This post included happy little dancing ponies until they were eaten by a marauding monty python sketch.
This post included happy little dancing ponies until they were eaten by a marauding monty python sketch.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
F*** you, tooAnd have a nice day (mandatory lol...lol).
Re: A Modest Proposal
Naah, I am not ISFj, but of course you are free to change your type.Originally Posted by Kristiina
Hint for when you apply: They let ISFjs join fairly easily. :wink:
I am still not quite convinced that you are ENTJ.
But I think there is something to this concept of changing one's type that Smilingeyes is eager to promote. Now how do I learn to be tough as an ISFJ?
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
I promised a long while ago to tackle at some point the issue of the bad qualities of ENTjs. There's been some whining from the usual suspects that the faults of the ENTj aren't readily available... (that would be the INTps... and yes, I'm doing you next)
Thing is... While I was doing the ENTj thing I believed in the principle of open spreading of information and the principle of truth even when it's inconvenient... Yet given the level of understanding that people in the internet usually display and also the senseless ENTj-hating that was around at the beginnings of this forum I also wanted to uphold the principle of "only a fool dirties his own nest". So I put it off until the situation was more fitting.
I don't really see any reason not to talk about the subject anymore.
The ENTj has a lot of qualities that make people rely on them and for a good reason. The ENTj strategy is to always do the right thing and act in such a way that anyone who follows their lead profits from it. This is reasonable and good for all. Yet being an ENTj doesn't make you infallible. And when people trust an ENTj a mass fuck-up can occur if they blindly follow his lead. This can either result from the ENTj being a fool to begin with or the people following the ENTjs suggestions being idiots themselves or through sheer mass effect. Point being... Sometimes a winning strategy when repeated enough times causes a catastrophe for all. A stock market bubble being a suitable example of this.
Also... by positioning himself in the center of activity the ENTj automatically causes himself to be in the most advantageous position. People who listen to good advice from an ENTj automatically position themselves as the ENTjs pupils. While on the other hand they use the ENTj as a tool they also become dependent on him. Also think again of the example of a succesful stock broker. Sure he causes many people to have gains in their bank accounts but each gain also helps him by a small percentage. The ENTj, by creating and advertising a set of rules makes people dependent on the system and simultaneously on his expertise in the handling of said system.
Ultimately the ENTj is by himself remarkably ineffectual. He can only act in circumstances that are by themselves very hospitable. It's not an accident that his dual the ISFj is the "loyal servant". Basically to the ENTj everyone is a servant, a potential pair of hands to help his ideas. Without this help the ENTj is helpless and frustrated with his impotent ideas, a bloated windbag.
None of the above though means that the ENTj is a calculating opportunist. His own profit can only come as a by-product of the welfare of the community. He truelly wants the community to be an utopistic success and in this sense the it's quite understandable that people trust them. Yet trust is a mutual position. It's possible to fool an ENTj rather easily even (Tony Blair, anyone)... And when the ENTj is fooled a whole lot of other people often end up suffering as well.
So is it wrong to trust an ENTj? Fuck no. They're still the correct choice, along with the ESFps as leaders of most succesful societies, both great and small, but they have their faults, pretty tragical ones too.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Hunter S Thompson
Another thing that I seem to remember to have been under discussion here at least a couple of times is Hunter S Thompson. I've never before really been interested in the guy and so I last time just threw a wild guess that the guy was ESTj. Having now read a lengthy story based on his life's work and some other material on the man available in the net I now have no doubt when I say he was actually an ISTp, about the "perfect" ISTp even. Hell I'd rename ISTp the Hunter if naming types wasn't corny as shit to begin with.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Re: A Modest Proposal
Naah, I am not ISFj, but of course you are free to change your type.
I am still not quite convinced that you are ENTJ.
But I think there is something to this concept of changing one's type that Smilingeyes is eager to promote. Now how do I learn to be tough as an ISFJ?
... I think I know one male ENFj. He certainly shows signs of having
I still think I have the female-kind of ENxj
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
A few words for the column for today. I got a pm about the hunter story. A person whom I won't name informed me that he had considered my earlier comments on the subject serious on my part and thought I was deluded.
A person decided that he should write to tell someone to INFORM THEM what THAT PERSON was thinking when they wrote something several months earlier... and he also managed to use the word 'deluded' while not talking about himself. Seriously now... I have severe trouble whether to account this to marvellous stupidity or a case of stress breakdown or another form of insanity...
People... Don't try to tell other people what they are thinking. If you want to excercise your theories about socionics or whatever... phrase it like this: "I get the feeling that maybe you're thinking like..." because if the other person disagrees with you about something, it's fairly bloody certain that you're the one who is frigging wrong in this subject.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Man, I never get the creepy PM's. I feel left out.
I've been thinking a lot about the matter of lying.
Some types have a reputation for doing it, some types have a reputation for not doing it. If there's anyone reading this who still thinks that types are about information channels it'd be fun to read an attempt to show how aptitude or availability of information causes lying. Yeah, that'd be fun.
Anyhowz... as people are bloody stupid in general and still they speak... there's a likelyhood that a person of any type will, on occasion, lie... in the sense that he speaks something which is not consistent with truth.
Some types seem to lie to get rid of trouble. Others seem to lie to others because they lie to themselves and just reproduce their own fantasies to others. I don't know if you think that one of these forms of lying is worse than the other. I think they're just... different. Certainly they have different results.
This internal storytelling and motivations for lying seem to me to be tied to the rational functions. Certainly emotions are tied to them and emotions are often formed by motivations and stories rather than the kind of positional evaluation that tends to be connected to the irrational ones.
Now I believe in the Reinin dichotomies as you well know and I also believe in quadra change. So for an EJ such as I the dichotomies of the one rational function (Fe) are completely opposite to those of the other (Te). That's theory. Observations and descriptions of ENFjs and ESTjs tell us that ENFjs have a tendency for great fantastic lies whereas ESTjs tend to be honest and suck at lying. That looks like the sort of opposite effect that we'd expect from having opposite dichotomic traits...
So those are the parameters I'm going to use when I start to talk about motivations and lies.
....
Anyone going to write weirdo notes to me or Jadae.. Be interesting... I don't want to just read "I agree, you're great." or "I think you suck, I hate you now." If you're not interesting, I'm not interested. Try "I have a mega-laser cannon filled with radioactive cows pointed at your head. If you don't retract your last post I will rain cowturds on you for the next decade." It'd at least get my attention.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
So...
Accepting Te... grave, feeling-creating and compliant
Creating Te ... grave, construct-creating and obstinate
Accepting Fe... cheerful, construct-creating and obstinate
Creating Fe... cheerful, feeling-creating and compliant
Accepting Ti ... cheerful, feeling-creating and obstinate
Creating Ti ... cheerful, construct-creating and compliant
Accepting Fi ... grave, construct-creating and compliant
Creating Fi ... grave, feeling-creating and obstinate
I'll start with the ESFp-ENFp, being creating Fi.
Why? Frankly I feel that the ESFp is one of the groups that gets the raw deal on this forum more often than it deserves. My ex-wife is ESFp and I still more or less love her and I really couldn't recognise her if I only had the general ESFp opinion to go with...
The origin of the creating Fi would be at accepting Se behaviour, the perceived success of strategic, calculated, resolute action. These are the feelings of the winner. So what does she do who has proven herself a winner? She can afford to be polite, and frankly ... loyal, in a way that no ESTp ever would. She wants to relax after the hard fight and for that she needs to create lasting friendships, one's which she tries to hold on to no matter what. She throws caution to the wind and chooses, with her own willpower the companionship she wants to maintain as friends, and then she does it. She doesn't really believe that her friend or partner has any magical talent that raises him above others, quite the opposite... her idea of the situation is rather realistic, much more so, again than that of the often nominally realistic ESTp.
When the Fi turns from abstract to concrete, the price of falling in love with something ... not necessarily so great emerges, yet the ENFp is willing to pay it. She is determined to remain attached to what she has chosen and for some reason she has trouble seeing alternatives to it or being motivated to search for them. Eventually the emotional hold will release her and she will pick up any opportunity to escape her past (abstract Ne) but this will arise from having done her damnedest for her love and having still been disappointed.
So... I was supposed to talk about lying, where are the lies? I think all lies come out of the contrast between wish on one hand and shit in the other. ESFp-ENFp lies are most likely to be lies to protect the people and things they hold dear, protect them from the ESFp-ENFp, protect them from themselves or protect them from outsiders. I've never seen these people have any trouble at recognising what's the real truth in any situation yet they'll for some reason time and again try to make things look as nice as possible and patch relations that are falling apart.
So I'm calling the creating Fi people the most loyal friend anyone can have. By contrast I'm also calling the creating Ti people their diametric opposites but that's for another time.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Mentioning how you can't forget someone when your Dual-seeking block is touched. It's true. You can't forget those people and when you two are together, it feels like heaven. Like many writers have sayed before, you can't describe it, you must only feel it.
Smilingeyes, you can build your own test. Just come up with some questions for all the pairs of letters, like questions for EJ and ET pairs. And then you can count together the results to get the answer who that person is. It should be very reliable test.
Semiotical process
This is good SE.
Topaz
The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness.
Creative Ti, cheerful, compliant, creation-creating.
ENTps are most commonly seen through Ne characteristics and likewise ESTps are usually seen through the characteristics of Se. I want to talk about their Ti. But I still need to start with the origins.. the experience of concrete accepting Ne.
When the ENTp feels Ne what's important to realise is that the feeling of brilliance and great success is retrospective. The ENTp pumps himself up by showing people ideas he's had in his mind. It's not about happiness at trying to find ideas it's about happiness with masturbating with ideas the ENTp has already had. It's about "proven" success. It's about self-assuredness of being correct. Now... Like most people who feel really big do, the ENTp errs often in his self-assuredness. His ideas aren't half as original or half as succesful as he thought. This is a realisation that doesn't go well with the ENTp. He didn't feel like manipulated his data when he found the idea, so he really should be correct, he must be correct! He will go over and over the material and go over and over his own thought process to assure himself of the power the idea is supposed to give him. Yet the environment never agrees with the ENTps powerfantasy. To continue the fantasy of masterdom over his environment the ENTp requires a constant stream of new ideas, corrections and exceptions to complement his original idea and yet he is still constantly frustrated by the environment. He will use all his brain power to try to fix his idea and it will not be enough.
There will be a tipping point and after that the idea, the theory and the dream will essentially die and remain only as a memory, after this, what remains is the concrete Ti fantasy of being persecuted. It was the environment, the others, who killed the dream. He will try to repel and destroy the attempts of others to make nice with him, his bitterness and pain will not be extinguished. He has no friends, for his dream was destroyed and everybody is to blame. He tried his best yet he was denied, now everyone else must suffer too.
This is the thought that will eventually be purged in a storm of Se.
Now where's the lie in all this? Obviously it's in the attribution of the failure of your own expectations to the actions of others. It's mostly a lie to oneself. Yet the end result is also a willingness to lie to others because the others are unworthy of the truth, only of the pain. These lies are usually simple, powerful lies, often targetting first and foremost the perceived enemy, the originator of the opposition to the dream. A healthy process of Ti failure will be quick, develop into the storm of aggression and breeze by. But some seeds of hatred can keep a person ESTp for a very very long time. Every ESTp is a failure.
....
I still have ESTp friends. The fact that they conciously and proactively push everyone away can be fun if you take it as a joke. I'm uncertain if this actually feeds their resentment but I hope some of them will eventually get over it. And some of them do. When we got married, my ex-wife was an ESTp. She changed.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I'm televisionally impaired but I catch the occasional dvd of a tv-series. The episodes I've seen of ER and Lost showed the characters of surgeon Peter Benton and Sawyer as marvellous examples of thinking style ESTps. Whether the characters are consistent over the series in acting that way, I have no knowledge.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
It's freebie day! I had such fun reading the "trust"-thread mfish posted that I'm going to give a fig about what's going on elsewhere in the forum.
For the subject of choice... I pick the ESFj.
There's a few of those threads in which basically INTps complain about their conflicting type. Now Expat already pointed out something pretty damn important and something I hope would be obvious... that being that different functions are involved in the two styles of ESFj described. Si being a very relaxed nice caretaker and Fe being a very active and dynamic thingy. Yet the real complaint was about ESFjs using force and being "type A personalities". To this I have to say... SORRY YOU FAIL.
When the ESFj uses Fe it's abstract Fe, he's enthusiastic to be sure but he isn't forceful. He's making suggestions. When they turn into angry demands we have to talk about concrete Fe meaning that the person is actually at that point acting like an ENFj and should be called one. If a person is ESFj he doesn't consistently act this way... which of course doesn't mean that you can't consistently bring this side out of him if you act like an asshole yourself. If this forcefulness is his chosen method in all situations, you should call him an ENFj.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Well, I had this in mind:
But this threas is still boring...
hmm...
Except for this:
This is weirdly hilarious. I hesitate to ask for clarification because I think understanding the sentence would spoil the hilarity. Oh, but I know you'll clarify it anyway... Damn... Do your worst!
Functions are not abstractions any more than eyesight is abstraction.Functions are abstractions.
Am I not understanding something?
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
I hate to say it, but Smilingeyes is right. There's a lot of ENTp's who overestimate themselfs and don't want to deal with their personal problems.
The problem with 4th , the Vulnerable Point, is that you have all sort of illusions inside of your head,tabus and selfdoubts you imagine you have.And when someone uses strong
But I should be quiet. This is Smilingeyes topic. We all like to smile!
Semiotical process
Are you ENTp? I was wondering if anyone actually identified with this, as in my case, Smilingeyes's post on ENTp wasn't conform with reality at all.I hate to say it, but Smilingeyes is right. There's a lot of ENTp's who overestimate themselfs and don't want to deal with their personal problems.
The problem with 4th , the Vulnerable Point, is that you have all sort of illusions inside of your head,tabus and selfdoubts you imagine you have.And when someone uses strong
But I should be quiet. This is Smilingeyes topic. We all like to smile!
Questions and answers with lord Smilex.
Ah, thanks for bringing that exact thing into the discussion. I'd say that at the point that a socionic function has the same attributes as eyesight, it's no longer an abstraction. Thing is... it's nowhere near that level. Eyesight is the most researched sense, we know how the actual external stimulus is coded up to a molecular level. We know what pathways the stimulus takes to the brain and in the brain with a very high certainty and with a very high exactitude. We know about a large number of molecules and genes that are involved primarily with eyesight, we know the cellular organization of different stimuli in certain parts of the visual cortex. We know about a number of brain areas and organs that are vital and can not be replaced... that actually in a concrete way create eyesight and the sense of vision.Functions are not abstractions any more than eyesight is abstraction.
Am I not understanding something?
We don't have this kind of information about socionic functions. Instead we have knowledge that up to a point the socionic functions can, after brain damage, be taken up by other areas of the brain which is small evidence towards the processes not being associated with biologically unique vital structures. For socionic functions to be considered concrete or biological, I'd like to see: a number of associated genes and genetic psychological disorders, a model of genetic inheritance of type traits (I'd even accept a multi-factorial one), confirmed neurological pathways for each different function, a neurostructural map of the cell populations in the particular loci in the brain in which the functions reside... or similar material.
Just so I don't get misunderstood, I'd really like to see this stuff, I'd love to be proven wrong in this particular instance. It'd be fun. I just don't think it'll happen. Until then I'll consider the functions to be mainly abstract, cognitive and social.
....
jsb:
You suggested something like a multifactorial functional test. I'm not quite sure if I understood you correctly, but I think what you suggested has already been created by Lytov with considerable success. I haven't done his test myself but I'm given to understand that it's quite good.
...
detail:
What oh what makes you think you are an ENTp?
I'd also critique you on being boring in a thread the main purpose of which is to avoid it, but I glanced through a few hundred of your other points and got my morning entertainment that way so I guess I forgive you. The best laughs I got from reading you say that you are annoyed by when a person exhibits both arrogance and the abscence of ability. That's you saying it. On a forum about socionics. Oh my.
(Oh yeah, the question in the beginning was rhetorical. I have no interest in arguing your type at this moment. I just don't care enough about you at this particular moment to do it.)
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I did Lytov's test. ISTP had a good lead, than INTP/ISTJ, than ESTP/ENTP, and then it went down hill.
I think by the end of the day, making tests is fruitless anyway. You have to read up throughly on all the types for it to do of any value to you anyway, so testing doesn't really save you time.
Thank you Sir, that clarifies the position a lot.Questions and answers with lord Smilex.
Dioklecian wrote:
Smilingeyes wrote:
Functions are abstractions.
Functions are not abstractions any more than eyesight is abstraction.
Am I not understanding something?
Ah, thanks for bringing that exact thing into the discussion. I'd say that at the point that a socionic function has the same attributes as eyesight, it's no longer an abstraction. Thing is... it's nowhere near that level. Eyesight is the most researched sense, we know how the actual external stimulus is coded up to a molecular level. We know what pathways the stimulus takes to the brain and in the brain with a very high certainty and with a very high exactitude. We know about a large number of molecules and genes that are involved primarily with eyesight, we know the cellular organization of different stimuli in certain parts of the visual cortex. We know about a number of brain areas and organs that are vital and can not be replaced... that actually in a concrete way create eyesight and the sense of vision.
We don't have this kind of information about socionic functions. Instead we have knowledge that up to a point the socionic functions can, after brain damage, be taken up by other areas of the brain which is small evidence towards the processes not being associated with biologically unique vital structures. For socionic functions to be considered concrete or biological, I'd like to see: a number of associated genes and genetic psychological disorders, a model of genetic inheritance of type traits (I'd even accept a multi-factorial one), confirmed neurological pathways for each different function, a neurostructural map of the cell populations in the particular loci in the brain in which the functions reside... or similar material.
Just so I don't get misunderstood, I'd really like to see this stuff, I'd love to be proven wrong in this particular instance. It'd be fun. I just don't think it'll happen. Until then I'll consider the functions to be mainly abstract, cognitive and social.
....
I think the issue is sor of like this then: do we BELIEVE that functions could and will one day be identified physically, or not?
The reason why I belive Yes, is that without ANY function, an individual would completely unable to exist and function in the world. There are no alternatives to functions.
Am I making sense?
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
I suggest you quit being political (Unless i'm wrong when i assume you try to ridicule me) and address my point if you think i'm wrong. So far we have:
Me: I am ENTp and your description of ENTps doesn't fit me.
You: What makes you think you are ENTp? (As a rhetorical question)
I'm very intrigued by this idea...of... change. What exactly do you mean by that? "changing one's type" has come up in previous threads and certain people firmly believe that it simply isn't possible...did you perhaps mean that the dynamics between you two changed...the use of functions..
perhaps you, too, changed then, kid
Thanks, that's very helpful information. Could you also explain (briefly) the same transformation in ISxPs, from ISTp to ISFp?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3514
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3921
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=581
In descending order of importance. A lot of the answers you want are in those threads. I'm only doing this thread for fun, you know, so I'm not going to be run by the peanut gallery.
Sorry about being terse, am a bit busy now.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
There have been a couple of interesting discussions on the site lately...
One was about "What is the dynamic/static cathegory?"
The answer must be very fundamental and as such, very abstract. I believe the current descriptions of this dichotomy difference must be somewhat distant of the true nature of the dichotomy... so I'll start by discussing the known properties...
1) Communication is more direct within the same group.
2) There is less "mysterious social" attraction within the same group.
3) The dynamic-static cathegory does not seem to have any reason to change in any situation.
4) The dichotomy group has characteristic functions.
Discussion on previous:
1) Establishes a space of understanding of each other's roles and aims in society. Eases the giving of friendly advice. Eases the approximation of ability within the same cathegory. Eases the approximation of the "who is friendly and who is not" -factor, thus causing ...
2) Rivalries form easier within the same dichotomy cathegory. Whereas alliances tend to be related to direct benefit.
3) There seems to be no environmental pressure that could cause a person to change in the static-dynamic cathegory. Thus the importance of the static-dynamic cathegory can not be overestimated. It is probably the most important dichotomy of all.
4) While it is said that both the INTj and the ENTp share functions, the Ne of the INTj is not the same Ne as that of the ENTp. These two groups have significant differences in how they use this function. Yet the communication between an ENTp's Ne and an INTj's Ne is very direct and from the outside they can at first glance seem similar.
Yet... theory goes that the dichotomies are defined by functions, so let's look at how this must happen. A reasonable point of observation would be four individuals who form a socion, share the same quadra level but each possessing a different function. We note that when statics are extrovert, their optimally collaborating dynamic partners are introvert and and contrarywise.
Further on, we note that statics are defined by being extrovert when perceptive and introvert when judging whereas dynamics are defined by being extrovert when judging and introvert when perceptive and this is the simplest, clearest explanation of what is the dynamic-static difference, yet it might not seem very clear... for this distinction obviously causes an enormous number of other effects...
It all goes back to the other basic questions of what is perceptive and what is judging? What is introvert and what is extrovert? Depending on the definitions of these characteristics we can arrive with very different results.
One of the distinctions I prefer to make is to claim that the judging functions are responsible of the social rules (on account of being related to ethics, emotions and status hierarchies, and on the other hand the creation of powerfully cohesive group mentalities). Therefore we can claim that statics are people who have an internalized (introvert) understanding of what rules must be used to function in a group. They can see themselves as using these rules as masters (thinking) or being bound by them as followers (feeling) yet they do not change these rules or observe changes in them easily.
On the other hand the dynamics only see social rules and emotions when there is concrete evidence of them. For them, the social field is a free-for-all, do and accomplish whatever you are able to, in whatever way you can, using whatever tools you like. It's not part of them, at most it can cause external facts to appear.
The relation to perceptive functions is the opposite.
...
Extra... I'm slightly bothered about the association between terminology extrovert/introvert, dynamic/static, rational/irrational, judging/perceptive...
I'll make a case that judging-perceptive and extrovert/introvert should refer directly to the functions. Thus Ne would be called an extrovert and a perceptive function, and a person who is using it as a dominant function should be called an extrovert and a perceptive person whether he is INTj or ENTp. On the other hand I'd like to reserve the dynamic/static and rational/irrational characteristics to refer to the dichotomies that do not seem to ever change the characteristics that are also referred to by the first and the last letters of the four-letter type code... Thus irrational = Exxp & Ixxp whether they are using their perceptive or their judging function at the moment and contrarywise rational = Exxj & Ixxj.
Use the distinction if you want. I'm going to (and I'll try to remember to do it consistently).
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Another of the more interesting discussions was about the nature of taciturn-narrative. They are commonly referred to by their habit of either asking questions or on the other hand telling stories... But this just a description that happens to fit in certain situations. The correct definition is of course that narrators have concrete introvert functions and abstract extrovert ones while taciturns have the opposite.
The definition can be used to posit other qualities along this dichotomy as well. One would be to call the taciturn activity deconstructive and narrative constructive as the taciturn person tries to understand a process or an event by speculatin on a number of concrete external facts whereas the narrator uses force to push reality to patterns according to the rules he understands. One can make claims of other attributes but of course the real test is whether they are perceived to conform with reality.
Another thing I wish to mention is that the more I spend time with socionics the more it displeases me to think of singular dichotomies. An ESFj narrator is very different from an ENFp narrator. To an individual the taciturn/narration -dichotomy is irrevocably tied to his patterns of positivism/negativism, process/result and democracy/aristocracy. As far as motivation goes, the most important of these is obviously positivism/negativism and thus I like to think of at least positive narrators vs. negative narrators vs. negative taciturns vs. positive taciturns.
Why then do I consider motivation to be of such importance? We're talking about social strategies... A positive state is the natural long distance -objective of any person. To fall long-term into negative thinking is usually a significant crisis to a person and can result in considerable harm. ...
This brings about a thing about duality... The "optimal state of positivity" always has a dual that is in it's "least optimal state of negativity". This could perhaps be a point that explains some of the difficulties of finding your dual in the beginning of the relation (that is, before the power within the relationship sort of evens out).
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Yet more about the positivism/negativism and taciturn/narrator dichotomies...
I'd like to note that rationals are positive narrators, that is ... without external facts they tell stories about how good something is. To me these positive stories and the hope they entail is one of the most important characteristics that draw me to these relations whereas the immensely negative (again, not fact-based) narrations of the irrationals are a huge turn-off and warning sign to me.
I presume the irrationals are drawn to how they have a habit of being positive taciturns, showing concrete factual evidence of victories, power and other motivational thingies.
I'd write more but I think I'm going to watch football instead.
(Yes, football ... there's no soccer. And the thingy the americans play? [Though I like that sport as well, for the complexity of tactics if not much anything else.] ... Maybe it could be called football if it involved more touching of the ball with one's foot...)
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Struck me a while ago...
Something else about the connection between narrative and positive dichotomies..
There's been some talk on the forum about an obsessive habit of INTps to check faucets and such.
I've been struck by the similar obsession with checking details by Eps.
On the other hand there's a description about Ti-function being ability to detect consistency in some of the lists doing the rounds in the net.
And then there's my own personal and obviously every other Ejs obsession to check logical consistency.
I find it probable that it all ties together. To the rationals the change from negative to positive is completely tied to the change from abstract introvert to concrete introvert. This from my experience means that when I'm nervous, I go over things in my head. I check the consistency of logic, stories, processes and so on and so on. It relaxes me. I know for certainty that Ijs do this a lot as well. I think it's probable that the corresponding habit to the irrationals would be the concrete checking of current external facts, making a concrete statement, maybe actually doing something.
A side note: Checking for consistency is definitely not a property of just Ti. It's most probably a property of all introvert functions. That would be another nail to the coffin of the function-aptitude-lists that are soooo fucked up anyway. Good riddance.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I have been having some trouble understanding Ti.
What is it, how does it work, how does it relate to reality? It seems to be very verbal, if you get an INTJ to believe a statement (The Earth is shaped like a football), they actually beliebe it is shaped like a football, they don't really think that that is a figure of speech.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
This kind of intellectual masturbation is not exclusive to ENTps, nor is it one of our defining characteristics. Don't even pretend like it is. I highly disagree with this description not only because it's negative, but because it's thoroughly retarded and not true. The only thing this could be connected to would be a neurosis of some kind, and contrary to popular belief, not all ENTps are neurotic nut cases. Some of us actually lead normal, healthy lives and don't jack off to our own brilliance.
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...
Gilligan, the description you are most probably referring to was about Ti, not about Ne. You've probably mostly established yourself as an intuitive ENTp by now, so you shouldn't recognize yourself from the description. The description is not really about the ENTp at all, it's solely about the basis of why ESTps can turn out to be such... dangerous individuals. ENTps give out their opinions, that's what you do and I think it's fine. As far as failure goes it's what every type does, all types fail... And all types feel very hurt and are potentially traumatized by the experience of utter failure. Naturally every ENTp is not an utter failure and there are healthy, smart individuals that bounce back and never turn negative. ...
But to say that the article wasn't true when it was talking about ENTps is senseless. You're reacting to choice of words and not the actual content. All that the article fundamentally says about ENTps is that ENTps have lots of ideas that cause them to have great self-confidence and that like everyone else they are prone to error.
You can oppose the article's negativity if you want but please note that the article's negativity is against the ESTp and not the ENTp, basically, I'm saying that an ESTp is a failed ENTp. I'm fully intending to make another article later on about the intuitive ENTps and how they turn the often depressed and confused ENFp state into the clarity of mind of the ENTp state.
Until then, you're not really helping the ENTps pr by making BS remarks about how something is untrue because it happens to hurt you.
I might also make the point of why am I on ESTp's case at the moment...
I guess it's somehow cool to be angry and powerful and that kind of stuff and there's a strange amount of adulation of the ESTp type going on on the forum, but most of the "Estps" on the forum are really just people with strongoften showing more fun-loving, social ESFp characteristics than signs of being an ESTp. Being a member of a 'negative' dichotomy type hurts. It feels bad and often it makes others feel bad as well. In the case of the ESTp, the ESTp is the only group which I've observed to make choices that hurt themself for the sole purpose that that choice also hurts someone else. This is not nice, it's not fun and it's not a characteristic of a cool winning type.
As far as neuroses go, I don't think you're the doctor here and shouldn't make those diagnoses. But there are a lot of ESTps who feel so bad that they "self-medicate" their psyche, most often with alcohol.
If someone else yet wants to post something about that subject and others in this thread in general, I'm usually only going to care if there's some substance or information that is new to me in your post. Maybe sometimes answer questions.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I would disagree. More than anything, I would say that an ENTp is generally a less socially-capable ESTp
I recognize the point you're trying to make now. You're simply describing a neurotic/unhealthy case. I thought you were trying to make a generalization about ALL ENTps, and that's what I was against.
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...
Totally. Especially this description:most of the "Estps" on the forum are really just people with strong
http://socion.info/cgi-bin/index.cgi?loc=desc&type=5
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
More questions & answers.
So what's the change from ISTp to ISFp?
Abstract Si
STRATEGY, JUDICIOUSNESS, CAREFREE & CAREFUL are very high and slowly increasing.
ARISTOCRACY & RESULTS & POSITIVISM & TACITURN are high and decreasing.
CONSTRUCT-CREATING, GRAVE & OBSTINATE are moderate and rapidly decreasing.
Concrete Si
STRATEGY, JUDICIOUSNESS, CAREFREE & CAREFUL are very high and slowly decreasing.
NEGATIVISM & NARRATIVE & DEMOCRACY & PROCESS are high and increasing.
EMOTION-CREATING, CHEERFUL & COMPLIANT are moderate and rapidly increasing.
The ISFp is tired of the relaxation and comfort. He's received an inner certainty that there's something wrong with his personal situation. He slowly starts to get worried, get interested about the company of others. On a vague level he feels he's fucking up his life and needs advice on how to get ahead. While ISTp is happy at being able to relax, the ISFp feels he's stagnating.
...
And to Dio...
Ti
What do we know about Ti?
It's a social function.
It pairs with, analyzes and controls Fe.
It's an internal model of something, not actively observing external facts.
It carries a feeling of power.
It has four forms, mainly creative and accepting and an abstract and a concrete variant of each.
Using Ti in large amounts causes a change in the environment from alpha quadra to beta quadra, ie. the change of the environment from a relaxed fun atmosphere to a potential war zone.
And those are the most important things about Ti.
(And because of this I consider most use of Ti and Fe utter folly, naturally the concrete version of the function being more habitually dangerous than the abstract. I probably need to make an exception for the INFps though on account of them being nice to a ridiculous extent.)
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Well, sure... kicking people in the head when they're lying down IS social interaction.I would disagree. More than anything, I would say that an ENTp is generally a less socially-capable ESTp
I recognize the point you're trying to make now. You're simply describing a neurotic/unhealthy case. I thought you were trying to make a generalization about ALL ENTps, and that's what I was against.
But seriously now, if the ENTp has any social difficulties they're usually just based on the fact that ENTps can be WEIRD and people have difficulty adapting.
On a sidenote, by the same definition I used for the ESTps, as I'm acting like an ESTj at the moment, I'm a failed ENTj
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
So you believe that type is fluid?
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...
to Gilligan:
Yes and no. I know people who have basically used the same functions for 30, 40 or 50 years. Even they show flashes of other functions though.
Yet there are people who have major events in their life that change their social behaviour. I know I've had significant periods of acting like an ESTj, ENTj, ENFj and an ESFj. Also I've known people to whom the change of behaviour comes at a very late age so it's basically not just about the "type gelling down during the 30 first years". I think there's very significant resistance to a person changing his basic type and so I wouldn't characterize type as fluid, but most things in the world can change and I've personally observed type, as defined by the Reinin criteria, social interactions, personal strategies and quadra values to be one of the things that can change.
On another note there is to my knowledge no theory that could explain how the human brain could create a division of 16 types that could not change under any circumstances. Neurobiology just doesn't lend support to such systems.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I believe that people are both static and plastic in behavior over time and space. re:jung-- I believe that whatever creates the outward summary of a function has variable strengths per person and may have variable sources. I do not believe that more than 50% of X type will always do X behavior or X interaction or X.... on and on and on.
I do that too. Sometimes I succed in hurting others and other times I 'm the only one who suffers the consequences.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Reply With Quote
