since socionics is a mental construct, consensus is really the only thing that matters.
thoughts?
Printable View
since socionics is a mental construct, consensus is really the only thing that matters.
thoughts?
This is a common logical fallacy known as the argument to moderation which is fine, but um yeah, a compromise doesn't mean the 'right' answer.
It would be best to consider peoples opinions on type as a risk matrix, with one axis being their 'socionics expertise' and their others the 'knowledge of the person being typed'. Those with the maximum multiplier of the two would rank as the authority on an individuals type.
In a 'forum setting' I only see limited information on an individual. If I draw a conclusion on their type it isn't rational for me to add together 'the same' type if others agree with me as an argument that I have typed correctly because we are all drawing from the same limited information and the same paradigms.
Method of troubleshooting:
Scientific stuff = quality > quantity
Artistic stuff = quantity > quality
Only on this magical site where it creates some kind of sense of belonging and identity. You're operating from the stance that in order to actually roam this site and your, and I don't know, leisure time on here acknowledged one simply has to pass through every person there is so that you can have some kind of validation of your person/personality and your time spent on here. It means people mold you the way they want as if one is unable to know for oneself, anosognosia(c). In this case, consensus is somewhat hard to achieve, for you're putting yourself at the mercy of others, and some people are going to have a distorted view of you, fitting one, completely missed one, and so on.
It sounds a bit limiting to say the least and is akin to saying 'you're not in tiny chat - you don't exist' what is just plain silly.
You would have to rest on one person, so it can be done. You can rest on your own judgment as well.
i'm not talking about myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
tinychat isn't a mental construct. that's what i'm talking about. if 99 out of 100 people agree that a paint color is sky blue and that 1 skeptic proves that the color is actually green, it wouldn't stop anyone from using it to paint the sky on a canvas and pass it as realism. and socionics can't even be proved.
Some kind of strong consensus is probably more reliable than a situation where there's no clear favorite and the single most popular option has only a narrow margin on some of the other choices. There's also the whole "how well do you actually know this person" stuff ... yeah, I dunno.
I know you're not. You have put forth a statement/an idea which you seem to agree with inquiring the input of people who might show up and lay one. The same way I could direct what I said to Radio, but it would be a deranged move on my part seeing he's not the thread creator.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
Ehh, you say Socionics can't be proved which means people in tiny chat won't be able to agree on anything in the first place, that is, they can't know whether the paint is sky blue or green. I can be wrong but it seems like you're taking a skeptical stance here - vulgar empiricism nor naturalism is not worth my time -, and statements like 'we perceive only things as they appear to us' put a smile on my face, for they are: personal, subjective and simply mean we are without a method to know whether the judgments we make, are correct. In this case, there is no point in making any kind of judgments at all :)Quote:
tinychat isn't a mental construct. that's what i'm talking about. if 99 out of 100 people agree that a paint color is sky blue and that 1 skeptic proves that the color is actually green, it wouldn't stop anyone from using it to paint the sky on a canvas and pass it as realism. and socionics can't even be proved.
No korpsey here which means he won't fly off the handle, so I can add - argumentum ad numerum.
Perhaps when we find ourselves in a group of muslims, wiccans or mormons we should change religion to match? After all it can't even be proved and if it is the most popular choice, is it the right one?Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
i guess it depends on whether you're looking for a practical tool or you're looking for something to believe in. this analogy doesn't really work for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
It's kinda like saying that "In an ideal democracy, even the will of the majority, no matter how stupid, is being executed."Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
could you elaborate? by "ideal" do you mean subjective quality or do you mean purity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquagraph
Actually fuck that analogy.
In a way consensus is the closest thing we can get. If twenty "informed" typers unaware of each others typings end up mostly in the same results, it's a qualified typing. However, defining that "informed" is an issue we cannot verify in any empirically credible means.
tbh that kind of thing terrifies me. what the majority of people think tends to be shit anyway. the "world is flat" fallacy.
but it can be proven that the world isn't flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
i wish i could describe better what i mean. i might be wrong, but i don't think "the majority isn't always right" is a response that actually addresses what i'm saying. those tall things you see when you look out the window are called "trees" and that's because its generally agreed upon by the vast majority of english speakers that they're called "trees." because language is a mental construct. the world being round is just the truth.
Like I said before, I hope you're aware that in order to achieve consensus on this site, one is going to have to get the approval of every member in this community to gather as much opinions as possible, whatever they may be (it wouldn't be called a consensus to begin with), it can be a group of people in this community as well to make it easier. I tan be you and some other person. You can decide for yourself, too. No biggie.
I. When one decides for oneself:
1. There is no need to rely on a consensus, for members are going to arrive at the same conclusion you did without participating in what's called a 'process of voting' (not always, though) to reach some kind of decision - some democracies operate this way and by no means they are 'ideal', as in existing in mind of some person,
1.1. There may appear a 'craving' for consensus due to many factors, I think, a craving for collective opinion not being satisfied with one's choice...
II. When one goes by collective opinion:
2. It's a long lasting process, for everyone has something to say and one wants to hear out the nay sayers as well,
2.1. It's a bit ineffective in some cases when it comes to decision making.
Choice is yours. But when what one has arrived at something oneself or at least did it half way, the approval/agreement of a collective can be sweet.
It's not truth, it's a fact and I know what you want to say, you simply mean one arrives as a blank, not tainted(?) by their own ideas/expectations about something and puts oneself in the hands of community who in turn reaches some kind of agreement - consensus.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
Problem is, how to get all those people to see trees instead of bees?
Oh I see what you mean better.
hmm how is it a consensus though if we all still argue about what the definitions represent?
I get the analogy but a tree is still a tree, you can still see one if you have eyes. socionics represents more fragmented things in the mind which makes it trickier I think. but that stuff is really interesting as it's describing where personality comes from and stuff.
sometimes i really want to throw rocks at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
I get what you're saying but I disagree, well, maybe not disagree but I find the notion of one correct reality versus a relative one somewhat hard to marry with each other, vide that window and trees analogy of yours. I would see trees myself. In fact, there are three outside of my window. Two pines and one spruce.
Don't know about others...
I'm reminded of something I've read in an ESE description:
Not saying you're ESE, but whoever wrote this description obviously doesn't think highly of consensus.Quote:
He was not convinced of the truth of their judgments, so almost all the issues relies on the fact that this other people think. Opinion of the team more important to him of their own, and there is no nonsense, to which he would not accept "for the company." He is very difficult to develop their own values, and so he uses another's. The main criterion in choosing the principles of life - the number of people who hold them. For example, ESE, it seems, just can not come up with the idea not to drink if his entourage "respects" the case.
Ass-burger-suming it's a mental construct, then no, my mental construct is different from someone else's mental construct. I reckon it's a bit of a laugh in group consensus, a bit of an internal chuckle on ones own, erm.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
I could've dropped a name in 'someone else's', heh.
that doesn't help anything but its a decent point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
also @Words you should get an avatar. you make my friends list look ugly.
i think this is a pretty good example of not getting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
? I think that when something is a social construct, then consensus is all that matters. If it's a mental construct, only your own opinion (i.e. your own version of the mental construct) matters.
this is basically what i got from words said. and its true.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
it just doesn't really help anything from the standpoint of like... idk, talking about types. we might as well all just agree to disagree about everything lol. and maybe it is a social construct, too. intertype relations and whatnot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
actually, this is a pretty good example of you regulating the truthQuote:
Originally Posted by lungs
consensus is hardly a criteria for reliability, there are much more important things a person needs to keep in mind, regardless of what kind of construct it is
for the record i'm not suggesting at all that, for example, if everybody else types you ESE even though you self-type ESI, then you must actually be ESE. i hate that shit. you own your own identity. i'm not saying that at all.
what i'm saying is more like. you say, "look, i have the posture of an ESI" and everybody else says, "no, you have the posture of an ESE." you have the same fucking posture either way and the rest is just words. so for the sake of communication and "objectivity" (as far as it can go in something like this) ESE might be a better descriptor.
i'm not trying to regulate the "truth," just trying to point out that william & i are talking about different things since he's not on the same page.Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
what are more important things in this case?
i think people hear the word "consensus" and reflexively put their fists up lol. but how free-thinking is that?
I THINK WHAT LUNGS IS SAYING IS THAT TE IS PRETTY COOL
ALL YOU TI NERDS CAN SUCK IT
lol ****** has now been mentioned. i quit this thread and i hate you all kjsdfk;sajfklasjdfkl;asj
Hmm, it's a matter of being somewhat knowledgeable(?) when it comes to consensus, it's self-explanatory that wanting to achieve it, you have to have, say, a group consisting of ten people who are on the same wavelength as you. Of course, one might want to hear out different opinions and this consensus usually takes the form of negotiations after the fact...
That's incorrect. He didn't. Most of his political opponents have been thwarted by any means necessary, so speaking about consensus in that aspect is silly, for it was a homogeneous environment, taking into account he started off a Bavarian Republican "sect" which already paints a picture. In lungs' case, she would have to do the same/be under the the protectorate of such entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
It is 4 only in mathematics. Not specified which you can both wrong and right at the same time.Quote:
If I have 20 people telling me that 2+2=5, I'm still going to insist that 2+2=4
fwiw i get you lungs, if i could rephrase what you mean better i would but i'm just as stumped
@William read posts #5 and #15 and if you still don't see how you're not actually addressing what i'm saying then any further discussion with you is pointless.
His post seems relevant to me. You just ignored it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
Everything else.
so what you're saying is that you support genocide. well, i have to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
lovelyQuote:
Originally Posted by lungs
do explain further what you meant by that
Speaking of wavelengths...
your previous post reminded me of networking classQuote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
would you care to defend your love of genocide?Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
or would you rather "regulate the truth" by informing me that what i'm saying is irrelevant and you never said anything in support of genocide?
william... yeah, no. you're a nice person.
I'm not sure what that means in this context and if you were so kind to elaborate further I would gladly respond in kind as well. That is, what is missing, is the consensus - you might be talking about something else and I might be thinking about something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
Wavelengths...
i'm not exactly trolling since theres a point i'm trying to get across. who is everyone? there were a few who i think maybe understood and disagreed like words or fdg but several others i think aren't capable of disagreeing because they just don't grasp it. i know thats condescending but its a little frustrating to have people telling you you're wrong when they can't even process what you're saying. its why i dont post sometimes - also a flaw on my end in terms of being able to communicate well, to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_synchronizationQuote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
if you try long enough, you can justify any behavior to be the result of any IE of your liking. just as i can justify in my head that i am actually an ESTp, either by selectively focusing on certain traits in my personality, or distorting the definitions to the point where they're completely meaningless. (e.g. maritsa, the ineffable). so, what's important is, to stay grounded, to take into consideration other people's perspectives and views, to cross-check yourself against other people so to say, and to have an opinion that is flexible and open to possibilities. insularity leads to a certain blindness to one's mistakes, so it's important to look outside oneself to get things "right".
Which begs the question, why do you ask when you apparently know the answer already?Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
There is nothing to grasp. You asked a question about something you're ignorant of. I can't believe you're making excuses for your biased behavior. Not only did you say that he is clueless, but you actually attempted to close the discussion in an immature way.
That's better, although it is not applicable in any way in this scenario/thread for it implies external control over you, me and any one posting in this thread. In other words a consensus would be achievable every time just by readjusting the error margins, which again means, this thread/discussion wouldn't happen nor be possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
Computers don't blunder.
This bit covers some of my Forum Dynamics thread in my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio
the question i asked was "thoughts?" theres no way to answer that incorrectly except to provide thoughts on a completely unrelated and irrelevant subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
you're getting very desperateQuote:
Originally Posted by lungs
you had an opinion, wanted some thoughts on it, but obviously not from people who disagree with you
this is obvious in your attempt to make words's points seem supportive of yours, which is honestly laughable
he was so sarcastic that his points flew over your head
i'm not desperate.Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
its true that i wanted opinions from people who understood the premise but agreement is something else.
i didn't say that words was supportive.
you can keep trying but i'm at home now and this has gotten boring.
I don't know how you can you disagree with someone directly saying that they support something unless you have evidence that he does not support it; simply the act of stating is evidence that he is not on the fence.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
Jung has a definition where he defines broad focuses and then says 'This is most important to me'. Socionics has no additional information but believes you can wrap some kind of logic about it and believe it is 'that tidy' with lots of evidence around which agrees and disagrees with Model A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
It is interesting to consider that religious belief focuses on ignoring any contrary information, it appears the same way in Socionics land, therefore I think you could argue that Socionics 'applicability' is more a function of belief than measurement.
who cares about the premise? if you're wrong you're wrong there is no way around it
you included what suits you to reach to a certain conclusion
you're either going to sit there and act as if your premises are god sent or admit that they are lacking
what what what what whatQuote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
fair enough. nobody really attacked my premises so much as just bypassed them but even if they had i would have dismissed it and acted like the premise was godsent :P i'm just not interested in that conversation. i don't want to have to reinvent the wheel. sue me.Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
in the butt.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1382488/samwell-o.gif
I think in the instance of people guessing my type online, ...... it's useless.
They don't know me irl. I therefore, gather my true type from my own knowledge and the knowledge of people I know irl.
Typing people online is the same as diagnosing personality disorders online, in the way that the risk of determining incorrectly is quite high. Therefore, it's done for fun and not for accuracy.
So consensus from an online perspective is the consensus of fools, basically. :)
Much of other theory is also a mental construct; that doesn't necessarily make it non-usable or untrue, nor does it pose the inability to gain a true or somewhat true, answer. The truest answer may not be the consensus, in fact, it rarely seems to be in popular culture.
And? Did I say anything related to that? (something like "social constructs are always objectively right) Do you actually take the time to understand what you read, or do you like to spout some mindless disagreeable nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by William
The "experience" always fits "reality", they're the same thing (unless you are schizophrenic etc etc). I don't understand what you're arguing about.Quote:
Meh, I would argue that you should make sure the experience fits with reality
Maybe. But it likely has very little to do with what we're discussing.Quote:
but this is actually one of the key differences between Ni & Si. Ni would rather change your perception of the issue and create your own mental construct.
My thoughts on "consensus" in a nutshell....
http://i.imgur.com/bdPfwab.jpg
Good point. On internet forums though, there needs to be at least one more axis in said graph that includes how out of touch with reality the source may be... as well as possibly another new axis for how much the source will agree with a certain bias if they believe there is a chance of getting laid/meet-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finale
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ps4ca47d20.jpg
:D
oh, the irony.
How do you get to say so much without saying anything? Was it networking or politician classes you attended? I think I know what you said but it seems you specialise in something.Quote:
Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
I have thought this as well. Think I said it before and some people disagreed, sometimes it's like when people disagree, it's almost like when there's a .... group disagreement you can be on to something, challenging the status quo, the belief system or some such which goes back to bleh at discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
Be a rebel Jim, heh.
ruuuuuudeQuote:
Originally Posted by Words
you think you know? lolQuote:
I think I know what you said but it seems you specialise in something.
do tell, I specialize in many things
:O zzz spic span internet pop pickers and Fugue
Nice to meet you JD
Oh.. you're the guy who thinks I'm Jadae.
You may want to look for my first post, it will amuse you, surely.
Which first post? Na it doesn't matter too boring thanks though.
My very first post.
You're welcome. It's good to know that the crazies are still roaming around. I kind of missed having a conspiracy theorist on this forum.
Na, I don't think you're cool and manly
urine
I certainly hope you will expand upon this. After all, you're amongst friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
Nah, this doesn't sound right. I've seen you offer your knowledge(?) to people on this forum when they were inquiring about some type and when they were not inquiring about it. Step by step you proved yourself useless in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by jet city woman
Pinpoint a certified shrink on this forum first.Quote:
Typing people online is the same as diagnosing personality disorders online, in the way that the risk of determining incorrectly is quite high.
Proved my point.Quote:
So consensus from an online perspective is the consensus of fools, basically. :)
Your husband(?) went further as you can see. Don't know whether he agrees with you, that is, gave support to your claim, but if it so, you already form a group. Simply speaking a consensus between you two has been already achieved. Now count in few more people who will agree...Quote:
Originally Posted by Finale
... you're shooting yourself in the foot.
the irony is in using "consensus is dumb" as a thought terminating cliche. going with the crowd and making determinations about ideas based on buzzwords like consensus are both ways to avoid thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finale
i think absurd is pretty universally accepted as lse. but i could type him ili and still be able to justify that and make equally good arguments in favor of it because thats how socionics works.
so my typing of absurd as ili is a perfectly fine mental construct but in terms of actual practice and discussion and any sort of analysis i might want to engage in with others on the forum, it is effectively useless.
there are a few people on the forum i can't help but see as something other than the popular typing but say one of those people is being used as an example of displaying a certain reinin dichotomy. what do i get from that conversation other than confusion or a game of rhetoric. since presumably we are all seeing and interacting with the same person anyway.
eh i wanted to hear feedback from people who were on the same page in terms of understanding but now i've spent so much time getting pecked at by people who don't really get it and are freaking out over the word consensus that i've sorta lost focus on that. i don't even know what i want out of this thread anymore. ineffectively pounding against consensus regarding someones type can also be useful if you're looking for a mental workout or something so maybe its all good.
i think what i was originally getting at was that since its all head games and rhetoric to begin with, consensus is as "real" as it can get. (eg tree metaphor)
of course you have to realize its not "real" in the first place to get that and a lot of people here aren't at that point.
Well yes, you can do that although besides those arguments a consensus requires at least another participant so it can be reached. It can be me or some other person.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
You can justify every single typing you make this way even without the knowledge of the subject in question. It is done in case of celebrities and it is allegedly called observation.
All in all, you have to have this other person who shares the same sentiments(?) as you do and it would be damn fine if the person in question would as well.
Without any kind of effort a consensus is reached and what's funnier it's not even a consensus anymore. There's no one to object. A consensus would only come to existence when you, me and some other person met obstacles in form of other people and their opinions.
This is covered in my Forum Dynamics thread (still) in my head as well. A bit busy lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
Anyway, I read somewhere you're typing me ILI. What would be your next move and who are those people you have doubts on here as well, if you don't mind me asking.
Come on lungs, don't just keep such secrets to yourself, share with me :)
Consensus = Majority opinion. Opinion = interpretation based on personal perspective.Quote:
for the record i'm not suggesting at all that, for example, if everybody else types you ESE even though you self-type ESI, then you must actually be ESE. i hate that shit. you own your own identity. i'm not saying that at all.
what i'm saying is more like. you say, "look, i have the posture of an ESI" and everybody else says, "no, you have the posture of an ESE." you have the same fucking posture either way and the rest is just words. so for the sake of communication and "objectivity" (as far as it can go in something like this) ESE might be a better descriptor.
Think of the elephant and blind men analogy. We're all blind men, grasping around trying to figure out how the elephant really is like (sociotype). We start from touching different elephant parts (coming from different directions according to what we first perceive/stands out to us), moving onto different parts. Those who started from the tail have a very different view from the one who began from the tusks.
If the majority of the blind men began from the tusks and extrapolated from there, they have a different view from the few blind men who extrapolated from the tail. They debate, but all they see is a portion of the elephant. My point is, people give different weights to their observations according to their initial point of reference (and existing biases stemming from their existing understanding).
This is where I disagree.Quote:
i think what i was originally getting at was that since its all head games and rhetoric to begin with, consensus is as "real" as it can get. (eg tree metaphor)
of course you have to realize its not "real" in the first place to get that and a lot of people here aren't at that point.
1. Is it really all head games to begin with?
2. Does consensus constitute truth?
3. Are all constructs "real"?
I vote no on all three counts.
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenoa
That's what William suggested when he came up with 2+2=4 insisting it is so every time and what you're suggesting is equally the same. I can be wrong but it seems you take a reductionist approach like in maths and maths is completely reductionist, that is, it doesn't really take the big picture into consideration.Quote:
Think of the elephant and blind men analogy. We're all blind men, grasping around trying to figure out how the elephant really is like (sociotype). We start from touching different elephant parts (coming from different directions according to what we first perceive/stands out to us), moving onto different parts. Those who started from the tail have a very different view from the one who began from the tusks.
You take that elephant, dismember it and you've got parts, not an elephant. You can add those parts together, but it still wouldn't be an elephant. Thing is you're omitting the elephant, the big picture. Same with a pen, you take it apart and you've got parts, each having a name, just parts, not a pen. So in that case 2+2=4, but to see the big picture it is going to have to equal five.
I call it Game of Thrones...Quote:
This is where I disagree.
1. Is it really all head games to begin with?
2. Does consensus constitute truth?
3. Are all constructs "real"?
I vote no on all three counts.
Aren't you overestimating yourself a bit? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
Anyway, I don't know, for example if Absurd says that he is a "high energy and hands on person" and the definition of Ni dominance says something like the opposite, then...the argument would have to start with a re-definition of the term Ni dominance etc. etc. so not *that* easy to accomplish.
Perhaps I'm wrong but couldn't intertype relations be used to statistically prove one's type?Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
For example a person says they're, I dunno, type X. If there is an informational metabolism, and it is fixed, then over time, as that person interacts with other people intertype relations will emerge. And you wouldn't need to know much about either those other people or the relations themselves. The other person could be just an irrational type. And the relation could be just of occasional miscomprehension. Given enough of these bits and pieces one could build up a picture of the original person's type. Consensus and the person's personal opinions aside. Question mark.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
I think I know where this ILI typing comes from and lungs better shield that person if I get to him. That after I get "my hands" on some gamma people, beta people and alpha people, and maybe that wank who self-types IEE. More to come.
9/11. Never forget an attack on the free Absurd Sovereign State.
This is the consensus you asked for, lungs.
theoretically perhaps. but it doesn't actually play out that way. i got a pm once outlining an argument for me being ese based in part on my wonderful understanding with gulanzon. people are weird and see weird things. maybe if you invent a scientific process for determining levels of intertype compatibility lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest
haha i probably couldn't do it right now, without actually believing it, cuz i'm not good enough at bullshitting. but part of what makes me think of this is how people have changed types. like at one point you self-typed SLE, right? and it made sense to you at the time? and at one point i self-typed EII and when i did it was easy to justify intertype relationships and behavior within the context of EII. and now that doesn't make sense anymore but it does make sense to label everything in the context of being ESI. i haven't dramatically changed as a person, have you? but somehow different types have both made sense. i mean i guess you could call that smartening up and understanding more, etc etc. but i can't just look back at how sure i was then and compare it to how sure i am now and feel totally comfortable with that. its dissonant. it tells me something is weird. and i think whats weird is how fluffy socionics actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
^ This is why I care not of particularly assigning a type to myself. I do wonder when people do assign a type to themselves, what it means to them individually, because, surely there must be some sort of recognition in oneself within that particular type, and does the person merge into the type or try to change the type to fit them, can't see how anything can always be an exact fit. Hence I don't wish to box myself in unecessarily, I just do what I have to do and adapt as much as possible. There, heh.
I'm not saying this to re-type Absurd, not something i'm interested in, but to answer your question, if you mean the definition of Te dominance (or ESTj specifically) is high energy and hands on person, then it seems to me you are associating a function/type with vitality, and vitality is as much a health related physical thing. You could have an ESTj without much vitality and the idea is it doesn't change the type.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Considering it was easy, the type switch, nothing is going to stop you from switching again and again just depending on a "oh, it makes sense". You're opening yourself to an array of, I don't know, possibilities in which you can be anything you want. Having that in mind you're going to have to play the role assigned by each and every Sociotype and intertype relations are not flexible.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
At times I think I'm reading smilex when responding to you, hah.
You've got lungs being ESI,Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
You've got Aiss being ILI,
You've got WA being IEE,
You've got DA being LSE.
To name a few of course.
Why don't you ask them?
No, I am not referring to the definition of Te, but rather to the anti-definition of Ni dominance, meaning a set of characteristic which reduces the likelihood of that "typing" being true. You can be joyful and vital, yet stil prefer to slowly and carefully do your intellectual job (for example). Or you can be low-energy and run a marathon, while an high energy person may get bored and prefer going to the gym for one hour (just a stereotypied example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
I do? When did you ask me....Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
also about changing my type, i decided on EII before joining the forum and my thinking was a lot more insular. its easier self-typing ESI in the context of interaction on the forum because of 1) intertype relations, and 2) not feeling like i constantly have to tell everybody that they are wrong when they are talking about "my" type and it doesn' t match me, like i did when i was EII.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
so in that respect, it is based in part on "consensus." which is another way of saying it matches up better with outside checks (see radios post).
exactly. you're a fucking genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
(edit: it wasn't really easy, it didn't flip like a switch, but i could definitely change types again if my understanding of things changed again.)
Why make threads titled type consensus and then get cross when people discuss type consensus?
ohemgee.
hi jim how are you
hi
hihi hi
I'm delicious, are you sharp?
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
All the stuff above, that is, matching this and that and change plausible if under certain circumstances again, okay. Would like to know though do you see(?) me as ILI just now, few days/years after and just as forum ILI in that case?Quote:
(edit: it wasn't really easy, it didn't flip like a switch, but i could definitely change types again if my understanding of things changed again.)
What I mean is, I would have a damn good time playing stuff on Gamma people, a quality time. Even better than from this current position. Persuade woofl to "put" me in Gamma and no one will ever know what hit them.
No comprende.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
Ah right, I read it that you had me typing them as those types, not that that is the types they have for themselves. I could ask them, maybe i'll get round to it. I can see lungs posting in this thread so there's some information there coming my way without the effort, I could always ask you? *Asks*
Edit: When I say effort, there's effort there because to some questioning their type identification is quite possibly seen as questioning their identity in many other ways, so i'll choose my moment when I think offense is limited/non-existent.
I can't speak for any of those people although I would like to see people running on the street and their Sociotypes carved in their foreheads with numerous stickers and patches on their body/clothes just so they and every one else won't forget about it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
People wear some kind of brand clothes anyway and this is where my Absurd shop comes in.
It's not only reserved to Sociotype. Everything can be questioned: your beliefs, manners, the way you tie your shoelaces , how you cut your hair and so on :)Quote:
Edit: When I say effort, there's effort there because to some questioning their type identification is quite possibly seen as questioning their identity in many other ways, so i'll choose my moment when I think offense is limited/non-existent.
HahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
lol yes I get your point, the less important something is to a person the easier it is to ask them about it.... this is why I was thinking to myself @Aiss would be one of ther easier people to ask... but usually by the time I can ask without such hassle it's usually too late ergo not as important to them. Heh, by the time I could get round to asking I probably would not care about the answer.Quote:
It's not only reserved to Sociotype. Everything can be questioned: your beliefs, manners, the way you tie your shoelaces , how you cut your hair and so on :)
Maybe @FDG will notice/respond to the question @lungs asked him about SLE to LIE, well that's enough @y'all for one post.
I wonder if @Smilingeyes believed/believes in type change to cover up a loss of identity when he moved types, well I wonder a lot about stuff then forget about it for some other crap. No it wasnt @@ enough.
Lungs once inquired me about the same, well it wasn't worded the way it is now, but it was close, and I answered. I'm sure though beliefs and stuff like that are important to some people and you're going to meet resistance when questioning things like that especially when the person actually believes in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
I'm not really rigid when it comes to that nor am willing to impose anything on third party.
I bet my right arm FDG self-typed something else besides SLE and LIE.Quote:
Maybe FDG will notice/respond to the question lungs asked him about SLE to LIE, well that's enough @y'all for one post.
That theory of his, providing it is a theory bypasses V.I. and intertype relations resting solely on temperament, being static.Quote:
I wonder if Smilingeyes believed/believes in type change to cover up the loss of identity when he moved types, well I wonder a lot about stuff then forget about it for some other crap. No it wasnt @@ enough.
Ahh gotcha, and I can understand that result, but assuredly, that is not what I meant nor was the result of avoiding thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
It's not that "consensus is dumb" but instead that if the consensus is reached by a group of ninnies, then the value of that consensus is null and void. i.e. the product is simply the end to the means, with the real focus being the means vs. the end.
If you construct a hypothetical world where there are three socionics forums, one that has little to no moderation/laid-back and loosely managed (kinda like 16types), then another that is moderated heavy handed/extremely strict, and a third that is somewhere in the middle, I'd bet the moderation styles would make a large impact on the base of "regulars" that frequented and posted on said forums. In that case, I would pose that the same person posting answers to questionnaires, spending countless hours on webcam/chat and providing a plethora of pictures for VI, etc. etc. would get three different consensus results on typing by those three sources.
Hell, DJ Arendee is a real example of just that. Consensus opinion as an ISTj on one forum, ENTj on another, then ESTp here.
Lastly, the law of increasing returns also makes most forms of consensus rubbish.. Have a look at the societal example of BETA vs VHS. BETA was a superior format, more compact, greater quality product but failed over VHS as early adopters fairly randomly chose VHS, so therefore people bandwagoned to VHS as it had people that owned it vs. the unknown. This cascading increase of increasing returns is also why many people do not like elections results to be broadcast in different timezones as it DOES impact the vote when people on the west coast already see who is winning by the time they go to vote. Increasing returns + herd mentality wins the day.
Question remains what is the appropriate forum. Breaking your post further would simply result in the same thing you mentioned. Only this time you do not have three forums, but one.
And you already can see what kind of blessings lungs received.