-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
OH yeah dude, that stuff is so amazing! You should really try to get into a logic 101 class, it's so much fun! I mean I know a lot of people who would say I'm an idiot for saying this but I don't care, logic is fucking cool. You should look up logical fallacies, those were some of my favorite bits. Fuck it I'll do it. It's this link.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Easy Day
mbti functions don't count. they use another formula to convert from dichotomies to functions. the wrong formula. so you get crazy shit that doesn't make sense. Socionics is most accurate.
You can't feel your functions, the dual seeking function is called like this because 'it lights up', so to say, when you are with your dual at close psychological distance.
For the rest it's impossible to notice this function as being part of you. people who say they can, are talking out of their ass. The first 2 functions (ego block) and the 4 dichotomies can be observed in others and somewhat yourself. The other functions are hard or impossible to observe, but you can deduct them by looking how your relationships go.
*chuckles* There was like a week where I just walked about being that asshole who points out the holes in everyone's reasoning. It was rather fun, but my best friend got rather sick of me saying every argument he makes is Ad Hominem. (In my defense I was an asshole to him, but I was right.)
A word of warning though, being able to point out these holes doesn't mean they go away, actually pointing them out often leads people to make more and worse logical fallacies or to cling to the ones they are making even more, so watch that.
Easy Day
@JWC3
There used to be a site that went into not only how the fallacies were fallacies, but also gave ways of moving past the fallacy. Such as if someone brings in a red herring, say something like "what does [insert their red herring] have to do with [current point/argument]?" or if they do a strawman, saying something like "i wasn't arguing [insert strawman], I was arguing [point]." (These were poor examples from my poor memory of the details.)
Unfortunately, the link is on an older pc which i cant access now
Also, regarding the astrology and logic thing, I used to have a book titled "Thinking Critically About New Age Ideas". It actually helped me get a grasp of some of the common errors involved in New Age writings, while not being anti-new age ideas. I found its presentation better than the extreme skeptic presentations, because it wasn't completely against new age ideas...it just helped encourage the reader to put more thought into what they read from new age writings.
And finally, regarding the fun of learning about logic, I really enjoyed learning about symbolic logic. Unfortunately, i didnt get past sentential logic due to getting distracted by other interests.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
That sounds like an awesome website! I'll have to search for it later when I'm done with theater stuff tonight. What's the difference between symbolic logic and sentential logic though? I haven't heard of logic being segmented though the thought doesn't surprise me it's just something I had no idea existed :S
Easy Day
@JWC3
the second half of the book went into predicate logic.
I used an earlier edition of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-...5390383&sr=1-3
I've since learned that modal logic combined w symbolic logic is what I, personally, prefer.
Er...as opposed to other criticl thinking and analyzing books I've read.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Ok i know i've mixed up the 2 before (quite frankly for the first 2 months of the semester), but Astrology and Astronomy are 2 different things :C! Astrology is all superstitous crap, chance stuff- Astronomy is legit and uses simple models to explain our universe. Hohohoho
introtim/extratim, sensing/intuition, logic/ethics, rational/irrational
once you spot somebody using one side of a dichotomie, you'll notice that he's always on that side. It's really basic, most easy to spot, and therefor good for observing, and you automatically get a good example of what that dichotomy is all about, since you can learn it from that person.
Roflmao...
Thanks to your post here, I went back over that part of the conver and realized that i had glossed over the term and was focusing on the seeming surprise over an Astro**** book having a section on logic and science. a kinda dumb mistake from me, considering I'd spent time in my past learning about both...(though at different time frames, and many many moons ago).
Thanks for letting me know my error.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Your reliance on trial-and-error experience to determine your beliefs and interpretation of concepts indicates an orientation toward Te, but the primacy of your Si function is manifested by your reliance on what you "experience" (see, hear, touch, etc.) over what you THINK about those things.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
but of course experience of reality > theory for everyone, or they would be madmen. I mean, I doubt you need to have "leading Si" for that. maybe you mean that some people don't consciously notice it that they shape their theory to their experiences...? also, how does the sense of touch have anything to do with beliefs and concepts lol.
btw, nothing in my post indicates trial-and-error experience (regardless of defining it as "Te" or not). the post I wrote I got from putting together stuff I've seen here and there over time. it was no conscious trial-and-error experimenting, I just let stuff (=experiences) accumulate and then at one point I decided to think about it and I made an explanatory summary of it all then.
(edit: thinking more about this though, yes I can sometimes assume trial-and-error attitude when problem solving. but then that's about problem solving, not theorizing. even then I much prefer to have a proper understanding... most cool is when I already understand something so well that I work out the solution to the problem without random trials in the process; of course still test the correctness of the result if applicable...)
also, it would really hurt Absurd's feelings if you declared me a Si/Te type. please don't insult him by assuming I'm in his quadra, and more than that, almost his identical.
Last edited by ambivalent existence; 06-07-2012 at 03:25 PM.
Humanity cannot be reduced and explained by types.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits