Originally Posted by Logos
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
yeah, and LSI likes to say things simply and clearly, not long convoluted, complex and dragged out. i agree that tdaud is some sort of Ne and Ti combo.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
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
That is not an argument for-- not in the slightest. In a recent real life example where a person explicitly said that he was shocked about someone's behaviour (the behaviour of me and a friend of mine) the "shocked" person had
in his ego block.
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 imoThat is not an argument for
Precisely my point. Which is not to say, though, that he wasn't really "shocked"; but to say it, as in "I am SHOCKED -- SHOCKED" is a way to call attention to his emotional state, and expecting some reaction, even if just the attention.
@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.
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.
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.
This reminds me how performing music on stage is related to Fe and why I suck at it.
It's all about provoking a reaction! (< not really)
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Not always. Sometimes (and just as importantly) it's about establishing a connection between the performer and the audience.This reminds me how performing music on stage is related to Fe and why I suck at it.
It's all about provoking a reaction! (< not really)
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Would that be more related to Fi or Si then, or is it still Fe? Or maybe it cannot be related to a specific function?
It is definitely something I give more credit than just creating an emotional reaction/atmosphere.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Maybe. But Expat uses it as an argument for certain types, and as you can see for yourself, it is a very unreliable typing method. That he uses it so much is the main cause of some of his mistypings.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote