Following trends, most of them stupid

**jughead** · 06-25-2010, 12:00 AM

Is it type related? Following social trends, style etc.

**xerx** · 06-25-2010, 06:09 PM

Being trendy is related to ethics, since ethical types have the highest appreciation for the prestige of something.

Following pre-existing trends is much more related to Se / Ni, and sometimes Fe (ESE, SEI, EIE, IEI) since Fe egos are quite the social chameleons. It's inversely related to Si / Ne.

Being good at being trendy is much less type related since it requires aesthetic sensibility. But that itself could be more related to irrational functions, idk.

Creepy-Pied Piper · 06-25-2010, 06:30 PM

Removed at User Request

**krieger** · 06-25-2010, 06:50 PM

Following trends isn't type related, but if the trends are stupid it's Gamma.

Creepy-Pied Piper · 06-25-2010, 07:00 PM

Removed at User Request

**Aiss** · 06-25-2010, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

I agree and this is my understanding. I make the difference between Beta (+Fe/+Ti and -Se/-Ni) and Gamma (+Se/+Ni and -Te/-Fi), not only because it's written "plus and minus", but by their approach IRL. Eg I see a Beta sending you to buys something would advise: "when unsure, buy something of quality, preferably unique, just make sure you don't buy a no-name". Gammas, on the other hand is like: "to insure a good choice, buy some known brand, that everybody uses, at least make sure it will satisfy what you need otherwise".

So apparently Gammas go for the biggest and known things, but would easily buy a no-name if found satisfactory for the purpose. Beta's Se/Ni is "creative", it's "Ne/Si" - PoLR in a way, and would not accept no-names, but this is not what drives them. This is observable in people, check it out.
You may find what I meant by "creative" and "polr" about quadras here.

What quadra is a person who always reads ingredients on any food that has a list, to make a choice?

Edit: IMO the "ego" of the quadra - the quadra values - works the same way as the Ego of the type: "the first thing you always try to do is what the Base tells you, if you can't, just make sure you never do what the opposite of your Creative tells you to do (basically never do what your Creative rules out)"

Yes, I kind of agree with that, but I think in essence, it's not so much "if you can't", more of "within what your Base tells you, eliminate what Creative is firmly against". As in, even withing Base constraints, Creative needs to be accomodated... but we can't really look past the Base, like on type level, where that's the main problem in conflicting relations - you can never remove that filter. In this way you're right that (+) solutions try to satisfy the (-) requirements, as it works in your examples (regardless how pointless I think they are re: brand), except we can't really look past (+) solutions as you imply.

... which is basically why I call plus and minus expanding/reducing, with (+) elements expanding options and (-) reducing them, in a way - making a choice out of available ones, but never really looking past them on their own.

**stanprollyright** · 06-25-2010, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Aiss

Yes, I kind of agree with that, but I think in essence, it's not so much "if you can't", more of "within what your Base tells you, eliminate what Creative is firmly against". As in, even withing Base constraints, Creative needs to be accomodated... but we can't really look past the Base, like on type level, where that's the main problem in conflicting relations - you can never remove that filter. In this way you're right that (+) solutions try to satisfy the (-) requirements, as it works in your examples (regardless how pointless I think they are re: brand), except we can't really look past (+) solutions as you imply.

... which is basically why I call plus and minus expanding/reducing, with (+) elements expanding options and (-) reducing them, in a way - making a choice out of available ones, but never really looking past them on their own.

What about result types?

Creepy-Pied Piper · 06-25-2010, 09:23 PM

Removed at User Request

**Aiss** · 06-25-2010, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by stanprollyright

What about result types?

I was using pinocchionics terms of (capitalized) Base = valued (+), Creative = valued (-). So these are the same for process and result types within the same quadra.

But yes, I think that types look actually past their Base! Sometimes you don't have a choice, then think about these compromises:
- the Role function: it's basically the opposite of your Base, it the incompatible one, still, you may use it, that period you have to deny your Base to interfere
- the Creative function type of information is not always compatible with the Base, when it comes as raw data from outside. If you read my example about LIIs, with their anal-ness against authoritative or forceful people, they can't get over their Se-PoLR, even if it's something in their primary field/interest. They basically prefer to use their Role than the Base about it, when the PoLR ravages their conscious and become strictly Fi - apparently - they don't even put this under investigation. I say Fi because how they react defies Ti and that "common-sense" bullshit shocks me every time.
Even if not Fi, it's definitely outside the range of Ti, IMO.

What you say here is very similar to what I've written just today in ILE/SLE PoLR difference thread. I don't think I've seen the example you speak of. I see it as blocks issue - which may be illustrated by polarity, btw - when types are faced with clearly role or PoLR related information, they quickly default to super-ego over stronger alternative pairing. This happens both ways - when type feels obliged to use their role, it comes off worse for the fact that PoLR judgments take over, although the person themselves will often try to justify them with creative later. This is very important point, we don't always realize that bad judgment (they're usually bad) stemmed from PoLR - what happens is rather rationalizing it and rejecting any suggestion against it.

Role and creative is an unstable combination, in short. (I think that's part of the reason why supervising is tiresome. : P) So yes, when a person is acting out of their super-ego, by definition they aren't making use of ego in that particular case, but the filter - the basic perception - remains, which is part of why we aren't happy with ourselves using other combinations: the information process is largely viewed as inferior.

Parasite reminded me of this when we talked about this matter: when she bought a bluetooth, she brought a no-name. I had absolutely no idea how should I choose one and then I went myself to buy from a branded shop. This is because I had no time to investigate and no idea how they work and what should I look at. Yes, an option would be to learn about it, but really, I don't have the patience to learn something I have otherwise no interest in just to buy a scrap

. I think many people and types would have done the same thing... apart from an Se or Ni - PoLR

. Maybe.

That sounds like something my LII father does. "I don't have the time, I'll overpay and let a salesperson choose it for me". Needless to say, I find it unreasonable. For everyday purchases at a foreign place, it's fine, but if I'm going to make a longer-term one...

**Trevor** · 07-07-2010, 01:21 AM

What's a stupid trend?

**krieger** · 07-07-2010, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Pinocchio

I think you have no doubt about this fact that the Base produces most of what a type can produce for the environment (social environment), but then - the Base function is Accepting. The Role function is Accepting again. So IMO, the Accepting functions are the "do" functions, while the Producing (different in Rationality than the Base) are "use" functions. "Use" is what you use for the purpose of the "do". This, in general, it's not strict, of course, the painter sometimes makes his own brushes.

The Producing function both signifies the conscious act of "focussing" and the attention to something outside of (at a distance of) oneself. It can be seen as the agentive "use" of a tool of some kind. In this sense I find myself not being terribly much opposed to these formulations.

Accepting is a "defensive" reaction in which the focus is on oneself, ones phenomenal subjectivity (experience) alone, the attention to the real world (in as far as there is any to speak of) being left "diffuse".