeable and brash one who was shaped into valuing Ni/Se by my beta family and hasn't shed it at all with age or with a ltr with a delta. Neither type fits all that great. That's why I don't exactly laugh off typings like ili even though really I think it fits worse.
i've started thinking it doesn't even matter what type what one thinks one is because one just appropriates the language of whatever ITRs go along with it. its sort of a slightly more sophisticated take on the "barnum/forer effect" where its like you can read yourself into anything. so like whatever descriptions people make of LIE-ESI or whatever you read it if you think you're LIE and you're like oh yeah hm yeah, and suddenly now its like whatever those words said you just attach it to your experience where like "oh so that's what all that is!" and you use that language to describe your experiences going forward, but it might not be at all what the writer had in mind, or what "objectively" it was meant to represent. but at the same time some things are set, like whatever you think "liking something" means, you know when you like something or not, you know when someone makes you feel better not worse, relaxes you not constantly putting you on edge, etc. its like whether its LII-SEE or SLE-ESI you can find a way to see aspects of those descriptions in any experience if you at all have a decent pool to draw on. At the same time its like what is common about those relationships is the relationship itself and not so much the "language of the particulars" i.e.: how LII particularly relates to SEE and vice versa. its sort of like it doesn't even matter, because its just language describing how it on occassion spins out, but the dynamic between the two, i.e.: the relationship, is precisely the dynamic of SLE-ESI, where it matters, which is to say its a relationship that tends to deepen misunderstanding and escalate negative experiences. I think the real insight of socionics is not to explicate exactly what that looks like, precisely because people understand descriptions differently, especially ones "other than their own" presuming they'd know the difference anyway, but that this happens at all and that everyone experiences it and a lot of the rest is just variations on a theme. so the idea is you're not going to get along with everyone without great difficulty in some cases, and that that's okay, you have a right to exists because forasmuch as you try to stamp out conflict, the exact things about you that lead to conflict with some are like near salvation for a different person. so its this idea you're allowed to be yourself, but also to understand that that brings with it consequences, both good and bad, so it helps you know when bad things are happening its not necessarily "anyone's fault" and at the same time the things about you that people on occasion take issue with are also exactly what other people need most. maybe some people got this in their upbringing but it was something I sorely needed to hear, because I was lead to believe that if you were "good enough" you'd get along with everyone, that perfection was possible and in some sense "the norm" (although this is only when you're surrounded by people who evidently think they can do no wrong--in some sense they set up the expectation that self confidence in oneself on a deep level was possible, but it turns out they're mostly playing the appearance game). in a way its all true, but one needs to get there by first unloaded the gun to one's head to force oneself into an unnatural other centered perspective and just get real about how its okay to be yourself and then work on that, rather than just deny yourself and work outward from whatever the environmental needs are. I would say the latter is working in a predominantly Fe environment as a Fi user. It creates this self perception of fatal flaws because they take for granted the "advanced lessons" of Fi, whereas Fi valuing begins by working out what Fe only realizes at a high level of maturity. which is to say each works from the opposite end of the problem. both are fine approaches, the problem is children, really can get the wrong idea when stuff doesn't make sense or come easy or flow naturally because the stuff everyone's working on is too different to communicate effectively. socionics, but really Jungian analytic psychology really starts to untie this knot in a way that can work for anyone I think, so socionics tries to apply it in a way that is noble but as always has serious measurement problems, because its like you don't know what hat you're wearing when you can see the truth of all the ITRs. in other words, its very easy to appropriate the dynamic of any specific dyad in an ITR, because the ITR is common to all of us its just the specific dressing over it that varies by specific dyad. in other words, the constant is people in general live ITRs, the type system is the flavor we call the variations on those ITRs from the point of view of those variations
my point in all this is is how what type person x is is really sort of irrelevant because its a floating subjective bit of label self application, the real contribution seems to be the common language it provides and how it quickly establishes a kind of context that even if you debate the underlying typings you can see what the person is getting at in a variety of ways because the system is so "colorful" in a certain sense. in that sense i wouldn't change anything because its a form of community built around common recognition of certain values, which would be like meta values: that ITRs exist, that people display personality differences that emerge as a function of cognitive framework, that groups naturally form, that values differ based on the general accent on information that both individuals and likeminded groups naturally tend to focus on, this kind of stuff. this is why I think its almost like interest in typology is itself a "club" or "quadra" it makes one wonder if we're not all mostly alpha like is generally purported to be the case in russian circles, because we all have more in common that we think, or if interest in the psychological realm itself (in the sense of being psychoanalytically minded) is itself the result of a confluence of factors you could make a reinin dichotomy out of, etc
anyway the point is there's a kind of infinite regress to these questions that sort of illustrates why without better mooring socionics is radically questionable because its trying to pin down a deep Ne reality without the means to do it yet, which is precisely where both its greatest strength and weakness lies, the same quality that makes it iffy and only nascent is precisely why its valuable because if it wasn't in the state of radical becoming we'd already "have it" and maybe what links the people here is they likewise don't "have enough" and instead are sort of forward reaching because for whatever reason they need precisely what socionics and Jung "work on" which is to say, in the end its all a form of therapy. in other words what makes the fact that socionics has yet to harden into something with objectively recognizable coordinates and answers is because its working on a "live problem" which is to say it is needed precisely because the question to which it aspires to answer has gone unanswered for so long and its the why of human conflict and misunderstanding. perhaps why so many people come to socionics because of past failed relationships is for exactly this reason: they had to experience conflict in a profound enough way to raise the question in the deepest possible manner to create awareness of the problem which leads to awareness to possible solutions. so when you talk about people into socionics it seems to me the common quality is an awakened aspect in their psyche about the reality of differences significant enough to make or break things and our current helplessness before such differences. if that is the reason people are here, the "what type are you" is sort of a formality to the underlying issue which is how do we fix things
this is why I think there are two faces to the typology community because its the people who are here for that reason and then everyone who isn't. it fundamentally goes to is typology therapy or something else? something tells me that what I call therapy may ultimately mean what I perceive in the pejorative as interest in socionics out of pure entertainment. its possible we're all here for the same reasons and for some "entertainment" is therapy. in the sense that sincere joy seems to be the goal for everyone involved they just find it in different ways, perhaps socionics has something for everyone but then you realize as soon as it has something for everyone it loses its shape in the sense that it becomes an object of pure maya because it collapses the distinction between therapy and entertainment, which is nothing less than a collapse of the "meaningful/frivolous" dichotomy. as soon as you do that you shatter your own values. its an interesting question because i think it leads to the result that the more you understand socionics the less serious you take it, not in the sense you believe it less, but the more you actually internalize it, you recognize that the pathos you initially brought to the situation is being dissolved--therapy. you can see me jumping between both contexts here and hopefully you start to see how its all two languages describing the same phenomenon. its a form of ego development, which entails giving up the stranglehold on one's own presuppositions that limit one (letting parts of the ego die), and it seems scary because it seems like the threat is if you do so things dissolve into meaninglessness but that is not the case so much as how seeing things from a different point of view is the question and the problem and the solution all in one, in other words, there's a radical truth that socionics points to and it provides multiple vectors to get there. the importance of what specific type a person is is only one way to make that journey but ultimately whats important is that people see things from the point of view of the other which looks something like this: for the person who views socionics as discrete behavioral categories and their descriptions, they need to work on letting that go and focusing on the more serious therapeutic aspects. for the person obsessed with human conflict, trauma, and ITR, they need to appreciate the joy and merit of letting that go--to "see past that" which they're afraid is "overlooking" it but its actually only looking at it in, perhaps for the first time, a none pathological way--i.e.: rather than through the lens of human weakness, problems, and negative emotion, see it in all its fluxing living color in action, as the parade of characters it is, and to flesh them out is its own end, that might be more therapeutic than direct attention to therapy itself
(I don't think abstract thinking is that much type related)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
N types have better imagination and this helps with abstract thinking
Yes, but ESIs and EIIs are primarly F types, N or S are a secondary characteristic.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Well, I talked with LII few minutes and she said: You don't really think concretely, do you?
SLE: Normally kids do not think about those things what you did as a child. Those are abstract concepts.
And I was like: Hmmm...never thought it that way. Too natural for me.
...
Yeah.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I think S vs N is more of an ego thing. Are you abstract? You could be either S or N. After all, language is abstract and most humans are abstract because they use the symbolism of language. I no longer think the N has much to do with abstraction and more to do with how awesome one thinks they are in certain areas. Well, Ni is more "My gut instinct is always, or usually right" or "I can predict most things". Whether this is true or not does not matter to these individuals. You cannot convince them otherwise. Ne is more relative with the ego not wanting to pick sides in certain domains because many competing ideas are considered equal. It is like a counterbalance to the Ni perspective, but that doesn't make it anymore correct. It is like weak and afraid to take a stance about a particular worldview. Heaven forbid we offend people by asserting what we think is true.
Remember that Socionics is linked with Freudian ideas of ego. It doesn't necessarily apply to all people. If you don't have a specific ego fix, similar to not having one in the enneagram, I don't think the theory applies as well. Adherents disagree because no matter what, their theory is true, so everyone can and must be typed, like every soul must be saved in Christianity.
Well, for example there are very abstract SLE's in terms of power dynamics.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
in one sense abstract is anything not concrete, but to what degree one is comfortable moving beyond that threshold does go to N v S. True they (S and N) both are abstract, but N takes it further and spends more time there. This means the further removed from concretion a concept is the more abstract it is, which means all else being equal (equal rational sophistication--this is something people get confused about. a sensing type who spends a great deal of time studying a particular intuitive concept will be able to talk in a more sophisticated way about it than an intuitive who is just a novice, over time the intuitive would have potential to surpass them by paying closer attention to the underlying picture--the reverse is also true, a novice mechanic might notice a solution that is "right under the nose" of the master who nevertheless, despite a greater rational body of knowledge still missed the answer, because they didn't see it) an intuitive is likely to handle the concept with greater detail and sophistication. The reverse is also true, when interacting with the environment in a more concrete manner the sensing type is likely to perceive things in greater detail. Each can be dealing with concepts, which are more like the judging functions, but the picture those concepts actually interface with it is going to be viewed with varying levels of sophistication.
An "abstract concept" has two parts: the abstract and the conceptual portion. The further from directly sensible something is the more it is intuitive in the sense that it becomes a picture in the mind with no physical aspect in the world or before the person at that time . Ne sort of moves around the picture looking at different aspects, or from different angles, which is really the same thing, like a roving camera-- whereas Ni imagines a thing or situation changing through time. So because concepts are generally rationalizations of a picture or sequence of pictures, you can say inasmuch as a concept need to refer back to the picture stronger intuition allows one to update or improve the concept because it sees the thing "as it is." Its the same way strong sensing catches details that allows one to improve a theory of say the mechanical operation of a device. There can be conceptual debates over how it works, but if you just go examine the thing you might see something that allows one to add to or resolve the debate.
In a certain sense the rational functions themselves are abstract, but only in a minimal fashion. They're abstract in the sense that they manipulate abstractions, which is to say they can "talk about them" but to the degree they want to, and to the degree they can see what it is they're actually talking about, differs on the strength of the perceiving functions and the related subject matter. In other words, abstract sensory talk can get highly sophisticated when it revolves around things within the domain (because the sophistication results from the complex sensory perceptions, the abstract layer is static and relatively low lying. in other words it is abstract in the sense that it has been reduced to rational communication, but it is not at all imaginary or fantastical, rather all the talk relates to direct sensing phenomena, albeit extremely intricate. Having a involved conversation about an intricately physical happening is not strong intuition although it may superficially resemble it in the sense that it entails a high degree of complexity. What strong sensing and intuition have in common is sophistication of perception which is common cause to complex rational discourse, but the two perceiving aspects should not be conflated because of that[1]). Its the whole reason SLI for example makes a good mechanic, because they gravitate towards the aspects of the profession that the profession itself cultivates, and they do so in a high res way. Over time this leads to them becoming very good in the field (you could say their proclivities are in sync with the aims of the profession).
In any case, a manifest tendency to gravitate toward the underlying reality or transformation in time of things is indicative of intuition in the ego. In the same way judging egos tend toward the formalization of that picture. Sensing egos gravitate toward the inspection and leverage of the concrete aspects of reality. Everyone can and must cross over from time to time, but what we call personality is just the gravitation to one or the other--that's all personality is (what people mean when they use the term in a non technical sense).
Gulenko talks in terms of energy to parse the time factor. You can only sustain that which you have energy for. If you have enough energy to spend 80% of your time in a dream world without becoming exhausted or bored, that indicates you're a intuition ego. This idea that you could be a sensing ego but spend all your time intuiting and have an energetically sustainable way of doing so is a contradiction then because its precisely that mode of being that indicates what type you are. In short spurts anyone can go one way or the other, but as soon as it crosses over into a long term pattern that is personality. Judged from short periods of time it all becomes inscrutable because anyone say in the course of a day could do anything. Its only over the scale of years that truly stable patterns emerge. This is why it is not helpful to point out so much that anyone can be abstract, because that is granted, it is what pattern the time component reveals that personality actually is.
[1] another way to demonstrate this phenomena from the other angle is to say all complex intuitive conversations likewise have a concrete aspect, such as being communicated via vocals or using graphical representations, but just because there is some sensory aspect doesn't mean the prevailing idea is based on sensing perception, it may be an entirely intuitive concept. so when we say abstraction belongs to no type that is true, but its is like saying sensing belongs to no type, also true, but what predominates and is sophisticated in any given rational interchange is from what kind of perception the interchange captures, with the opposite perceptual dichotomy "playing support." that's what sort of ironic about "visual learners"--it usually indicates they appreciate sensory support in having intuitions conveyed to them. this may be because the instructor themselves communicates most clearly through sensing aspects, but it usually means the person in question is sensing and prefers to receive information along those channels. in this way they misunderstand what intuition is when its a "visualization" its the ability to create a mental picture, but that mental picture is totally abstract, its not at all what gets put up on the board. what gets put up on the board is a sensory rendition of the rational concept that proceeded like this: intuition->rationalization->sensing diagram. thus people that associate being a visual learner with being intuitive is probably wrong depending on what they mean by that. visualization in an abstract sense cant get put up on the board, its precisely why its abstract. so desire for concrete visual aids, i.e. actual visual aids, is a sensing preference. this is why ESI is the composer, they can render their rational feelings in sensory form, i.e.: music. in a certain sense it represents something abstract: the rationalization itself, but it does so in concrete form, auditorily
Last edited by Bertrand; 12-28-2017 at 12:06 PM.
bertrand why u always post walls of text that could be 3 sentences instead
Type me
Shorten it into three sentences. Go
lol N is abstraction, people just mean different things when they conceive of abstraction. They think of it as the rationalization itself, which can be abstract, inasmuch as it is a rationalization of an abstract perception, but true abstract perception is something intuitives by definition are better at, which is more than the rational expression of a thing but the base material its working with. its the equivalent of perceptual detail with concepts that are on the cutting edge of development, in the same way sensory attention to detail is what monitors the unfolding of events in real time. what an abstract perception is itself an abstract perception that people understand with varying levels of sophistication, which is why it is difficult to explain intuition and why people assume intuition is limited only to their understanding of it, which may be only half way up the ladder of possible abstraction or depth of meaning
See confirmed
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Why.
its all about quantity over quality
@Bertrand start an ASMR channel and read your posts on this forum for the videos.
Your posts are the only ones that I don't read throughly, sorry, spice things up a bit!
A person is both an S and N until the collapse of the type function
i took care to hedge carefully so as to avoid potential criticisms arising out of misunderstandings so its sort of a testament that length is the only remaining objection
i guess i could go about things by trading loaded one liners but those tend to just go back and forth and rarely resolve anything
Abstraction and Intuition are separate concepts that are not on a continuum. Intuition is a type of abstraction for sure. When intuition is used in a very vague sense, it overlaps with abstract more, as in "connection between ideas". I can't argue with that, however, typology doesn't stop there. You aren't merely intuitive, you are a specific kind of intuitive, which rules it out as just being abstract.
I think the bertrand guy could at least use capital letters and better punctuation.
Reading his posts - to a dark place this will take you *insert yoda picture here*
Anyway I'm tempted to say his weird Ti ramblings could only fool an SEI, but there's no need to insult any type, just a weird example of what the internet can produce, hopefully he'll get better.
Haha I dunno, the Adam guys mature compared to others, you reach a stage of behaving and talking differently and I think this is what confuses some people, maybe you.Wacey - sei?
Adam STrange - SLE
Reverie - i dunno why but recently i've been thinking LII
Lungs - i'm curious why way back lungs switched from EII to ESI?
raver - tough one, Strong N (Ne? )
Minde - EII i dunno why but i don't doubt this one at all lol
Bertrand - LIE i think i'll stick with this one for a while and see if it plays out right?
Pastel - real sweet it seems lol, introvert vibes
fox - i dunno, feels alpha sometimes, like more of a live and let live than beta at least, dunno why
Tallmo - sei i think s/he got it right lol
hatchback (full name?) - seems beta for some reason, i dunno why
that's all for now
He's got so much experience in life it would be weird to think he could get his type wrong, unless he's got a really poor understanding of socionics, and I doubt he's that dumb, considering his success in other avenues in life, business etc.
Thanks, @Scarper.
I may be LIE, but I'm still regularly an idiot.
I believe it is because he is attempting to write things in an academic way. That is why I don't agree it is weak logic. It is something different. This post might help explain it? I get why people think it is incoherent since it does come off that way but it is most likely due to his thought process. There are a few others who write similarly. I don't often agree with his conclusions since I think he makes things up as he goes along and strays from theory, in an attempt to create his own but so does Gulenko.
Bert is often interjecting his additional thought processes, or judgements, in the middle of a sentence making them appear incoherent if you don't fill in the missing pieces yourself. If you read a handful of his longer posts filling in those pieces is easy because he is kind of a broken record in some ways.
That might apply to just about everyone though. I write about things in multiple ways giving bits and pieces in different threads. Those who follow my posts probably have no trouble making out what I am saying in a related thread. He doesn't always use this kind of academic style though, like sometimes in random thoughts he just speaks plain English, in shorter paragraphs, that anyone can follow. He could work on it but I don't think he wants to. He likes to come off as a certain type which is reflected in his style of writing.
Understanding Incoherence
Posted on February 14, 2013 | 6 Comments
Peter Elbow had a post this week on the OUP blog on why academic communication can so easily become incoherent and why that fact isn’t as bad as it sounds. What I love about this post is its wonderful lack of cynicism about academic writing. Elbow, here as elsewhere in his writing, is looking to expand the way we think about writing, not lay blame. So many harsh things get said about academic writing: it’s dense, jargon-laden, oblivious to audience, and so forth. Those generalizations are true at times, but most of that writing isn’t produced by malefactors deliberately trying to obfuscate with specialized vocabulary and serpentine notions. The first thing I want my students to understand is that they write hard-to-understand prose because they are trying to convey highly sophisticated material. The second is that a failure to craft an audience-friendly text out of that sophisticated material is not an indication of an unwillingness to do so.
Whether you are discussing densely layered theories or explaining complex physical processes, chances are you are labouring to meet the often-opposed goals of clarity and accuracy. I think we all know the somewhat magical feeling when those two goals demand the same thing of us in a single sentence. So often we can see a ‘better’ version of a sentence that would be great except that it would also be wrong. Adding in the detail and nuance to make it right then undermines the clarity that we had hoped to achieve. The way forward isn’t always apparent, but it won’t be found by disparaging either pole or by despairing of the entire project of academic writing.
In fact, Elbow does give us a way forward. He asserts that a great deal of our academic writing difficulty comes from our habit of interrupting ourselves to provide extra evidence, forestall possible objections, or even attack potential detractors. And while the effects of this habit can be deleterious for the reader, Elbow is clear on the value of the underlying state of mind that keeps us alert to digression and dissent. Interestingly, he believes speech—despite the real tendency of academic speech to become incoherent—can help us bridge the gapbetween our often tentative, ambivalent, overqualified prose and the strong coherent version that our reader is looking for. In his words,
If I want strong written words that readers will hear and take seriously, I need coherent, well-shaped prose. For this goal, it turns out that the unruly tongue comes to the rescue. My tongue may breed incoherence when I let it run free, but if I take every written sentence and read it aloud with loving care and keep fiddling with it till it feels right in the mouth and sounds right in the ear, that sentence will be clear and strong.
Overall, Elbow is offering us an encouraging account of why it is legitimately hard to accomplish the essential goal of clarity in our academic writing. In doing so, he is also offering us inspiration to keeping on trying.
https://explorationsofstyle.com/2013/02/14/links-understanding-incoherence/
I never notice where your sentences end tbh. It is not a criticism really. Just how I read you but for some reason I can follow your posts. I don't always choose to because I get the gist from skimming them and most of the time I already know what you are going to say.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
He needs some fresh air, normally it's the SXI that gets caught in the rut, but for him it's some energy for the life surrounding, rather than attempts at academic attachments, but he's too arrogant not to be 'simple simple' like a lot of base Si types can be, that's, stop mental masturbating, just breathe and enjoy life and your body.
Writing clearly is an art that takes practice. It's frustrating when you make things as clear as possible and they are still misunderstood. It's equally frustrating when you go to the trouble of adding in clauses and fleshing things out in as accurate a way as possible, and it's still not interpreted as you meant. At some point, the reader needs to take some of the blame for this too, rather than leaving all the responsibility on the writer.
Edit: And I'll just leave it at that.
Well, read Einstein's articles. Seriously, he is very good at compressing things. No need to actually follow math and theoretical physics.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I'm sure he's not universally understood either though. Even those very good at writing clearly and simply will still be misunderstood by some.
--------
@Bertrand doesn't write clearly or simply, but he's not hard to understand imo, just prone to errors. His last two long posts in this thread however were good and contained very few if any that I immediately noticed. (As long as he doesn't go back and edit a bunch in now that I've said that.)
And since this is a typing ppl thread, I'll add that I think @Bertrand is likely ESI and is not a logical type of any sort. Other IxFx types are still in the running and possible in my opinion though.
Edit: Just IxFx - not settled on which one.
Last edited by squark; 12-29-2017 at 01:24 PM.
I used to spend hours on a post (in my own groups/forums) in an attempt to make sure it was understood by all that read it and by the time I was done it looked like perfection to me. Then it would still be misunderstood. The subjects were complicated, primarily abstract and very little evidence to support them that could be considered "fact". Then it hit me that each person will get what they need from it. If they get nothing then that is fine too. Like I mentioned before, if I reach one person it is enough but mostly I write for myself.
I am at the point where I don't really care anymore. I will use all lowercase in chats. In the past I would have never. lol I don't regret putting so much love into my writing, especially my creative writings. Now and then I check my old folders and find something I wrote and I hardly recognize it. Sometimes it is pure cringe and other times I am actually in awe of it. I get some completely new insight from something I wrote years ago. Kind of like I planted a message for my future self to find when I was ready to truly understand my own writings. Usually after a few experiences that confirmed what I wrote.
In my head my ideas are just so clear without words and make sense but then putting the words together in a way that conveys my experience was bordering on futile. I did my best. I no longer do my best all the time and it feels great.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Just wanted to post as found this interesting, I've always thought (for myself) if I'm having to think about what I'm posting then it's probably too complicated to explain in a post, and would be better on a blog where I'd redraft like an essay. I wonder if some of that is type related.I used to spend hours on a post (in my own groups/forums) in an attempt to make sure it was understood by all that read it and by the time I was done it looked like perfection to me. Then it would still be misunderstood. The subjects were complicated, primarily abstract and very little evidence to support them that could be considered "fact". Then it hit me that each person will get what they need from it. If they get nothing then that is fine too. Like I mentioned before, if I reach one person it is enough but mostly I write for myself.
I am at the point where I don't really care anymore. I will use all lowercase in chats. In the past I would have never. lol I don't regret putting so much love into my writing, especially my creative writings. Now and then I check my old folders and find something I wrote and I hardly recognize it. Sometimes it is pure cringe and other times I am actually in awe of it. I get some completely new insight from something I that wrote years ago. Kind of like I planted a message for my future self to find when I was ready to truly understand my own writings. Usually after a few experiences that confirmed what I wrote.
In my head my ideas are just so clear without words and make sense but then putting the words together in a way that conveys my experience was bordering on futile. I did my best. I no longer do my best all the time and it feels great.
I had a website for about 5 years. I designed and maintained it myself and most of the content was my own with some input from someone I was close to then. It was aesthetically beautiful and the content poetic (if i do say so myself). I had an online journal that I wrote to almost daily for 3 of those years. One day I decided to take it all down on strong impulse. It was because my site covered a specific time of my life that it was time to let go of. I have a copy of the full site. I don't think I will ever put it up again although at one point I considered it. Sometimes I go through the blog posts and end up in tears. I can't believe I let myself express so much vulnerability and strength during that time. It was pretty sx/sp 45x as far as sites go. I don't regret taking it down. The theme was inspired by:
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I want to be clear and understood, but never really worried about how I was saying things in writing until someone began continually misunderstanding them. When I write, usually the sentences form themselves without me having to do anything. I just type what I'm thinking. Then, one person here on the forum seemed completely incapable of interpreting me correctly - so I adjusted and adjusted, and tried to make myself more and more clear. Nothing worked. Recently, another person also misunderstood me completely, and only then did the commonalities between the two readers begin to sink in. Both were non-native English speakers who misinterpret other people as well, both a bit cocky and hardheaded, and so on, and seeing this I was able to let go of taking all the blame for the miscommunication.I used to spend hours on a post (in my own groups/forums) in an attempt to make sure it was understood by all that read it and by the time I was done it looked like perfection to me. Then it would still be misunderstood. The subjects were complicated, primarily abstract and very little evidence to support them that could be considered "fact". Then it hit me that each person will get what they need from it. If they get nothing then that is fine too. Like I mentioned before, if I reach one person it is enough but mostly I write for myself.
I am at the point where I don't really care anymore. I will use all lowercase in chats. In the past I would have never. lol I don't regret putting so much love into my writing, especially my creative writings. Now and then I check my old folders and find something I wrote and I hardly recognize it. Sometimes it is pure cringe and other times I am actually in awe of it. I get some completely new insight from something I that wrote years ago. Kind of like I planted a message for my future self to find when I was ready to truly understand my own writings. Usually after a few experiences that confirmed what I wrote.
In my head my ideas are just so clear without words and make sense but then putting the words together in a way that conveys my experience was bordering on futile. I did my best. I no longer do my best all the time and it feels great.
I think you're right in saying that people will get what they need to out of it. And I've had similar experiences when reading my old writings. They are all as though another person wrote them. It's really funny when I'll come across something I've written and I'll be thinking, "This person really gets it. Ah, that's a good way of explaining it, very helpful" and then I realize I'm the one who wrote it. I also have disagreed with old writings of mine, and have had the experience of thinking, "No, you've got that wrong," or even, "I have no idea what you're trying to say here," only to find that too was something I wrote.
I seen you accuse Syrup of such thing, on reading the discussion I understood her perfectly, and just assumed it was a low blow by you to redirect the argument, so maybe it's more than just language.
Adam can't be a Se dom, c'mon, they're so much smoother than him
He also parks cars for a living during the weekend, on rainy days, such a typical LIE job (not joking here).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Now that you mention it, just like all the other Se doms, he's such a hit with the ladiesAdam can't be a Se dom, c'mon, they're so much smoother than him
He also parks cars for a living during the weekend, on rainy days, such a typical LIE job (not joking here).
Sorry Adam, just joking here, there's no way you're a nerdy LIE N type
Posting Permissions
