Unable to self-type

I'm wondering what @squark's take on Intuition is. She's typed me as a Sensing type, and now frankwithyou possibly, too. And herself.
What if we all are actually N?

Lol. So you don't think ESI anymore, Jeremy.

Jeremy is just trolling 99% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankwithyou

Lol. So you don't think ESI anymore, Jeremy.

---

Well you act just like a female ESI, so idk what that makes you lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankwithyou

Adam, regarding law school, for the possibilities that open up for me. Also, since starting I have discovered that I am very interested in certain fields of law(as in like studying about in depth). As for the daily legal service, I have had the opportunity to get into an internship a few months ago for month and I still feel that this is right for me.

---

OK, good luck.

Personally, I have a degree in Astrophysics, mainly because it was intellectually interesting and gave me a goal about which I could organize my activities for a few years. When I actually started doing it, I found the people were too conservative and intellectually punitive towards new ideas, and it didn't yield real world rewards of the kind I had come to want (money, influence, etc.).

Most smart LIE's go into finance (or become CEO's). Finance is one of the two fields that have the best returns, the other being real estate, which is the realm of the LSE's. However, you may find ways to make money as a lawyer.

The field of law is saturating in the US. Law school enrollment is off (my ex works for the UM Law School), but there are some sub-fields that are prospering, like patents. Mainly because the economy is moving away from competition towards monopolies. Still, a law degree can help you in business and in finance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Jeremy is just trolling 99% of the time.

---

Cassandra is just turning tricks 99% of the time to feed her meth addiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankwithyou

Adam, regarding law school, for the possibilities that open up for me. Also, since starting I have discovered that I am very interested in certain fields of law(as in like studying about in depth). As for the daily legal service, I have had the opportunity to get into an internship a few months ago for month and I still feel that this is right for me.

Well, this is interesting. both LIE and LSI seem to relate to me.

---

What matters is whether it's type-related factors or not. Some things may be, other things not so much, and Cassandra was right that there will of course be overlap between types. That's why you've had trouble figuring your type out after all. Also, please don't take Chae seriously, but I don't think you will.

Don't know how to take that. You wouldn't even think that if you saw me in real life. I'm being sincere here, even though it is awkward, to make most everything clear. This is regarding Jeremy's post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

OK, good luck.

Personally, I have a degree in Astrophysics, mainly because it was intellectually interesting and gave me a goal about which I could organize my activities for a few years. When I actually started doing it, I found the people were too conservative and intellectually punitive towards new ideas, and it didn't yield real world rewards of the kind I had come to want (money, influence, etc.).

Most smart LIE's go into finance (or become CEO's). Finance is one of the two fields that have the best returns, the other being real estate, which is the realm of the LSE's. However, you may find ways to make money as a lawyer.

---

And for LSIs money matters little. They're more interested in what they can do and accomplish, whether something is meaningful and engaging, and whether they can continue to grow and advance. So, different motivations.

Why shouldn't Chae be taken seriously? Is this some weird kind of passive-aggressive stab?
So far, I've found her contributions rather helpful and constructive. She wasn't trolling like Jeremy. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankwithyou

Don't know how to take that. You wouldn't even think that if you saw me in real life. I'm being sincere here, even though it is awkward, to make most everything clear. This is regarding Jeremy's post.

---

Reductionist or Non-Reductionist?

Utilitarianism or Deontology?

:shifty:

Reductionist. Utilitarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Why shouldn't Chae be taken seriously? Is this some weird kind of passive-aggressive stab?
So far, I've found her contributions rather helpful and constructive. She wasn't trolling like Jeremy. :p

---

What you call trolling, I call asking secret questions ��

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

Why shouldn't Chae be taken seriously? Is this some weird kind of passive-aggressive stab?
So far, I've found her contributions rather helpful and constructive. She wasn't trolling like Jeremy. :p

---

Because she's suggesting that using the word interesting and possibilities means strong Ne. She means well, but her approach isn't very sound.

Thanks for the information, Adam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Also, please don't take Chae seriously, but I don't think you will.

---

Why is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Because she's suggesting that using the word interesting and possibilities means strong Ne. She means well, but her approach isn't very sound.

---

What else could possibilities and interest indicate? :Ti: logic and :Se: force?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankwithyou

Thanks for the information, Adam.

---

You are welcome. I hope it is useful.

Incidentally, making a desperate effort to make myself clear in a world where 98% of the population thinks entirely differently from me is what I do most of the time. :)

Epistemology: Skepticism (Idealism or Subjectivism) In regards to epistemology, my test measures your tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism. As an epistemological Skeptic, you believe that ultimate reality cannot be known in any objective way. The two categories of Skeptics that my test recognizes are Idealists and Subjectivists.

1. Epistemological Idealists believe that knowledge of ultimate reality is impossible. All we can ever have knowledge about is the world of phenomenal human experience, but there is no reason to suspect that reality mirrors our perceptions and thoughts, according to Idealists. Idealists, then, tend to see truth not as a correspondence between propositions and reality--reality is, after all, fundamentally unknowable--but as a coherence between a whole system of propositions taken to be true. We cannot escape from language or our conceptualized world of phenomena, so we are unable to reference propositions to facts and must instead determine their truth by comparing them to other propositions we hold to be true. As a result of such an idealism, knowledge of any ultimate reality is taken to be impossible, hence the Skeptical tendency of idealism. All our pursuits of knowledge, science included, can only reflect a phenomenal reality that is of our own making. Famous idealists include Kant and Fichte.

If the above did not sound skeptical or idealistic enough to reflect your own views, then you are most likely a Subjectivist. 2. Epistemological Subjectivists, like idealists, believe that all our knowledge is ultimately of our own making because it is filtered through our subjective perceptions. Unlike an idealist, though, a subjectivist doesn't believe in any universal categories of "truth" that apply to the phenomenal world, because each individual can create his own truth. Either that, or he will hold that society or custom creates its own forms of truth. A subjectivist will tend to regard scientific inquiry as a game of sorts--science does not reveal truths about reality, but only gives scientists pseudo-solutions to pseudo-problems of the scientific community's own devising. It is a type of puzzle-solving, but the puzzle isn't of reality. The definition of truth to a subjectivist may be one that recognizes a proposition's usefulness to an individual. William James is one such subjectivist, who believes that we can "will to believe" certain propositions so long as we would find them useful. The example he gives is being found in a situation where you must leap over a chasm in order to survive. The true belief, in such a situation, is that the leap will be successful--this truth is certainly more useful to us, and in believing the truth we become more willing to commit to the jump and make it successful. So, in essence, knowledge of reality is possible for a subjectivist because they never make reference to any objective reality existing outside of our own perceptions and beliefs--we can have knowledge of reality through having knowledge of ourselves, and that is all that we should ask for. Famous subjectivists include Kuhn, Feyarabend, and James. Another famed critic of Absolutism is Hume.

Or

Epistemology: Absolutism (Rationalism or Pragmatism) My test measures one's tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism in regards to epistemology. As an Absolutist, you believe that objective knowledge is possible given the right approach, and you deny the claims of skeptical philosophers who insist that we can never have knowledge of ultimate reality. The two types of Absolutists recognized by my test are Rationalists and Pragmatists.

1. Rationalists believe that the use of reason ultimately provides the best route to truth. A rationalist usually defines truth as a correspondence between propositions and reality, taking the common-sense route. Also, rationalists tend to believe that knowledge of reality is made possible through certain foundational beliefs. This stance is known as foundationalism. A foundationalist believes that, because we cannot justify the truth of every statement in an infinite regress, we ultimately reach a foundation of knowledge. This foundation is composed of a priori truths, like mathematics and logic, as well as undoubtable truths like one's belief in his or her own existence. The belief that experiences and memories are veridical is also part of the foundation. Thus, for a rationalist knowledge of reality is made possible through our foundational beliefs, which we do not need to justify because we find them to be undoubtable and self-evident. In regards to science, a rationalist will tend to emphasize the foundational assumptions of scientific inquiry as prior to and more important than scientific inquiry itself. If science does lead to truth, it is only because it is based upon the assumption of certain rational principles such as "Every event is caused" and "The future will resemble the past". Philosophy has a wide representation of philosophical rationalists--Descartes, Spinoza, Liebniz, and many others.

2. Epistemological Pragmatists are fundamentally identified by their definition of truth. Truth is, on this view, merely a measure of a proposition's success in inquiry. This view is a strictly scientific notion of truth. A proposition can be called true if it leads to successful predictions or coheres best with the observed facts about the world. Thus, for the pragmatist, knowledge of reality is possible through scientific reasoning. A pragmatist emphasizes man's fallibility, and hence takes baby-steps towards knowledge through scientific methodology. Any truth claim for a pragmatist is open to revision and subject to change--if empirical observations lead us to call even logical rules into question (like quantum physics has done for the law of the excluded middle), then we can and should abandon even these supposed a priori and "absolutely certain" logical rules if they do not accord with our testing and refuting of our various propositions. As a consequence of this, a pragmatist doesn't feel that scientific knowledge is based upon unfounded assumptions that are taken to be true without any sort of justification--rather, they believe that the successes of scientific inquiry have proved that its assumptions are well-founded. For instance, the assumption of science that the future will be like the past is adequately shown by the amazing success of scientific theories in predicting future events--how else could this be possible unless the assumption were true? Pragmatism borrows elements from realism and yet attempts to account for the critiques made by skeptics and relativists. It is essentially a type of philosophical opportunism--it borrows the best stances from a large number of philosophical systems and attempts to discard the problems of these systems by combining them with others. Famous pragmatists of this type are Peirce and Dewey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chae

What else could possibilities and interest indicate? :Ti: logic and :Se: force?

---

He's saying that someone showing Ne doesn't have anything to do with it being strong or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

You are welcome. I hope it is useful.

Incidentally, making a desperate effort to make myself clear in a world where 98% of the population thinks entirely differently from me is what I do most of the time. :)

---

Think its dualism vs monism that says like "body and mind are separate" or not. Which one do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chae

What else could possibilities and interest indicate? :Ti: logic and :Se: force?

---

Being human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

I hate typing this way, so I'll try not to be influenced by it, but you're the only person I've seen yet on this forum that I've read things of and actually really identified with, and could say "yeah me too" to almost all of it. Though, I don't think I'm all that charming 1 on 1 or in a group either one. Some people have told me otherwise but I'm unconvinced.

Ok, so I'll put that aside and try to look at just the type factors that stand out.

---

Just because you like him and relate to his cognition, doesn't mean you're the same type. That would be too easy. If anything, that means shared or overlapping values. Maybe you're duals instead, ESI and LIE? :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Being human.

---

Sure every human uses it, but the overall questionnaire speaks the same language - it's pronounced. Given that you're :Ne: PoLR it's understandable that you react that way :lol:

Jeremy: Skepticism, tending towards Idealism.

If what you say is accurate, your only possible types are ESE and SLE.

And now we know what a male who sounds like a female ESI is folks! Welp, good work gang! Mystery solved!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chae

Just because you like him and relate to his cognition, doesn't mean you're the same type. That would be too easy. If anything, that means shared or overlapping values. Maybe you're duals instead, ESI and LIE? Sure every human uses it, but the overall questionnaire speaks the same language - it's pronounced. Given that you're :Ne: PoLR it's understandable that you react that way :lol:

---

If you want to talk about my type, start another thread. Let's keep this one on-topic.

http://rlv.zcache.com/the_mystery_ma..._8byvr_512.jpg

Well, that settles it:lol:.(jk) My intention was to be sincere here to paint you an accurate picture. Now I'm starting to think if it would have been better to behave as I do most of the time. Still don't think it would have been accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

If you want to talk about my type, start another thread. Let's keep this one on-topic.

---

I saw you brought this in, talking about how you resonate with it personally. So of course your type is in relation to it, on-topic, and I will point it out just like you do. And offer perspectives. If you deliberately created the bandwagon, chances are someone picks up on it. But good, I won't talk about it if you dislike it. And you don't talk about how he reflects your type in reverse.

I was actually serious lol.

Those 3 sets I just asked you are also 3 of the reinin dichotomies.

The only two possible are ESE and SLE.

I know you were being serious.

ESE... >_<

I have to admit, this is kind of funny. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankwithyou

Well, that settles it:lol:.(jk) My intention was to be sincere here to paint you an accurate picture. Now I'm starting to think if it would have been better to behave as I do most of the time. Still don't think it would have been accurate.

---

To change things up a bit, what about tests. I think SubT's test is a decent start: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Socionics-Test

Regarding that sort of method, Jeremy, I find it hard to believe it would have a clear application in all cases. Statistically speaking, I find it impossible to apply it with certainty to a small scale(me). Globally, yes, maybe.

Squark, regarding tests, it did the AIM-SOLTI test. I scored EIE by some margin, followed somewhat closely by ILI. The rest, down. The least possible type for me actually was ESE, according to that. Si took a plunge. Still, even though EIE was favorable, Fe was near the middle( self/cultural conditioning?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassandra

ESE... >_<

I have to admit, this is kind of funny. :p

---

It's like a super special secretly designed ESE trap... Think they getting away...

Then...

Snap! Right on the gibblies... Part of my ESE extinction campaign!

Jeremy 4 President 2020!
"Grab em by the Reinin!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankwithyou

Regarding that sort of method, Jeremy, I find it hard to believe it would have a clear application in all cases. Statistically speaking, I find it impossible to apply it with certainty to a small scale(me). Globally, yes, maybe.

Squark, regarding tests, it did the AIM-SOLTI test. I scored EIE by some margin, followed somewhat closely by ILI. The rest, down. The least possible type for me actually was ESE, according to that. Si took a plunge. Still, even though EIE was favorable, Fe was near the middle( self/cultural conditioning?).

---

Have you taken the test on sociotype.com before?

Chae, regarding the duality theory, if serious, I find that hard to believe. Jeremy rubs me the wrong way. No offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankwithyou

Regarding that sort of method, Jeremy, I find it hard to believe it would have a clear application in all cases. Statistically speaking, I find it impossible to apply it with certainty to a small scale(me). Globally, yes, maybe.

Squark, regarding tests, it did the AIM-SOLTI test. I scored EIE by some margin, followed somewhat closely by ILI. The rest, down. The least possible type for me actually was ESE, according to that. Si took a plunge. Still, even though EIE was favorable, Fe was near the middle( self/cultural conditioning?).

---

It does. Works 100% of the time.

People can't see what is going on so they pick which one they actually agree with. Prevents people from trying to pick and choose their type based upon what they want to appear as.

Luckily for you, Jeremy was on the case...

There's no case too big... No case too small... When you need help just call...

Chip chip n Jeremy!!!

Socionics Rangers!!!

Chip chip n Jeremy!!!

When there's dangers!

http://witnessthis.files.wordpress.c...hip-n-dale.jpg