Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY
Okay. Plot thickens.
Would have to watch that, besides, I don't really know what is the point in typing that guy when people can't arrive at their own.
Anyway, doesn't sound very much Fi, but I didn't spend much time on it, had to fly. Maybe I'm going to some day. Why don't you, like, tell the audience what is so Fi about that guy?
I can very well be wrong.
Last edited by Absurd; 02-16-2013 at 06:22 PM.
I think you're not getting the point. Te is supposed the most objective function because it does in this way for every flavor of this characteristic. But this does not imply that the three are equivalent so you can compare simply by adding.
Saying that Js are conceptualizators is not my idea, but Jung's. For every mental process you do, you have an idea generator and an idea evaluator. The first part of the mental process (an aspect of the whole) comes into P functions; the second one, J functions. So if you are discussing about hot Singer or any other subject evaluates his ideas (makes his judgements), you're talking about J functions, not Ps.
Fair enough. But you are missing a great deal of what I discussed with Ashton.
Who says we are only discussing how Singer makes his judgements? Moreover, are you saying that only the J functions can be evaluated in terms of consistency?
And who says I'm discussing about your conversation with Ashton? I clearly said to you that I'm not arguing about Singer's type, therefore I'm not participating in that conversation. All I made was pointing some issues about the nature of Ti, what degenerated in this pointless conversation.
Dude, you've problems understanding what others say to you, or you (more likely) simply refuse to budge an inch. I think I've shown enough patience.
I see a Ti role in how Peter approuches his topics, but not a Ti-dom from his quotes. It's almost as if he is purposly trying to be mindfull of how his statements sound logically, almost to the point of being self concious of his own logic. Its like he is trying to appeal to this side of his audience, but logic lacks strength. Also, when he talks about nature and having a aesthetic appreciation, an almost kinesthetic experince, touching on all the senses, seems to be Si- mobalizing. In other words, this feeling coming from an unconcious but valued place within himself.
I think the debate between LII and EII would be further solved if he could be seen in person. These two types behave differently in person. Does this man value Fe in others or Te? And how would he approuch such people? For me, he sounds as if he derives his morals and ethics from a very personal place within himself.
On another note, human beings are animals. We are of this planet, we evolved from shared ancestors. We are first and foremost animals. That does not mean we mean all the complex emotional and psycological and mental powers that we have are not incredible and unique. They are. Any other beliefs, such as we are something better, or, more important, or above the animal kingdom is a direct results of conditioned mind and culture. We simply have a bigger brain than all other living beings. That bigger braain has gone to our heads.
Last edited by wacey; 02-16-2013 at 09:25 PM.
Yes, time to meet him in person to determine whether he is in fact LII or EII. Anyone who is interested can send me cash and I'll book a flight for you. Good thing I didn't watch those vids and it's cool seeing some well-positioned replies.
That was a short-term position working for a mammalogist. I don't do anything like that now.
I disagree that it's only a matter of degree, but I don't think there's anything more to be said about this that we haven't already covered.
Better rubric- not at all. If it's an arbitrary schema then it's meaningless and unlikely to lead to very sound ethical judgments at all. What I see Singer doing is taking personal sentiments and cloaking them in rationalizations and foisting them on others with intention to shame them into agreement. I take issue with the cloaking and shaming, not with his feelings on the subject. People can feel however they want about something - pretending that it's logical though, is imo silly. It's also different than examining the question "What is ethical?"or "What are my values?" and attempting to create a system of values that you consistently follow.
Fine.. forget about me, do you understand what I'm arguing for? I clearly said that I don't think relating Ti to consistency is a wise position to take. You said it actually makes sense and proceeded to argue for that point. How am I not following you? Did you just forget about what we were talking about?
Dude, you've problems understanding what others say to you, or you (more likely) simply refuse to budge an inch. I think I've shown enough patience.
Okay, watched that vid just now (duh). I have a somewhat hard time seeing him ethical, unless I am really missing something, would need more info. Tricky one, hmm, I have two types in mind.
Last edited by Absurd; 02-16-2013 at 10:16 PM.
Of course, of course. You constantly makes aseverations about things that you have no fucking clue, like the meaning of objectivity. I cared enough to explain, yet you still act is if others are wrong and should prove to you otherwise, despite your lack of knowledge about basic aspects which are being discussed. You also likes to make absurd twists (like mentioning Asthon several times) for, as I said, refusing to budge an inch.
This has happened to you several times with different users in this thread, but hey, the fault is always in others right?
What a waste of time. Don't worry, forgotten.
I guess it's my fault that I let people speak of their ideas before arguing with them? I like to explore as much as I can. Sue me for asking you about things you bring up on your own for no fucking reason. Remember you were the one who thought being an objective function (plus a static) somehow makes Ti more deserving of universals (and somehow it's more consistent). When I brought up the Se comparison you failed to make a decent point. You knew my position beforehand, you failed to convince me, and your arguments gotten even more irrelevant the more you spoke. What the fuck do you want me to say?Of course, of course. You constantly makes aseverations about things that you have no fucking clue, like the meaning of objectivity. I cared enough to explain, yet you still act is if others are wrong and should prove to you otherwise, despite your lack of knowledge about basic aspects which are being discussed. You also likes to make absurd twists (like mentioning Asthon several times) for, as I said, refusing to budge an inch.
This has happened to you several times with different users in this thread, but hey, the fault is always in others right?
What a waste of time. Don't worry, forgotten.
I have no beef with Ashton, he is one of the few people on this forum who can actually look beyond these conversations and not hold a grudge.
Tell Everyone what you think his type is, Jadae. Answer the question, I'm curious.
I saw a few parts of that video. 09:52. The guy refused a research position as undergraduate, in a new field, in favour of studying humanities (and philosophy) because he thinks he can make a bigger impact writing about right or wrong or whatever the fuck he says. Clearly this man is Alpha NT.
Hint: sarcasm!
You're a fine friend, you stab me in the front - that would be sarcasm and not what you wrote. Anyway, that would mean he traded law in favour of philosphy, ethical philosophy just to write about right and wrong, wouldn't it?
I checked and he is quite the radical utilitarian and rationalist - he treats morality as science. He states that people who do not feel, can't plan nor act rationally are not people. In other words he distinguished people from not people. The latter are rocks and trees.
Besides, you didn't answer anything. I might get back to this, for it is quite an interesting topic tomorrow. Just spill a type or two, I would like to know if it is going to kill the ones I thought about, not to mention the ones in this thread.
Him, indeed, being not what I thought is no biggie, I can be wrong.
Last edited by Absurd; 02-16-2013 at 11:20 PM.
I got what you were saying in your reply to him, but to be fair you weren't being very clear in what you were communicating. Also, criticizing him for nitpicking over semantics is a little silly considering a lot of the miscommunication and understanding issues happen through misapplied or misunderstood use of semantics (this thread being an example of that). Socionics is not something you want to be studying or engaging in if you have no respect for that.
He was saying that since all static functions are assessing consistency, it doesn't make sense to pin Ti on him as he could be making assessments through any static function. Pinning Ti on him would be a leap because you are essentially picking a static function out of a hat - merely assessing consistency in itself doesn't indicate much about him what his ego functions are at all.
Secondly, Its the extroverted information elements that are objective, field functions (introverted) assess relationships between objects and not the objects themselves which would in actuality be seeing things 'as is'. I don't see how anything else you mentioned above implies objectivity over the other. You really think Ne (internal) is less objective than Se (external)?
Slightly redundant to be saying this but any issue can be discussed through the perception/assessment/proccessing of any element. People apply their I.E.'s to places where they don't belong all the time, emotional pleas in logical debates are a good example of that. The only question is which element is doing the processing. Morality is typically associated with Fi since value/emotional judgements are in this realm, but that isn't the only lens you can assess morality through. As far as Peter Singer goes, I don't see how he is assessing morality through Ti and agree that a lot of what he says isn't logically sound. Ti is associated with classification and categorization and he seems to shy away and blur lines more than separate them in any intelligible way - instead opting to make leaps such as applying Kant's principle to animals. This says more to me about how he processes things than adopting a philosophy (which, btw, given the general premise is going to be widely attractive to a bunch of different types). Interviews lead me to believe he is more on the Fi/Te axis, EII sounds pretty okay to me as an alternative. It could possibly also reconcile why some people see him as logical as he would then have causal deterministic thinking style - interestingly he does indeed seem to engage in formal logic quite a bit, despite not engaging very well in what Ti is proficient at as a whole. LII is doubtful, in any case.
Last edited by thePirate; 02-17-2013 at 01:13 AM.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
Is English your native language?
That isn't what I said; I said prioritizing logical (i.e. demonstrable, ostensive) consistency tends to be a trait prevalent to Tx-ego in general (both Ti & Te).Implying that consistency anywhere is an indication of Ti is quite the argument to make.
Naturally, there can be other sorts of consistency as well, depending on how it's being parameterized.
It's not.
You are still offering no reasoning as to why they would prioritize logical consistency at all. Saying there are other kinds of consistency means shit. To me, being consistent is hardly worth paying attention to. It is not a desirable trait either nor does it imply proficiency.
Ashton ashton bo bashton, banana fana fo fashton, fee fi mo mashton. Ashton.
Well then, seems like I disagree when it comes to the "values" he adheres to. He has antagonistic stance when it comes to Bush as well from what I could gather.
His arguments seem absurd to me. I think utilitarianism is absurd to me.
I thought that guy is LSI at first, but I can be wrong. Moreover utilitarianism, like I said before is shit and absurd, it just states you're ready to kill in order to benefit the numbers (wankers) of some society. If I wanted to kill it, I would find many ways to "play" with this philosophy and adherents to it, I could even go that far and say such actions are immoral/pity and rip a hole in its "ethics."
Save the cheerleader, save the world mentality.
Last edited by Absurd; 02-18-2013 at 01:36 PM.
You'll probably find this interesting if you haven't read it before—it dovetails nicely with what you're talking about: Empathy represses analytic thought, and vice versa
Basically, the research suggests that everyone's brain possesses both networks (analytic & empathic), but that these do operate in an XOR manner precluding simultaneous activation—such that it's easy to conceive a typical person having to rapidly alternate between both over the course of a given day per fluctuating situational demands. Meaning that what's typologically regarded as F & T, may neurologically avail itself in terms of an individual's statistical odds for activating one network more than the other.
This is possibly along similarly construed lines as the distinction b/t Implicit vs. Explicit IAs (see post here).I see logical functions as objective conceptualizators, and ethical ones as subjective conceptualizators. I'm not implying with this that logic conceptualizators are inherently more right (or logic users less emotional), only that they have some kind of negative synergy with emotions, whereas ethical ones have positive synergy with them:
Excellent article, thanks.
More or less. Implicit functions, being disconnected from the object, lack reference (relations can be applied anywere, until connection with concrete object cannot be evaluated). They would be subjective from this pow. For ethical functions the reference would be the self (oneself) and equivalent (others), making them subjective, from this pow, when compared with logical ones which weight people in the same way they do will all objects.This is possibly along similarly construed lines as the distinction b/t Implicit vs. Explicit IAs (see post here).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote