Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 198

Thread: Johammadeezus on Information Elements (thread split)

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,949
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    and if I were to join the Ja-heezus Sebastian Bach school of voice typing, there'd be enough there for me to make him Idents with Jadae and Gummi.
    In that case, better dead than red, that is, better dead than jadae and gummi.

  2. #82
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Your repeated responses prove otherwise.
    I was just trying to clear my name, but evidently there is nothing to clear


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Yes you do, and when you say "people", you really mean "you".
    I'm a person, and I doubt I'm the only person you've come up with nicknames for.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    And about you saying that you were getting persecuted just like Salieri "persecuted" Mozart?
    I guess I felt like Hkkmr was "jealous" of me like Salieri was of Mozart.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    You mentioned that you had a "fiendish cackle" like Mozart's, and what's so bad about a nickname? My TC name is based on a nickname I was given.
    You're right, and I guess there are worse nicknames than Mozart.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Your repeated habit of trying to distract from the issue at hand when you're backed into a corner.
    I truly don't know what you're referring to here. Or maybe I do, but it's hard for me picture what you're talking about. Could you explain?


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    what the hell is wrong with being called Mozart?
    It's not so much that I mind being called Mozart (he was a great composer, after all); it's that you're using the name in an ironic way, as in "he thinks he's like Mozart but really it's quite the opposite".


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    I've seen Amadeus, both the movie and the play. Hell yeah for seeing the play.
    Nerd


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    If something pops into my head, I go with it, same deal. The nickname turned derisive when you got more and more baselessly pompous. When something/someone is ridiculous, it tends to get ridiculed.
    I regret acting so pompous, but I don't think it was "baselessly" as you claim. First, I act pompous when I feel threatened, and second, I know I'm right about most of my typings.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    !!!

    lol, there's nothing wrong with you being a thinker; in fact, I'm a little jealous. I said that because I honestly believe the T/F divide is the reason you have trouble understanding me.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Joe-cionics.
    "Socionics" is like the "language" of Fi-logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    ...it's not about me exclusively, the TC would be pretty shitty if it was just me in there. I had a hell of a good time with some awesome people and we talked about doggies and played Pop-Up Videos. It ruled!
    This is why I hate being an outcast. Unfortunately, I think "being an outcast" has something to do with being male and being an Fi-ego.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    it certainly can't get any weaker...
    It's only weak if you're looking for logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    You shitcanned her definitions.
    Because I think she used them to justify her incorrect ILE self-typing. It took a long time for me to accept my being IEE, and before I did I maintained that I was ILE.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Nope. Check under my avatar.
    What would you do if after a week I hadn't justified my claim about you? Would you revert back to self-typing as SEE?


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    More baseless speculation.
    Not really. Here are the "traditional" definitions:
    = internal statics of objects
    = external statics of objects
    = external dynamics of objects
    = internal dynamics of objects
    = internal dynamics of fields
    = external dynamics of fields
    = external statics of fields
    = internal statics of fields

    If we're going by these definitions, as an SEE you'd be weak in Ne, which is "Internal Statics of Objects". I have "Fi" as "Implicit Object Statics". Why did I define it that way? Because "personal feelings" and "personal qualities" are "static" and "implicit" properties of "objects".


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Nope.
    Yep.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Nope.
    Mhmm.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Nope.
    Oh yeah.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    This is retarded and you should feel ashamed of yourself.
    But it's true, you're utterly incapable of detecting the "essences" of objects; you're terrible at finding their "implicit" and "static" properties. Just as I am utterly incapable of detecting the "essences" of the "conditions"; I'm terrible at finding their "implicit" and "static" properties.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    Anyways, you got Aushra Augusta herself as IEE. Consequentially, "as an IEE" doesn't even count for shit in your own mind and/or by your own parameters. Her say trumps yours by default.
    But if she's got herself as ILE but she's actually IEE, then she mistyped herself, and thus she can't be trusted to define the information elements.


    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    4chan has been past its prime for almost a decade now. As with your quasi-Pod'Lair meanderings, you're a day late and a dollar short.
    Sorry, I guess I failed to detect the "implicit" and "static" properties of the "conditions".

  3. #83
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this guy was IEE:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_III_of_Russia

    Here's a pic:


    dat upturned nose! it's a dead giveaway! (this might sound like a Maritsa-statement, but I swear to god)

    also, those big, red lips!


    And some commentary:
    The classical view of Peter's character is mainly drawn out of his wife's and usurper's memoirs. She described him as an “idiot”, “drunkard from Holstein”, “good-for-nothing” etc. This portrait of Peter can be found in most history books, including 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:
    Nature had made him mean, the smallpox had made him hideous, and his degraded habits made him loathsome. And Peter had all the sentiments of the worst kind of small German prince of the time. He had the conviction that his princeship entitled him to disregard decency and the feelings of others. He planned brutal practical jokes, in which blows had always a share. His most manly taste did not rise above the kind of military interest which has been defined as "corporal's mania," the passion for uniforms, pipeclay, buttons, the "tricks of parade and the froth of discipline." He detested the Russians, and surrounded himself with Holsteiners.
    There have been many attempts to revise the traditional characterisation of Peter and his policies. The Russian historian A.S. Mylnikov gives us a very different view of Peter III:
    Many contradictory qualities existed in him: keen observation, zeal and sharp wit in his arguments and actions, incaution and lack of perspicuity in conversation, frankness, goodness, sarcasm, a hot temper, and wrathfulness.[2]


  4. #84
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,941
    Mentioned
    399 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney View Post
    This is why I hate being an outcast. Unfortunately, I think "being an outcast" has something to do with being male and being an Fi-ego.
    I don't know, I honestly think you would be just fine, at least around here, if you could be tad bit less arrogant and belligerent in terms of getting along with people. That at least is MY only issue with you.
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  5. #85
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    I don't know, I honestly think you would be just fine, at least around here, if you could be tad bit less arrogant and belligerent in terms of getting along with people. That at least is MY only issue with you.
    Noted. Thanks, Kim

  6. #86
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney
    If we're going by these definitions, as an SEE you'd be weak in Ne, which is "Internal Statics of Objects". I have "Fi" as "Implicit Object Statics". Why did I define it that way? Because "personal feelings" and "personal qualities" are "static" and "implicit" properties of "objects".
    Personal feelings are not an inherent property of an object. They are part of the relational field between a person and the object. Think of it as a bubble map. The person is a node. The object is a separate node. The link between them is the feelings towards the object. Hence Fi.

    Implict...the person provides the meaning
    Involved...the person actually experiences it and cannot transfer that experience via words, formulas, categories, etc
    Field...relational connection between two or more objects
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  7. #87
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Personal feelings are not an inherent property of an object. They are part of the relational field between a person and the object. Think of it as a bubble map. The person is a node. The object is a separate node. The link between them is the feelings towards the object. Hence Fi.
    No, the "feelings" exist inside the person (or "object").

    The other day, I was hanging out with an SLE friend who has three cats. I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it." My friend was silent for a second and then started talking about something completely unrelated. I think I hit his PoLR with that comment.

    "Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".

  8. #88
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney View Post
    No, the "feelings" exist inside the person (or "object").

    The other day, I was hanging out with an SLE friend who has three cats. I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it." My friend was silent for a second and then started talking about something completely unrelated. I think I hit his PoLR with that comment.

    "Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".
    The cat did not feel anything, neither pain nor pleasure until you created an emotional field between the cat and your actions. Iow, if you, another objeect, had not been petting the cat, then the cat would have not felt that pleasure/pain.

    Feelings "existing inside a person/object" is related to "the involvement" aspect. Personal feelings are the experiences (involvement) which we give meaning to (implicit). But it requires something to trigger those feelings, whether an external object, a memory of an event, etc.

    To simplify: Take a magnet and a nail. The magnet sits there and does its thing between its poles. The nail sits elsewhere, doing nothing. They are each individual objects, not influiencing each other, not creating a field together UNTIL you bring the two separate objects together at which point they create a magnetic field between them.

    The magnet needed the nail to expand its field,
    The cat needed your hands petting it to feel the pleasure/pain.

    "Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".
    Simplisticly:
    Fe is the straight up emotion. The Ni/Si creates the fields for Fe.
    Fi is the emotion in relation to something else.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  9. #89
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    The cat did not feel anything, neither pain nor pleasure until you created an emotional field between the cat and your actions. Iow, if you, another objeect, had not been petting the cat, then the cat would have not felt that pleasure/pain.
    I pet the cat. I perceived that the cat "felt" a certain way about me petting it. In perceiving the way the cat felt, I detected an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".


    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Feelings "existing inside a person/object" is related to "the involvement" aspect. Personal feelings are the experiences (involvement) which we give meaning to (implicit). But it requires something to trigger those feelings, whether an external object, a memory of an event, etc.
    Here's the definition of "implicit":
    a: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed
    I understood the cat's feeling of "like" because it was behaving in a certain way; from the cat's actions, I deduced an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

  10. #90
    Moderator Reficulris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,028
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney View Post
    Noted. Thanks, Kim
    I also think we could get along, if you would tolerate my stupid jokes and maybe was a bit more nuanced in your approach to others.

    the open palm earlier in the thread still is extended

  11. #91
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yet the cat wasnt feeling pleasure/pain until you did somethign to trigger it.
    And yes, i am sure you read the emotional orientation the cat was having to your actions, an emotional orientation that would not have happened if you weren't petting it. You even said yourself, you perceived the cat felt a certain way ABOUT you petting it.

    You deduced an implicit and state property of an object's field in relation to your actions.



    A field requires at least two objects.
    An object does not require another object to be an object.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  12. #92
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Yet the cat wasnt feeling pleasure/pain until you did somethign to trigger it.
    So what? I'm still detecting an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".


    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    And yes, i am sure you read the emotional orientation the cat was having to your actions, an emotional orientation that would not have happened if you weren't petting it. You even said yourself, you perceived the cat felt a certain way ABOUT you petting it.
    The point is that I perceived how the cat felt.

    Cat = object
    Feeling of like = static property
    Indirect means of knowing = implicit


    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    You deduced an implicit and state property of an object's field in relation to your actions.
    "Objects" and "fields" are two separate things. Look:
    In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass. The term macroscopic particle usually refers to particles much larger than atoms and molecules. These are usually abstracted as point-like particles, even though they have volumes, shapes, structures, etc. Examples of macroscopic particles would include dust, sand, pieces of debris during a car accident, or even objects as big as the stars of a galaxy.
    A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The field creates a "condition in space" such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.
    I basically said, "this cat likes these conditions", and in doing so I deduced a property about the "particle", not the "field".

  13. #93
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reficulris View Post
    I also think we could get along, if you would tolerate my stupid jokes and maybe was a bit more nuanced in your approach to others.
    I definitely think we could get along. Sorry if I've offended you with my brashness; people easily frustrate me and I tend to show it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reficulris View Post
    the open palm earlier in the thread still is extended
    Yes, let's be friends

  14. #94
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney View Post
    So what? I'm still detecting an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

    The point is that I perceived how the cat felt.

    Cat = object
    Feeling of like = static property
    Indirect means of knowing = implicit




    "Objects" and "fields" are two separate things.
    Wrong, cat is an object, yes, but the object wasn't what you were looking at, it was the object's relationship to another object that you were looking at.

    The thing with implicit fields is that you cannot directly perceive the field. You know that there is a relationship betwen the two+ objects going on, but it cannot be explicitely seen. So you have to grab clues elsewise. Such as the cat's reactions to what is happening to it.

    As I said...an object does not need another object to be an object. But a field requires two or more objects to exist.
    The cat exists as is. But it's feelings of like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, etc towards you and/or towards your actions did not exist until you created the field.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  15. #95
    Moderator Reficulris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,028
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney View Post
    I definitely think we could get along. Sorry if I've offended you with my brashness; people easily frustrate me and I tend to show it.




    Yes, let's be friends
    I actually understand those frustrations, I'm hoping people will take a different stance towards you. Also I kinda admire the brashness, just maybe a little bit toned down.
    lets be friends yes

  16. #96
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Wrong, cat is an object, yes, but the object wasn't what you were looking at, it was the object's relationship to another object that you were looking at.
    I said, "this cat feels a certain way". How am I talking about the conditions?

  17. #97
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney View Post
    I said, "this cat feels a certain way". How am I talking about the conditions?
    You were talking about how this cat feels about your method of petting it.

    I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it."
    "That" and "it" refers to your method ofpetting the cat.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  18. #98
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    You were talking about how this cat feels about your method of petting it.
    So I was talking about the cat.

  19. #99
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You were talking about how this cat related to your method of petting.

    Field = how an object relates to or interacts with another object.
    Object = cat
    Object = your hand
    Field = how the cat felt about your hand

    That is what you were talking about, how the cat felt about your hand. How one object related to another object.

    You know the image of a finger pointing at the moon, right?
    The moon is an object.
    The finger is an object.
    The finger pointing at the moon creates an invisible "field" between the finger and the moon.

    In this case, though, the reactions of the cat are not the moon. The reactions of the cat are the clues as to the relational field between your hand and the cat.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  20. #100
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Field = how an object relates to or interacts with another object.
    No, this is the proper definition of "field":
    A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The field creates a "condition in space" such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.

    The field is independent of the objects; it is like the "medium" in which the objects exist. The field is "that which acts upon the objects"; it is "the conditions" under which an object operates.


    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Field = how the cat felt about your hand
    In this case, the field would've been my hand petting the cat.


    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    That is what you were talking about, how the cat felt about your hand. How one object related to another object.
    I merely deduced how the cat felt, and in doing so, I detected an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object". It's that simple.

  21. #101
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This, among other errors blocks you from understanding socionics' aspects, elements, quadras, etc.

    For example, your aspect set up has no meaning for N, S, T, nor F. What i mean is that your aspects cannot be used to define N, nor S, nor T, nor F.

    You use "explicit" to refer to objects (Xe) oriented elements.
    You use "implicit" to refer to fields (Xi) oriented elements.

    Your aspect defintion of Gamma is that they are only object valuing with no value of fields. (A scary thing to have for engineers.)
    Your aspect definition of Alpha is that they only value fields, not objects. (How can there be a field without at least two objects??)

    So not only is your elements off aspect-defining-wise, but your model A is f'd up too.

    Let me know when you stop confusing 'the pointing' as 'the moon'.

    Laters.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  22. #102
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    This, among other errors blocks you from understanding socionics' aspects, elements, quadras, etc.
    lol, you've yet to demonstrate any erroneous thinking on my part


    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    For example, your aspect set up has no meaning for N, S, T, nor F. What i mean is that your aspects cannot be used to define N, nor S, nor T, nor F.
    That's only because you're coming in with preconceived ideas about N, S, T, and F, like "N is always abstract" and other vague shit like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    You use "explicit" to refer to objects (Xe) oriented elements.
    You use "implicit" to refer to fields (Xi) oriented elements.
    Here is the definition of "explicit":
    a: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity
    Here, again, is the definition of "implicit":
    a: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed

    Here is me explaining what I use "explicit" and "implicit" to refer to:
    So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes", and thus we have the concepts of "extroversion" and "introversion".

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Your aspect defintion of Gamma is that they are only object valuing with no value of fields. (A scary thing to have for engineers.)
    Gammas only value objects, yes, but they can still perceive fields. For example, here is ILI:
    Strength Valued Unvalued
    4 Ni Ti
    3 Te Ne
    2 Fi Si
    1 Se Fe

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    (How can there be a field without at least two objects??)
    Here's ILE:
    Strength Valued Unvalued
    4 Ne Te
    3 Ti Ni
    2 Fe Se
    1 Si Fi

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    So not only is your elements off aspect-defining-wise, but your model A is f'd up too.
    No, not really. Even if I'm wrong about the aspects (which I'm not), Model A still holds up, as it doesn't rely on the definitions of the aspects.


    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Let me know when you stop confusing 'the pointing' as 'the moon'.
    Let me know when you've come up with an analogy that actually makes sense.

  23. #103
    fka noki, zap, ath kopyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    402
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    *almost gets knocked down as he enters topic by the DBZ-ish shockwaves unleashed by the clashes of minds*
    This is why I hate being an outcast. Unfortunately, I think "being an outcast" has something to do with being male and being an Fi-ego.
    Can be construed as model B -Ni, valued by alpha&beta.

  24. #104
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ath View Post
    *almost gets knocked down as he enters topic by the DBZ-ish shockwaves unleashed by the clashes of minds*
    Welcome to any social environment anywhere.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ath View Post
    Can be construed as model B -Ni, valued by alpha&beta.
    The "I hate being an outcast" part or the "it has something to do with being male and being an Fi-ego" part?

  25. #105
    fka noki, zap, ath kopyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    402
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Being an outcast (or "unique" or w/e) has been defined as being part of model B's -Ni in old posts. +Ni limits itself to more mainstream, traditional, conventional things.

  26. #106
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Your aspect defintion of Gamma is that they are only object valuing with no value of fields. (A scary thing to have for engineers.)
    Your aspect definition of Alpha is that they only value fields, not objects. (How can there be a field without at least two objects??)
    actually, I think this somehow relates the the Aristocratic/Democratic dichotomy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ath View Post
    Being an outcast (or "unique" or w/e) has been defined as being part of model B's -Ni in old posts. +Ni limits itself to more mainstream, traditional, conventional things.
    I must confess, I know nothing about Model B.

  27. #107
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    anndelise was right. I give up. woof, I still think you're ILE, but I'm done theorizing about this stuff. someone ban me or delete my account, please.

  28. #108
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,809
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Olga has some excellent examples in laymans terms of how explicit and implict works and fields vs objects.

    I forgot them, because I'm lazy. Maybe I'll remember them next week. But it was an excellent discussion.

  29. #109
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure what I'd type woof as. I've never really had my own opinion on that matter so as far as ILE v SEE is concerned, I really couldn't say. Concerning the rest of his (Chesney's) typing list, I think a lot of his typings are more worthwhile than the self typings of the users on that list.

    Anyone who's had a conversation with me about the types of this forum's members already knows that I have 'odd ball' opinions on the matter. Not wanting to get into specifics of who exactly I think is mistyped or why, my reactions to his list were three.

    "Spot on typing"

    "Very close typing, base/creative/quadra is correct.

    "I have no opinion on this user and so I can't gauge my reaction to whether or not his typing of them is correct."


    So, on the users I've actually considered types for, I'd say Chesney isn't doing too bad at all.
    Easy Day

  30. #110
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...

  31. #111
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney View Post
    anndelise was right. I give up. woof, I still think you're ILE, but I'm done theorizing about this stuff. someone ban me or delete my account, please.
    I think I spoke too soon here; I had reread anndelise's posts and was feeling hopeless.


    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Olga has some excellent examples in laymans terms of how explicit and implict works and fields vs objects.

    I forgot them, because I'm lazy. Maybe I'll remember them next week. But it was an excellent discussion.
    I understand what anndelise meant by my hand "relating" to the cat, but I still don't think I was detecting a relation. So what if the cat "positively related to" my hand? The point is he "felt" a certain way "inside", and because of that he arched his back and rubbed his muzzle up against me. After observing these actions (the "explicit" information in this case), I deduced (or rather, his actions "implied") that he (an "object") "liked" what I was doing, and thus I became aware of an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

    Am I really incorrect?

  32. #112
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWC3 View Post
    Anyone who's had a conversation with me about the types of this forum's members already knows that I have 'odd ball' opinions on the matter.
    It's nice to know I'm not the only one with so-called "odd ball opinions"

    niggas forget that IEE is "The Psychologist"

  33. #113
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    lol
    isn't that yours, too?

  34. #114
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    No. I view money as a subset of happiness, but not nearly everything that happiness or life should be defined by.
    what is "happiness" for you? what "defines life" for you?

  35. #115
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    493
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney View Post
    I'd say a majority of the people on this forum are Fe/Ti
    What type do you see me and @Zero11s as?

  36. #116
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    What type do you see me and @Zero11s as?
    I'd say some kind of Fi/Te type for you; as for Zero11, I'm not sure. I'd have to see a video of you to accurately type you, though.

  37. #117
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Competing.
    you're so competitive, it's insane

  38. #118
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,480
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    I like Johannes. He's doesn't overly focus and nitpick on people's posts in detail hence not concentrating on Se and trumping people or I should say my own base function around I like him.
    LOL i take it you didn't see his exchanges with me, Kim, or Slacker.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  39. #119
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,480
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wonder what Johammadezus/Chris Clearly/Kenneth Chesney types me in his typology system?
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  40. #120
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    I wonder what Johammadezus/Chris Clearly/Kenneth Chesney types me in his typology system?
    well, it's not really my own system, but I'd say you're probably LII

    if you poast a video of yourself I could provide you with a more definite answer

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •