EIE in IMO, seems Freudish with his ideas.
EIE in IMO, seems Freudish with his ideas.
ἀταραξία
Phaedrus, deja vu eh?Originally Posted by Phaedrus
@numenori, i've had a far too lengthy conversation about this with him on another forum. I will be suprised if you get anywhere. He just wants to go round and round on this topic. Probably because of his attempt to rationalise his weak sensing.
And there you go assuming Freud was an EIE. I'm seeing neither the inspiration nor the cheer, but a lot of cold calculation on Freud's part. I've read Freud and about his relationship to Jung and other psychologists.
I'm still waiting for the thorough analysis of Freud that determines his type to satisfaction.Revenge is a cup best served cold. - S. Freud
Given his repeating tendency to get into conflict with accepting Si types, we have an obligation to ourselves to give the ENxj possibility consideration, no matter how "insane" or "stupid" we might at first think it to be.
Instances of conflict with Si dominants:
- publicly requesting for Jessica to be banned
- calling Bionicgoat a "sociopath"
- vouching for having a shaming "novice award" forced on dee
Jessica and Dee are noted as accepting Si types in the forum consensus list:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...Consensus_List
Bionicgoat calls himself an ISFp.
No. Absolutely no. Unless you believe that tcaudilllg is insane -- which would be an insult to both his person and his intelligence regardless of whether your belief would be true or not. It is stupid, ridiculous, and idiotic to suggest ENFj or ENTj. Period.
Perfectly consistent INTj behaviour according to the type descriptions.
The types of Jessica, Dee, and Bionicgoat are almost totally irrelevant here. It is what they do that counts. If a similar type of behaviour (whatever it was about) would have been expressed by some non-Si type, an INTj would of course treat them in the same way.
Quit circling around the issue. What they do is an expression of what they are. And if what they do sparks conflict with tcaudilllg, we can make inferences as to parts of their identity that might conflict with those of tcaudilllg.It is what they do that counts.
I am an INTj intertype relation wise, and I do not exhibit behaviors of this kind towards these individuals. Nor do other acknowledged INTjs like Hotelambush and Logos.If a similar type of behaviour (whatever it was about) would have been expressed by some non-Si type, an INTj would of course treat them in the same way.
Anyway, this is raw data. It is contrary to your claims to objectivity for you to ignore it as carelessly as you are doing now.
Instead of taking the above as an indication that tcaudilllg is an ENxj, we might ask ourselves how we can understand the pattern that tcaudilllg has a tendency to conflict with Si types as something other than a simple chance misfire.
If we did a thorough search of this forum, we would find a post in which tcaudilllg declares that he finds the Se emanated by ISTps like Rocky infinitely more frightening than that emanated by ESTps. Yet another indication to be placed amongst the ones I have already pointed out.
In fact, if we did a search of the forum, we would find several threads in which tcaudilllg and Rocky dispute eachother rather vehemently (unless these were all destroyed in the forum vandalism).
Last edited by krieger; 03-09-2008 at 07:49 PM.
The conflicts could be due to many factors quite unrelated to the intertype relations, especially on the Internet -- differences in opinions, differences in intelligence, temperamental differences, etc.
I am an INTp intertype relation wise, and I my relations with some ENFps look very different in real life compared to on this forum. I also get much more irritated with for example some of Expat's behaviour than I get with ENTjs in general. The risk of misunderstandings is often greater here.
Absolutely, 100 % sure.
Unless I'm completely wrong about LII and my own type, I can't see why anyone would think he is LII. He seems too reactionary and not open to considering other people's arguments. To me he sometimes can't seem to see the bigger picture - like in a certain previous thread in which he made a mountain out of a mole hill (and isn't that an LII thing - seeing the big picture?). I personally think LSI.
LII
Then you might be wrong about your own type. Tcaudilllg fits the LII type descriptions very well (as far as he comes across in his posts anyway). Maybe you should take a closer look at some of the LII type descriptions. (Many people have an incorrect view on the LII type, and on this forum some "LIIs" are mistyped for sure; you might be one of those people (but I can't tell if you are; you have to check it out yourself).)
I don't think you understand the benefactor-beneficiary relationship that well. There are reasons the benefactor feels so pressed to give to the beneficiary; and let's not forget, the beneficiary can never give back to the benefactor no matter what, although this may frustrate them a great deal.
As for Jessica, she endorsed a terrible way of doing business that is making a lot of people uncomfortable not just here, but all over the globe. She did not just acknowledge it: she ENDORSED it and vouched for it. It's part of a larger trend that has been slowly gaining momentum over the past year: conservatives who had felt they could do nothing about the internet and freedoms it espoused, have now organized to pressure the now fully corporatized medium into compliance with that they believe correct. Thus, we're beginning to lose freedoms that we had been taking for granted, and the loss of our right to privacy (a new development) is just the latest causualty in this gradually intensifying war of right.
Oh I can consider your arguments, but I am sufficiently knowledgeable enough and intuitive enough to quickly sort through them and dismiss them, and on a moment's notice.
On that note I must argue that it is you who do not see the bigger picture, or else you would be discussing supersocion theory with me. The bigger picture, friend, is increasing both the breadth and quality of life in equal proportion, which we need knowledge enough to create sufficient organization for. That is why I am here, to build that knowledge.
honestly, with the Jessica thing... I think you're taking her way too serriously. Her attitude to me said, "it's a job...". She isn't endorsing or defending it so much as saying she doesn't see the big deal. Perhaps you're projecting your own strong feelings on the issue onto her? She hasn't cruisaded for background checking so far as I've seen, and never really even mentioned it until it came up.
I'll seek to bury the hatchet after the procedure itself is made illegal.
Focusing on Jessica, an ordinary working person, who is simply doing her job, is not the big picture. The big picture is society as a whole, and how throughout history, institutions have always looked to control peoples freedom, and privacy. There are simply different ways to do this with technology, and internet searches is but one of them. I think the bigger picture is that certain elements of control are necessary for society to function, especially in a population as large as ours. Which ones are necessary? Thats the correct debate.
You guys much be pretty ignorant if you can't see that tcaudilllg is an N type. Not big picture you say? Don't you read any of his posts? You are fools.
IT IS TEH INSTITUTIONIONIONS THEY WILL CONTORL JOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone, sing the Happy Ignorant Song!
Even though the banner
Of modern psychological progress
Told me to look beyond
My egocentricity,
I turned my back to the truth
And continued living my
Subjective fantasy
There will be no debate. It's only a matter of a single lawsuit that puts this matter before a federal judge, and that judge's decision, once made, will be an immediate catalyst for the legislative action to follow.
It's a problem that there are lots of safeguards against government abuse of personal data, but few against corporate abuse. Usually companies are left to conduct their business in the expectation that they will seek to safeguard their reputation. But until the advent of the internet, this was not feasible. We need a new right, one that will probably have to be added to the Bill of Rights itself.
You know what? It doesn't matter if a person gets drunk on the weekends, because that's completely unrelated to a person's job performance. If you can't catch a person by drug testing, then you probably shouldn't be worrying about whether they're using drugs on the weekend or not, because whatever the drugs are doing to them they are evidently in control of their persons. ESFps in particular have remarkable drug tolerance: my ESFp cousin can drive better than me while under the influence of either pot or alcohol.
Trust me, you don't want to engage this debate. You don't know where it will lead. And, I and, I'm sure, many other thinkers are beginning to ask how we could turn the tables on those who would seek to make privacy invasions such as these the norm.
You see, "chronic" forthrightness can be an expense, when seen from the correct vantagepoint...
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-10-2008 at 12:55 PM.
Your the one on drugs.
How can there be no debate if it goes to court. Shut up now.There will be no debate. It's only a matter of a single lawsuit that puts this matter before a federal judge, and that judge's decision, once made, will be an immediate catalyst for the legislative action to follow.
Oh really? So if someone is a police officer, who arrests people for using drugs, and then uses them himself on his days off, you don't think that matters? You don't think that is hypocritical and morally corrupt.You know what? It doesn't matter if a person gets drunk on the weekends, because that's completely unrelated to a person's job performance. If you can't catch a person by drug testing, then you probably shouldn't be worrying about whether they're using drugs on the weekend or not, because whatever the drugs are doing to them they are evidently in control of their persons. ESFps in particular have remarkable drug tolerance: my ESFp cousin can drive better than me while under the influence of either pot or alcohol.
No, not with someone who has yet to live in the real world. And for all we know, could end up becoming the person you are niavely against. And then it will be scary, because as you are fond of saying, 'there will be no debate'Trust me, you don't want to engage this debate. You don't know where it will lead. And, I and, I'm sure, many other thinkers are beginning to ask how we could turn the tables on those who would seek to make privacy invasions such as these the norm.
You haven't thought it through correctly.You see, "chronic" forthrightness can be an expense, when seen from the correct vantagepoint...
The only thing that's clear from this, is that you have no creative capacity.
I superglue coins to the middle of roads.
We live on two different planets. You live on yours. Everyone else lives on the one called earth.
And by saying that you are proving tcaudilllg's last point.
Explain. Way is see it you two are the guys with no ideas or creativity to fix or solve any issues or complex scenarios. Your just a loser who is holed up in his bedroom.
I never said I would be the one to file the suit. I suspect the ALCU will within a matter of months... although there's gonna have to be a big violation of the norm before they give it their full attention.
Nor did I suggest the suit would be against Jessica, or anything specifically related to me.
Any movement made by the corporations to bolster their own rights will not get far in the current political environment. People are angry at big business and distrustful of it, moreover the Dems have control of the congress... so expect the corporations to back off soon.
Enron established a precedent for Congress to get tough with corporate malfeasance.
EDIT:
Allow to make something clear to you, jxrtes:
I owe you nothing nor will I ever. You have nothing over me nor shall you ever. I need no caution from you now nor ever. Never, ever caution me about anything again. I have things far better than hand than you may realize.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-10-2008 at 09:21 PM.
'tis good.
It's total crap, Loki. Don't you understand that? Almost everything in Salawa's analysis is COMPLETELY wrong. (I wrote a lenghty comment that accidentally got lost when I was going to post it, so now I am even more irritated.) Salawa doesn't seem to understand anything correctly about the types.
Cool.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
A thought just occurred to me -- if that's correct, it's tcaudilllg providing the rawSuggestive
tcaudilllg -- much like his mirror, Phaedrus -- requires from others hyper-logical justifications for their opinions, while he is reluctant to provide such justifications himself, resorting instead to assertions based on hisad hominems.
He is very clearly interested in Ti ideas, this is pretty much unmistakable. Outside the realms of supersocion theory, his favoured Ti concepts seem to be mostly divisive -- for example, his tendency to reduce people to their political categorisation (practically a caricature of Beta aristocracy, Ti+Se).
Isn't Bono evil enough already? How evil does one have to be to satisfy you, Carla?!
There are a lot of crappy analyses on the wikisocion too, as should be obvious to everyone.
EIEs are typically much better speakers than writers. And you cannot seriously suggest that tcaudilllg is a motivational speaker with personal charisma.
This is an example of one of the nowdays most popular misconceptions floating around on this forum. Tcaudilllg's language is not emotionally charged -- at least not in any way that would suggest leadingtcaudilllg's language is frequently highly emotionally charged. He can often be found powerfully defending his
This is worse than astrology.tcaudilllg has a keen sense of the significance of the moment, life's flow of events, and the past and future evolution of things. The excitement he tries to stimulate (covered in the above section about
He applies a highly developed sense of vision, not as an end in itself, but as a way of promoting the development of his more central interests and activities.
And here you reveal that you don't understand and misapply the Democracy/Aristocracy dichotomy. Tcaudilllg's behaviour is perfectly consistent with LII, as should be obvious to everyone who bothers to read type descriptions. When shall people start doing that? When will you correct your misconceptions about the types?
His behaviour in this respect is -- again -- the almost exact opposite of what we would expect of a leading
Finally you say something that is not totally wrong. But you wouldn't suggest that a LII would have "the generation of ideas" as a primary interest, would you? Because that is of course not true of LIIs. Almost everything you describe here is perfectly consistent with typical LII behaviour.tcaudilllg is undoubtably skilled at generating all sorts of ideas, however the generation of ideas itself does not appear to be his primary interest and he does not seem to do it so much as an end in itself. He is more inclined to apply his imagination and vision in very specific areas, especially where is trying to achieve something or persuade someone.
Even all thethat must have been involved in constructing his supersocion theory seems only to be to back up his mostly
Yes, it's pure speculation -- of the worst kind. Now, stop speculating and take reason. You are way out of line here, and an insult to both tcaudilllg and your own intelligence.
Totally unconvinced.
If I'm an ENFj, then all LIIs must be so ignorant even of their own persons as to be autistic.
Never yet saw an INTj or LII description I didn't agree with 100%.
I don't like typing by comparison, but others do, so --
Okay, let us assume that tcaudilllg's behavior is perfectly consistent with LII. Fine. But, at the same time, it's very different from other self-typed LIIs, like Logos and thehotelambush. The latter do value
Awwww. Thanks for trying to save me from my ignorant ways! I didn't say it was right. I do not know if it's right. But, either way, 'tis good.It's total crap, Loki. Don't you understand that? Almost everything in Salawa's analysis is COMPLETELY wrong.
It is completely obvious right from the start of that thread that tcaudilllg is not
I have very little idea what the hell is going on in any of your heads beyond that which I have deduced by means of the systems I have myself either created or elaborated upon.
Alright, let's get to heart of the matter: what is +Fe?
Phaedrus, I totally agree with you, and empathize with you. It pisses me off when the Ti-valuing types ask for "arguments" for things which are entirely obvious and can't be picked apart (or, seem idiotic and time-wasting to even HAVE to pick it apart in order to illustrate a point).It is completely obvious right from the start of that thread that tcaudilllg is not
Note to Ti-lovers: Te comes from insights and/or experience. Just because arguments aren't articulated in the way you desire doesn't mean someone doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Of course there's no way tcaudilllg is an Fe type.
I need pics
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
of Tcaud? because I have some lovely pics of sunsets you can have
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote