Mr Transexual,
Ask you mother (if you've got one).
Mr Transexual,
Ask you mother (if you've got one).
Post number 2
Uh, those subsequent Roger posts and were not me-yet they seem to have come up at the same time as Cone's postings.
Is Cone giving life to his many imaginary perspectives? Ie Hugo, Pistol Pete, Roger...what other aliases do you have Cone?
Edited for gayness.
WTF????
C'mon people, it's only a theory.
We're getting a little caught up here, no? And there is netiquette, after all. Settle down and play nice!
But hugo, why do you keep posting here if you find socionics so impractical and useless?
Transigent, are you really transexual? When were you going to tell us?
Entp
ILE
Alright, this is weird, funny, and sort of terrifying.
[quote="Blaze"]But hugo, why do you keep posting here if you find socionics so impractical and useless?[quote]
To see if anyone can prove me wrong.
Alright, I'm just going to say this, agree with it, don't agree with it, whatever.
In theory there are perceivers, and there are judgers(I'll leave out the I/E dichotomy for now). We all know the explanation of what a perceiver and a judger is, so I won't spend the time writing that.
A person "accepts" information(+) via this means of thought. That is, a perceiver accepts input of information via perception. There are two qualities to perception, however.
One of these qualities is "Sensing" the other is "Intuition". If you are a perceiver you are ALWAYS accepting these types of info, you can't accept info related to Judgement(the explanation for this is not fully clear at this time although perhaps it has to do with strength and weakness as well).
one of these two qualities (S/N) is stronger than the other. It overpowers it, it clouds the voice of the other quality.
So, One of these qualities is "weak", one is "strong". If your intution is stronger, that is the "strong" quality, and therefore sensing is "weak". One of the voices is stifled. The strong one is always confident, the weak one is always insecure and therefore always open to suggestion. Makes sense- In this case there are two categorized forms of input, one sensory, one seemingly abstract(my guess it that it is visual/ related to vision over sensation). These two functions are the dominant INPUT.
To accurately comprehend reality all of the functions are necessary. The body must interact with the outer world and the inner world of all of the functions simultaneously, but somehow some of the functions are stronger than others. This appears to be what makes consciousness possible. Since the perception aspect of reality is being "used up" through accepting/processing much information, this information must reach conclusions via the "producing functions"(-) (this is the best definition I can give you at the current moment). This aspect, since the person in question is a perceiver, must be the judging aspect of the psyche. Therefore we have a similar process going on in terms of "Strong" and "weak". One of the functions is stronger than the other, either "feeling" or "thinking". This is the OUTPUT.
Somehow this is, and it is difficult to believe that they can all be the same strength. If they were then, like I have said, you have a "gooey mess" of functions. No goal, no direction. Look in nature, countless examples exist, not only in humanity, but in nature at large. nature has structure, and in these structures roles are also assigned.
So there we have consciousness. I combination of strong and weak forces interacting. The most dominant of each dichotomy interact, whereas the weaker ones also interact(with the strong and weak). The weaker functions tend to be less active since the INPUT is less, and the OUTPUT is therefore less as well(when looking at a weak producing function).
The model A appears to be structured on the basis that Strong accepting and Weak accepting functions are not adjacent, yet they are both adjacent to both producing functions. This suggests that the producing functions, strong and weak, can produce for either function. Perhaps.
But inside of all of this we have the I/E dichotomy, as well as the "unconscious" or "vital" ring. So how does this fit in?
Well, for one, if a person accepts info from the outer world, they are using that aspect of reality up, so the must create using their inner world.
So the unconscious is just the weaker half of the I/E dichotomy of each function!
As for the unconscious, well the unconscious acts in a form of strong and weak correction. Corresponding with the strong Accepting block is the negative of the same function(in the ID). It corrects the nature of the first block based upon past experiences. It is a block of personal knowledge. If an Ne is going "wow, imagine the possibilities!" it has to be kept in check by a weaker, yet always present ID function of Ni, which says, wait, does this correspond to what you know(of the E/I world)? the ID serves the EGO using "personal knowledge". It is corrective. When you place a person with a contrary the voice of the ID is essentially accentuated, making any activity impossible since both voices are constantly correcting one another. For the Strong creating block is a similar situation. The creativity is always held in check by knowledge of the outer or inner world(depends on E/I dichotomy). "Can the idea be implemented?"
The Super-Id does the same for the Super-Ego, but it is weaker, that is why is it only Suggestive(weak accepting) and Estimative(weak producing). It does not have sufficient knowledge/input to confidently deal with the environment.(support, which is taken over by duality)
Look at any Si type. They use Se to make sure their Si is in constant stimulation. There is a reality to this and it is all made up of strength and weaknesses. It is a perfect "dichotometric"(my own term) system. It has a strong and weak I/E, J/P etc... etc...
It perfectly represents the strong and weak aspects of consciousness in all of their forms and resonations. It looks perfect. Is it? well, it's all about understanding. I think the system itself if flawless so long as it is being used by a person that understands what this flawlessness means. "Strong" and "weak" are vague canopy terms, but they are real. everything has strengths in exchange of weaknesses. To me it seems a natural law.
But hugo, who are you? how old are you? are you a student? why are you attracted to socionics? why are you so skeptical about it? tell us about YOU.
Edited for gayness.
That last post was not made by me, some jerk used my name.
OK guys, that was me.Originally Posted by kaido21
If you still haven't guest who I am, then ask MysticSonic (hint, hint).
Who are you calling a jerk?Originally Posted by kaido21
I'm not a jerk.
Why would I call myself a jerk?
That was me.Originally Posted by Anonymous
Did I just reveal my real name?Originally Posted by the Real roger
I think that's trying to prove a point, or perhaps some random asshat.
Just use your better judgement and ignore him.
oh my god, this is funny.
I can’t tell weather or not this is funny or sad.
In my defense, I'm not as stupid as I can sound-no, honestly!Originally Posted by Jimbean
Posting under other people's user names is plain wrong and inexcusable. What I wanted to add though is that many of us are using public computers and it is theoretically possible somebody could be posting from the same IP address. It does seem highly unlikely, but should it nevertheless happen the burden of proof required to prove one's innocence in such cases can be very hard to meet.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
i have played in every toilet
Trey, I am afraid I may have missed your point, but do you think it is possible somebody could steal your IP-address? Or do you know more about computers, how easy is it to change your IP-address, use proxy servers etc. There is a potential danger in relying too heavily on technical evidence that may not be as reliable as it seeems.
I think this site could also do with more explicit rules of conduct. Some people may well think it is just a harmless practical joke to post under other people's names, but when it happens to you it can be bloody annoying. I know a lot of people do not like explicit moralizing but I think it would be good to have clear public rules on what you are allowed to do on this site and what will get you banned immediately. Any thoughts?
***EDIT***
Actually... I came to think it might be more appropriate to continue this discussion in the Site Discussion. I shall write a post there. Join the discussion in the thread Rules of Conduct?
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
yes i am aware of the perils of the internet. i also don't know why that post was directed to me.
i have played in every toilet