Philosophy of Types (Gulenko)

[Cat King Cole]

Yet another vote for "Sensors are closed-minded and have IQs of 100 or less".

Amazing work, really.

[Gilly]

Yet another vote for "Sensors are closed-minded and have IQs of 100 or less".

Amazing work, really.

See, the problem is only when people extend these definitions further than they are intended to go. Sensors are most privy to, and therefore most influenced by, "sensory" information and priorities. Think of it just like the rest of Socionics, not as a definitive statement about all of the minutia of the manifestation of personality, but rather as the driving force "behind the veil" of psychological operation. Obviously people are much more complex than types, but types count for something, IME; the key is moderation in interpretation, which for some reason most people are totally incapable of. I do think Gulenko is right, from my life experience, in saying that sensors are generally more driven by and naturally focused on material prospects and gains, more inclined to pursue the immediate, the direct, the visceral and tangible, rather than sit around dreaming up lofty ideals or . I think we've all seen movies regarding Sensor-Intuitive archetypes where the intuitive is some young whipper snapper who thinks he has it all figured out because he "understands the world," and proceeds to get his world rocked by the sensor with real-world exposure and vital, exclusively experiential knowledge; this is, in essence, a materialistic perspective on life, in the strictest sense of the word, but is obviously much more advanced, practical, and requiring of true intelligence and personal potency to gain proficiency in, than sitting around at a desk and daydreaming, or writing scientific treatises, or being "intellectually driven."

People's misconceptions about Socionics, IME, all stem from either personal biases/baggage, or refusal to consider the full range of implications inherent in the categorical statements that may sometimes seem one-sided or favoritist. Don't just read the words; think about what is actually being said, the real contrasts that are being drawn and how they manifest in the real world of people's personalities, rather than taking everything said at face value, for in doing so you fall prey to the trap of human perception that Socionics can shed light on and actually mediate. Fucking irony at its finest.

Also you just have to remember that, just like attractiveness, some people's personalities are ugly. Not everyone gets dealt a fair hand; God is not some neo-liberal middle aged mother who insists that everything be fair and good and well-balanced. So yeah, some sensors really are just immediate, sensation-oriented dipshits who live for the thrill and die young, or grow old, trapped in a job that they landed in because they never had ambition or thought about what they might actually do with themselves, content to glaze over in front of a big screen while shoveling doritos into their mouths and dying slowly. But a lot of them are smarter than intuitives, more intellectual, higher IQs, etc. I think the key thing to consider in the sense that Gulenko is operating is people's visceral priorities, the things that are somewhat unconscious and innate in us; Lacan's Symbolic Order, for example, would be something layered "above" the type in consciousness, more in line with direct control of the psyche, rather than innate and (relatively) internally consistent.

[Absurd]

Yet another vote for "Sensors are closed-minded and have IQs of 100 or less".

Amazing work, really.

See, the problem is only when people extend these definitions further than they are intended to go. Sensors are most privy to, and therefore most influenced by, "sensory" information and priorities.

I am close-minded.

But to the point. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking Gilly, for everyone is influenced by sensory information as you put it, otherwise you would be pretty dumb, you wouldn't be able to learn a simple language deprived of any sensory input whatsoever, that is.

Really great wall of text though.

As for anyone, reading and fucking Gulenko, you have to know this guy is wrong, maybe not in his cognitive styles, for they fit damn well members on here. That means you too, Gilly, and it is not the one you think you identify with.

[Gilly]

See, the problem is only when people extend these definitions further than they are intended to go. Sensors are most privy to, and therefore most influenced by, "sensory" information and priorities.

I am close-minded.

But to the point. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking Gilly, for everyone is influenced by sensory information as you put it, otherwise you would be pretty dumb, you wouldn't be able to learn a simple language deprived of any sensory input whatsoever, that is.

Hey, ******, learn the socionics definition of "sensory."

Really great wall of text though.

As for anyone, reading and fucking Gulenko, you have to know this guy is wrong, maybe not in his cognitive styles, for they fit damn well members on here. That means you too, Gilly, and it is not the one you think you identify with.

Awesome, you should specify substantiate your claims instead of letting your metaphorical dick flap limp in the wind. Or you could be content to look like an idiot. Either way is fine with me.

[Absurd]

Hey, ******, learn the socionics definition of "sensory."

Hey you homosexual cunt, I don't give a shit about some definitions nor your feelings seeing you talk shit.

Awesome, you should specify substantiate your claims instead of letting your metaphorical dick flap limp in the wind. Or you could be content to look like an idiot. Either way is fine with me.

I'm so metaphorical as soldiers sin. Having said that, I'm going to wait till you, provide arguments(?) for you being this or that type, according to Gulenko's Cognitive Styles you love so much.

As for me disagreeing with it, you don't even know what I'm disagreeing with.

[Gilly]

Hey, ******, learn the socionics definition of "sensory."

Hey you homosexual cunt, I don't give a shit about some definitions nor your feelings seeing you talk shit.

You're really bad at this. You should go back to being the chatbox drunk.

I'm so metaphorical as soldiers sin. Having said that, I'm going to wait till you, provide arguments(?) for you being this or that type, according to Gulenko's Cognitive Styles you love so much.

Kind of hard to justify the cognitive styles as it's pretty much exclusively experiential...the Dialectical Algorithmic style fits me well because my thinking style mostly consists of balancing opposites, finding middle grounds and relative truths based on the relative strength of opposing internal dispositions; when I'm under stress it kind of feels like I'm walking a tight rope, trying to balance what's going on in my head. To me it feels like a constant balancing act of my own internal tendencies for the things that I consider good and evil, the things I consciously do to improve myself and the world and my ability to promote my own vision of how I think things should be vs. the evils I am compelled to do either by my own impulses that I struggle to control or by circumstance. Everything I do is weighed on these scales, every word that comes out of my mouth, every emotional signal I send, every action I take, and the final outcome, what comes out of me and goes into the world, is dependent on how the scales are balancing inside me.


For example, writing this right now, I am balancing whether or not I should respond, based on how little I care about your opinion and how little I am inclined to respond to your obvious petty bullshit; I balance this with how it would look to others and how it would affect my credibility if I just wrote you off and refused to exlpain myself and the fact that by my own principles I should treat you civilly to some extent even though you royally piss me off and I think you have little use or place in this forum, if not the world (assuming your real self resembles the one you present here, but that's not an assumption I feel safe making because it just might not be true).

If you want to look for examples of the dialectical "balancing act" in my writing I'm sure you could find them, but honestly I don't give a flying fuck about your opinion so you can go find them on your own.

As for me disagreeing with it, you don't even know what I'm disagreeing with.

What? You said that you think I'm a different "philosophy" type.

[Gilly]

lol ILIs are the "nihilist" type.

[Absurd]

You're really bad at this. You should go back to being the chatbox drunk.

I'm always drunk seeing you post and I, actually, drink with real people Gilly.

Kind of hard to justify the cognitive styles as it's pretty much exclusively experiential...the Dialectical Algorithmic style fits me well because

And this is why you took the time to explain it to me after you dismissed me chatbox drunk. Go get some, I don't know, brain.

For fuck's sake, it's like reading this paedophile guy, Cat King Cole.

What? You said that you think I'm a different "philosophy" type.

I do.

[Gilly]

The fuck does that mean?

[Korpsy Knievel]

The fuck does that mean?

As a guess, "Hire an editor." Personally I aim to present my thoughts briefly with each main point separated by paragraph for greater digestibility.

[Gilly]

Yeah, but...I'm high

[Korpsy Knievel]

Well shit, negro.

[Gilly]

Also I find that with some people these things sink in better if you explain things using different examples and divulge as much of your actual thought process as is realistic; sometimes it helps people relate to your thoughts and understand better. IME communication of these kinds of more complex ideas sometimes involves doing more than just stating the bare bones because otherwise you're just sort of encouraging people to take things at face value, which in this case would be rather self-defeating. Revealing your thought process helps people tap into the perceptions you are attempting to convey, rather than giving them an excuse to interpret you in a hyper-literal manner and fill in the blanks wherever they see fit. Some will regardless, of course, but I guess I kind of just have to try. My whole reason for not deeming this place totally worthless is that once in a while I am able to convey a kernal or two of what I see as my clear understanding of the subject and the way I interpret and conceptualize things, and it gives me faith that maybe I'm not crazy for wasting so much goddamn time on this shit.

[Cat King Cole]

Gilly, if Gulenko were actually saying that Sensors are driven by sensory information, I'd agree with you. But no, we have fantastic descriptions like "SEIs are about fun" and "ESEs are driven by their feelings", right next to "LIIs build systems to describe the universe".

This article appears to undermine the intelligence of Sensory types, which is stupid.

That said, the introduction actually makes it sound like he's come up with "Philosophy types", as "any type can follow any philosophy"; or maybe it's just a backdoor for the ever-looming outliers like me. At the end of the day, I'd say the LII philosophy fits me best.