F Y I
F Y I
How so?
Originally Posted by Logos
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
For starters, read this and consider the ISTj in relation to ENFj, ENTp ... must I be-labor the details?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=17000
(Then consider the Ti-spreadsheets he often posts ... )
Considering HOW often typings are incorrect, and how hard it can be for one to find their true type, he was still pretty darn close. (As I do not mean this thread to be a point of embarrassment, by any means.)
Last edited by astralsilky; 02-21-2008 at 04:32 PM.
?
rmv
Code:import java.io.*; import java.util.*; import cs1.Keyboard; public class chore { private int choreNum; private int cost; private ArrayList<Integer> dependencies; public chore(int number) { choreNum = number; dependencies = new ArrayList<Integer>(); System.out.println("Enter time for chore " + (choreNum + 1)); cost = Keyboard.readInt(); if (number == 0) dependencies.add(0); else { System.out.println("tEnter any dependencies or 0 to stop"); boolean keepGoing = true; Integer input; while (keepGoing) { input = Keyboard.readInt(); dependencies.add(input - 1);//the index of the first process is 0, so the user sees process n as process n+1. correct for that by subtracting 1 here. if (input.equals((Integer) 0)) keepGoing = false; } } } public int getCost() { return cost; } public int getChoreNum() { return choreNum; } public int getArg(int index) { int f = dependencies.get(index); return f; } public int getArgsSize() { return dependencies.size(); } public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("This doesn't do anything. Run the chores file instead."); } }
I think he's Ne and Ti together. He comes up with all these ideas, and is continually thinking of where different possibilities might logically lead.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I think Tcaudilllg posts a lot of abstract theoretical generalized stuff. This to me says TiNe or NeTi.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
But now that the issue has been raised, would you say he "rambles" in the way the average INTj would...? How many INTjs do we see regularly writing up narratives as lengthy as his? Aren't INTjs ordinarily more concise than that?I agree that it's stupid. TC rambles in a way that no LSI would. His voice in writing also lacks any real (or threatening) sense of . Authoritative in his judgments, but authority lacking that touch, though this could be due to my own (at times) blindness to matters.
If he is wrong about his type, I would count it most likely that he is ENFj. He already acknowledges ENFj-like behaviors in himself, calling ENFj his slave type.
Did anyone notice ENFjs are characteristically known for being obsessed with good and evil, just like TC is? There are bound to be some other convergences to be found between his behavior and that of ENFjs: http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
This thread seems to me to say more about the ignorance of the participants regarding socionics, than it does about my type.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
No LSI would be that interested in theory. It never ever happens, because LSIs simply aren't interested in theory.
I've got far better things to do than to commit my limited time to a conversation with you, who has apparently no faith in his own intellectual competence. That said, if you want to learn more about the Bible you hold so dear, I will continue to discuss that with you.
As for my type, see my signature.
tcaudilllg is a blatent Ti base, and I think Ne > Se is clearly evident. Why is LII in question? It fits far better than LSI. A difference I've noticed between the LIIs here and the LSIs (such as PotatoSpirit) is the depth in which they pursue socionics. Notice how PotatoSpirit will relate what he says to real life almost always. He never borders on abstract; it's always here, now and down-to-earth; he's concerned with issues at hand, regardless of whether they're personal or impersonal. Now compare him to people like thehotelambush, labcoat and Logos, all of whom have similar ways of speaking, similar tones, and similar judgements. Then you have people like machintruc and tcaudilllg who essentially love to theorise extensively and create systems based on their many ideas. These, in my eyes, are two kinds of LIIs, from which PotatoSpirit is competely distinct. He has little in common with them (at least that he shares on the forum), and I can draw more parallels with the self-typed LIIs on here than I can with PotatoSpirit and tcaudilllg. Hence, I stand by with LII for tcaudilllg. It's obvious in my and many others' eyes.
Hold up. Some of the stuff I've seen from you is more theoretical (maybe it's simply harder to understand).
Originally Posted by Igor WeisbandIt all depends one what you consider to be 'theory'.Originally Posted by Igor Weisband
Don't you mean machintruc?
I don't have an opinion on PotatoSpirit's type (I have never analyzed it), but as a general description of how LSIs relate to theories I basically agree with this.
I have never met a LSI in real life that has been interested in theorizing, and I have never read about a LSI that has had that kind of interest either. They are always very much down-to-earth, always focused on describing factual details in a historical perspective. In papers written by LSIs the theoretical parts tend to be the weakest, whereas their accuracy and completness with facts in the empirical parts are much, much better. They do not problematize enough, they are not critical enough, when it comes to analyze the findings in a more general and more theoretical perspective.
Do any of you guys have an example of a LSI that is different from how I and Ezra have described them here? Can you provide an example of a theoretical LSI?
I'm not saying that LSIs can be influenced by theory or that they cannot trying their best to implement what others would describe as a definite system, but if they do I think that they do it totally uncritically, without ever seriously questioning the correctness of what they are doing. They let others come up with the theory, they let others explain and refine it, whereas they focus on the practical problems that are always there -- with or without any theory.
Phaedrus, do you agree with Weisband's LSI description? There is a fair bit in there that actually states that they're good at finding the solution and critically analysing stuff.
Yes, I agree with it. This passage is right to the point:
It accentuates the fact that LSIs are focused on the implementation of the system, but it does not state that they are good at critically analyzing it. Stalin is mentioned in the description, and he fits it perfectly, since he was not a theoretician but only a practical implementer.He is able to rationally and adequately choose the best of the available systems or dogmas and to fight for its implementation uncompromisingly up to the point of impertinence. He categorically rejects everything that cannot fit into this system, and perfects it to its ideal state. He is very consistent in the realization of his system, even when it comprises inconstancy.
I have personal experiences of this kind of leader in at least two of the organizations I have been involved with, and the potential evil of this kind of mentality is something I have recently become extremely aware of after having seen this clear pattern both in Russia's internal politics (Stalin and recently Putin) and depressingly also in the acting of one LSI I personally know.
I would say EIE before LSI, because he sometimes seems to want to "mobilize" others emotionally, as in saying things like, "I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- that that paper by Augusta and Reinin hasn't been properly translated yet -- this shows the wiki's bias" -- or something like that (quoting from memory).
Of course, I guess he attributes that to ENFj being the exertion type?
For the record, this kind of stuff - like hitta's saying things like "this makes me wanna puke" or Phaedrus saying things like "I am getting really irritated" have precisely the opposite effect on me. I tend to think "so who cares if you're shocked" and "so go puke" and "then get irritated even more, who cares".
I have to guess that the expectation is to get some kind of reaction, as in "OMG he's shocked I better do something about it" or "no, calm down, no reason to get irritated, I didn't mean it that way" etc etc. On me it has pretty much the opposite effect.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I disagree. There's different levels of being shocked. Not having some script translated into English is not really a comment on someones behaviour, like your Ti person was doing. This is like an action purely to create a reaction, which is in this context is rather Fe imo
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
@Expat: I see what you are saying; although, I have known some ISTjs very well and some of them are easily capable of saying this type of "shocked" line, yet are not necessarily are aware of what impact they're having. Perhaps they're trying to connect with others based on their strongly held ideals. (IME, ISTjs are apt to have strong beliefs/ideals, and will assert them with a flavor of idealistic perfectionism or (non-threatening) generic moral outrage). Consciously or not, this is probably how they are often able to connect with Fe+Ni ego types, because they seemingly declare these ideals in search of mutual affirmation -- which the Fe+Ni's may readily respond to with more conscious control, and rapport is established. (Ironically, they also act simultaneously cheerful if someone is agreeing with them.)
@tcaudilllg/in general: your exertion theory may be onto something (not that I have yet found reason yet to believe/support it; I have not thoroughly researched it); however, I'm first forced to consider that it seems a lot easier, and more accurate, for one to simply say, "hey, I might be an ISTj after all who's particularly dual-seeking with some of my ideological preoccupations" than to go through all the trouble of asserting a type model which doubles the scope of your starting base rather than building on a long-accepted, pre-existing foundation from a process-type of approach, as seems to be more common in good theories (...)
@everyone: tcaudilllg comes across way more like an ISTj IME (although, not a "typical" one. IMO, PotatoSpirit is a good benchmark of an average ISTj.) This is due to his style of communication, psychological concerns, perceptions and reaction styles (esp. wrt ENFj themes, ENTp themes). I really don't feel like going through the tedium of psychoanalyzing someone on the net. There's no payoff. Not to mention, it's not always easy codifying intuition in the form of an argument. That sounds tedious.
But I will say this: * his Ti base is evident; * in some of his posts, he focuses it on themes of leading and uniting groups of people in ideal ways (not in mundane/common/historical/even comfy, Si ways); * his posts lack Ne; * his posted theories often appear MORE like accounting spreadsheetsmore than succinct insights (NO offense) and this might indicate creative Se (visible, variable manipulations (like coding, even); * in the post I initially linked to, he contrasts some great personal vision of this ideal leader having forethought/etc wrt their impact on people (ENFj) vs some ENTp-ish creative leader who does not (to which my own subjectivity reacts, 'who cares?? Who cares about this stuff?! weird ...') and then he also appears to openly threatening deliberate nonfulfillment of his theoretically-imagined supervisor (ie, the {'bad'} leader) ENTp's admiration HA (which supervisees sometimes do, IME - esp. out of envy of their dominant function).
Others are free to their own opinions, of course. I just wanted to mention my perception in case it resonated with anyone else, triggered new insights, whatever ...
Some on this site already agree with what I'm about to write, but it seems good to re-assert that considering S-types as "uninterested in theories" and N's to be the "theoretical and imaginative ones" can be an unnecessary, misleading limitation for one to adhere to in the course of their typing studies.
No, Phaedrus is definitely NT (vs. tcaud` propositionally not being NT).
I have doubted niffweed's typing before, but have no compelling reason at present to get into that subject.
While we're on the topic, Blauritson is another poster on this forum whom I've said is ISTj, not INTp, and still hold to this. IMO, he is a good example of a common phenomenon (again, IMO) whereby one (tests and/or) mistypes oneself "one-wing" along a their ring of benefit.
Last edited by astralsilky; 02-25-2008 at 08:12 AM.
Well let's see some examples, then. I'll let you know, I've recently posted lots of Ne stuff to my blog....
OK, I'll look at your blog but for now:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...0&postcount=14
this thread looks like Ni Hidden Agenda to me.
I've known a few ISTjs who were occasional very interested in fantasy - the more nonsensical, the better (eg, films such as The City of Lost Children, or The Adventures of Baron von Munchhausen (sp)). They seemed unable to generate it for themselves, and so are more often delighted spectators of those who could manufacture such experiences for them, from time to time.
Just to step back from all this with a question. If potato is a good example of an ISTj (which I think he is) how can you say that he is like tcaudilllg. Apart from maybe Ti, where are the similarities? even Ti is different as it comes through a different creative channel. The two of them seem far too different from what I've seen.
Where are Niffweed's funny ape pictures when you need them? :rolls eyes:
*GRRRAAAAAAAARRRR!* ME OGRE.
*raises high club over Dee...*
*SPLAT!*