The fuck does that mean?
The fuck does that mean?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 09-11-2011 at 01:08 AM.
Yeah, but...I'm high
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
Know I'm mistyped?
Why I am now.
Why I was , once.
DISCLAIMER
The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.
Just look at the descriptions though. LIIs and ILEs are described as brilliant systemizers of everything forever.
SEIs are described as being driven by "fun". LIEs I can only hope are victims of bad machine translation.
It reeks of bias.
Know I'm mistyped?
Why I am now.
Why I was , once.
DISCLAIMER
The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.
I've posted up the revised version. That explains why Russians keep typing Jung as LII.
I don't think Gulenko means your overall philosophy, but more like your internal predisposition that influences your motivations, which the person is also likely to project on other people and the world at large. What he describes for ILI type, this "agnosticism of the intellect" and "knowledge is possible only when one attains complete inner clarity" is actually similar to what an ILI friend of mine has tried to describe about his mindset. It is also similar to what korpsey has described in this post - epoché, the suspension of judgement that serves as the basis for skeptical thought.
He is talking about the internal perceptions of different types, not their abilities, talents, skills, IQ, or EQ for that matter. Using your example he is not saying that "LIIs build systems that describe the universe" but that "LIIs see the universe as if it's built on systems". That's quite a different matter.
I did cringe a little at the word "materialism" as some people will associate it with some negative connotation or another ("greed" comes to mind) but I suppose he had no better word to use.
alright, alright. This post actually really helped me. Nevermind what I said earlier. I came to those conclusions that I mentioned in that former post using the very philosophy (though Im not sure I would really call it a philosophy) that I was trying to refute. weird. I guess I just misunderstood the application of these types. You are right, it has more to do with your internal predisposition that allows you to form your philosophy rather than the philosophy itself.