Does the following comment strike you as something a Fi/Te type would say? Does it strike you as something a Fe/Ti type would say?
"Negative reactions to abortion are just as valid a factor in the abortion issue as rational for/against arguments."
Does the following comment strike you as something a Fi/Te type would say? Does it strike you as something a Fe/Ti type would say?
"Negative reactions to abortion are just as valid a factor in the abortion issue as rational for/against arguments."
Sounds like something I would believe (and hopefully sane people as well.)
Welp, it's definitely a Negativist style of thought.
So that would mean either Holographic or Dialectical-Algorthmic style of cognition, or, to answer your real question, LII or ILI. So we've narrowed it down to him being an Introverted NT.Positivists primarily perceive the positive side of any phenomenon, and often turn a blind eye to the negative. Negativists won't overlook problems, and simultaneously mitigate any positive aspects to their situation of interest.
As for which one he is, well, there's not enough information here to tell whether he's static or dynamic, inductive or deductive. So you'll have to be on the watch for anything like that if you aim to prove him LII.
Shh sir knight, don't let everybody know who's type is in contention. To do so will introduce bias into peoples selections.
Not enough info to conclude male/female either.
Anyway, it looks like the person is putting two perspectives on a scale:
On the left side we have Ethics and on the right we have Reason. The person is saying Ethics is just as valid as Reason. Isn't that Dialectical-Algorithmic? It looks like the person is synthesizing two opposing viewpoints, don't you think?
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
It could also be Holographic, analyzing a given object (abortion) from multiple different angles (rationality, ethics, reactions positive or negative) and so achieving a holistic view. I mean, one single line of text won't tell us anything beyond one or two facets of your cognitive style. If we had some big, meaty paragraphs to dig into, we could come up with a more thorough, honest appraisal of your cognitive type, but, well, you are rather inclined towards brevity.![]()
I agree with the comment in question.
impossible to say.
analyzing a single line with accuracy is the work of charlatans.
Sounds Fi/Te to me. But maybe that's shallow. When I say things like that, I take it a step further to say that the negative reactions are the result of an intuition of something bad that actually exists in the practice itself, rather than allowing for the reaction itself to have an influence on how people should behave.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
By "negative reactions" do we only mean negative emotional reactions?
I've never been of the opinion that simply finding something to be gross is a valid argument for or against anything. That just sounds like something that someone with really poor debate skills would pull out, that something is inherently "wrong" so it's bad. Well then, what makes it bad or wrong? Do you have any sort of evidence or information that exemplifies how your position is more than just a passional knee-jerk reaction? If you don't have any means of providing an argument that exists outside of yourself, like evidence, then that side of the argument doesn't belong in any sort of scientific sphere. This isn't meant to slight the passional side of people, but the most convincing arguments about some hot button issue like abortion will have to be scientific in nature.
Oddly enough, this seems like a logical statement to me considering that most people's positions on the issue are based on their feelings about it. Arguments about abortion are never-ending because underneath it all "you feel how you feel." And so if that's what is behind a position then of course I would see it as equally valid (it is the position). I mean this is largely an ethical issue (it can't be resolved logically). If we could answer the question of when the embryo becomes a person that might change things, but even the concept of a person is a murky one, especially considering that to some that embryo is considered to have an immortal soul from the moment of conception, something that we can't prove or disprove.
I mean I don't see how science can answer the question of "when does a cell soup become a person" because then we'd have to define a person based on some kind of cellular definition. Even if trying to pinpoint the moment that sentience is born in the cell soup, that itself can't really be isolated either because how can we really know when awareness begins (how are we even defining 'awareness'?).
Can't type a sentence out of context.
Stan is not my real name.