Edited for gayness.
Printable View
Edited for gayness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transigent
This nonsense won't make you happy, Trans.
it will if he discovers an underlying principle that ties it all together
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
That's like saying drugs can make you happy.
drugs make me happy. as does discovering new things. i see no reason that research is somehow negative; nor do i see the desire, however strong it may be, for understanding as bad in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside
Okay, so we've confirmed that you have a handicapped perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
"i see no reason" is your cue to tell me how my perspective is handicapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside
I'm just waiting for him to find the clear and indesputable system between the functions. Right now they are twisted in such ways that make me question everything about socionics.
This system is OK, but I think I need a better understanding of the functions to adapt the system to my own thoughts. :Ti: is cool. Right now I have been unable to really understand socionics because of the vague descriptions of the functions.
Ah, the functions. Yes, you may have functions in your big city, but here, in the desert, there are no functions--there's just me.
Forgive me, Terry
(OT) Ni-dominantQuote:
Originally Posted by emeye
(OT) But the chin, but the chin!Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Transigent, I found what you wrote interesting. I couldn't understand this bit:
Could you rephrase/explain?Quote:
If your thoughts are mostly directed along the lines of determining and using your own traits, you must have an underlying value system, and your actions and states of being indirectly follow from this, and are usually unconcious.
If your thoughts are mostly directed at your own state of being, you must have methods of action that you conciously use, and your trait perception and values indirectly follow from this, and are usually unconcious.
Edited for gayness.
So...an NeFi person would be comfortable expending energy by influencing views of the world through indirect hints of what's there, and conserving energy by completing and simplifying personalized affectations?
I'm not quite sure I got the last part right. But the first part makes a huge amount of sense to me. I seem to inadvertently but joyfully spend huge amounts of energy attempting to influence world views of others, without actually stating directly that "this is the way it is". Also, even in my most direct statements, lies quite a bit of subtle suggestions of what might be... and I find it rather annoying that so few people pick up on that. Actually, it seems to be one of my tests of how much and what types of interaction I will have with a person. If they pick up on even some of the subtle possible meanings of what I say, then I'll spend more time with them.
I can also see how this applies to my developing preferences for simplified but complete views of the tangible world and the process of systematizing them. Having a systematized, simple, and complete view of the tangible world allows me to spend more time/energy in viewing the subtle hints and meanings of "what's there" or rather, what might be there.
Anyhoot, this post probably annoyed the heck out of you, Transigent. I'm sorry for annoying you, but not sorry for writing this, nor sorry for your post. I like your post, thank you.
Edited to add: The general direction and content of my posts seem to support the last part of the question above.
Thanks. I think I understood that now. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Transigent
Edited for gayness.