I think Taleb is IEE, he's a aristocratic Fi valuer. He could be a LSE too but a extrovert none-the-less. Althrough he says somet stuff that's somewhat ok, he fudges way too many thing to promote his agenda. He reminds me a lot of Malcolm Gladwell in the way he does things.
IEE is also consistent with the things I've commented; as at this moment I cannot go deeper about Taleb, I have no preference for agreeing or disagreeing with you.Originally Posted by hkkmr
But I'm curious; why aristocratic specifically. Bolded part was just a personal valoration, or are you linking it somehow to his potential type?
His aristocracy is pretty self-evident. His whole anti-fragility promotion is self-admittedly aristocratic. He considers aristocracy a anti-fragile construct.
As far as what you bolded, it's not really the part you bolded, but the fact he fudges a lot of things and present a very limited perspective. This is similar to Malcolm Gladwell tactics who is a self-admitted sell-out and doing what he does for money and not for any kind of truth/output. Like a type that might seem similar like a ILE does things quite differently. Take someone like Einstein for example, he never really relented on his views later in life despite being laughed at about it or heavily promote it or really felt the need to promote it. Today thru the lense of history, even some of what Einstein thought was wrong about what he did is proving to be more right than wrong or at least signifigant. End of the day IEE's are a passionate types, these are all 4Dtypes and heavily promote their agenda, whatever it might be, the promotion is more important than the substantive material truth. However, their efforts are largely ethical and based on this promotion,
4D types like ILE/LIE/SLE/LSE are more unconcerned about the promotion aspect, sacrificing that for material returns. 4D Te types are always willing to sacrifice popular opinion for substantive results, whether it be money, evidence, etc. It's just a world view difference.
That Einstein's particular behavior is imo not related to his "social attitude". Ti ego explains it more easily: "I have my framework and I'm internally convinced about its validity, regardless external sources". I am aware that Ti ego implies Te id, but I'm talking about the attitude to ideas, in opposition to the attitude to outcomes.
I understand your point, but I disagree. You're taking in consideration the strength of the functions, but it represents what I can and not what I want. If we admit that your interpretation of the consequences of Fe in agenda vs outcome is true, you are still talking about personal attitudes to problems. Considering if the function is valued or not is imo more critical than its strength. An ILE will tend to pick Ti over Te despite the last is supposed to be stronger, because the former is valued and the later is not.Today thru the lense of history, even some of what Einstein thought was wrong about what he did is proving to be more right than wrong or at least signifigant. End of the day IEE's are a passionate types, these are all 4D
In the field of motivations for acting in a way or not, valuing matters the most. ILEs are Fe-HA and such kind of attiude of "promoting agenda" is not alien to them, neither in SLEs. In fact, it's not too uncommon, even if the type is broad (as all of them) and there are cases from one extreme to the opposite.
You can still argue than in your personal typings of people, the observation fits with your POV, but in the same way I've seen such behavior more usually in Fe-HAs than IEEs. SEEs are a bit particular and it depends a lot on the user, because of Se dom. The same way you offered Einstein I offer to you Huxley, who was clearly against "social agenda" in his strong support of Darwin.
Ego-bias is a common flaw in post-Freudian psychology and I think you make the same mistake along with many socionists and post-freudian psychologists. The unconscious exterts a powerful influence which cannot be underestimated.
8th function is a evaluatory function where as 2nd function is a situation function, secondary functions are always more flexible than the demonstrative function which is a "worldview function" along with the 1st, Einstein was never really convinced of the internal validity of his frameworks, as he never produced a framework as a product for us to digest, he was notoriously unsure of things like the cosmological constant and other parts of his ideas which he criticized about himself. Nevertheless many of these things he was uncertain of casts a shadow on modern physics. It's possible his cosmological constant is dark energy, it could be something else. Einstein was always flexible about his framework, he was merely skeptical of the ontological perspective produced via the quantum mechanics of his time, which he considered inadequate to describe reality.
His stubbornness against quantum mechanics despite it's theoretical and mathematical prowess was that it did not in his estimation describe reality and was not a adequate ontological perspective. This is a product of hisignoring and
Function preference is important in inter-type relationships and has a major effect in communication but functional preference becomes less primary in what a individual does and and their cognitive mechanics, a individuals conscious and unconscious thoughts are dominated by the 1st and 8th function as these are the strongest functions and take precedence over everything. These 2 functions are the lenses by which reality is filtered and essentially limiters to what a individual will cognitive accept, the creative function is merely a tool to handle some of the challenges/problems/opportunities which the 8th function encounters. It is also a way to communicate with the world in a conscious fashion instead of the uncontrolled and sometimes socially unacceptable manner which the 8th function deals with things.
Einstein never seriously promoted his counter-views since he had no substantive framework to counter the quantum mechanics of his time, his theory build days were at an end and his main objection to the theories of his time were skeptical and not creative. Huxley's actions fit a passionate type far more clearly as begin against "social agenda" is the same just another form of social agenda, he was a tireless promoter and far more promotional than even Darwin himself. I don't actually think you've understood what I've said fully either since you bring up a lot of points which I don't disagree with nor contradict what I've said. They're in fact in support of what I have said. Einstein did seek to fulfill his
It's very important to discard ego-bias in socionics because it is a more complete framework, where each function within a psyche interact, function preference has a major effect on communication and social expression but the other functions are no less important. It's also important to understand that although functions may be weak and painful in an individual that our weakness are just as important as strength as far as how we deal with life. It is by no mere coincidence that a ILE developed socionics and the idea of socionics, one who was in a poor relationship. Picking at a wound sometimes dominates an individuals thought processes.
Hardly I did that. I used HA (Fe-HA) as the key motivator for "agenda" (even the words are in line). As you already know, mobilizing is unconscious. I said that talking about motivations, this function is more important that id ones. By the way, this is in line with mainstrean Socionics, not one of my "heretic POVs".
But let's suppose I did that. You're arguing that there is such thing as ego bias. even by many socionists. Similarly, they can argue that you have an unconscious bias, putting higher influence in this aspect that what it really is. So you should have an open mind for considering that maybe you are not weighting appropiately influences, unless you can prove your position which I doubt.
I personally recognize the influence of unconscious, but I think this concept is somehow abused. For example, if conscious is static unconscious is dynamic, and vice-versa. I personally think that if we associate static/dynamic to brain processes, this aspect points to a metabolic rythm, so to speak, therefore the whole brain has to go more or less in one way (always compared with the averaged human). I do not think that Socionics "unconscious" is something truly differentiated, but more like an "instinct" that notices what it is lacked, a sort of the whole minus what I am.
Anyway, that you agree or not with such vision of unconscious is not the point. I used it, not ignored it. But I put the key in superid, not id.
By the way, some person could suggest you could have a sort of ILE bias (at least in this case), because you're arguing how this type supposedly have the positive value of a characteristic (from your POV) whereas the counterparts (Fe-lead/dem) have not. But many profiles and personal observations would disagree with you...
The physical discussion about if he was right or not in some of his views is not relevant here, only his potential attitude. And about such attitude, many descriptions about him will disagree with you. He didn't just thought it was inadequate, he thought it was wrong. Maybe he didn't negated experimental results, but he refused to accept the interpretation of reality they were suggesting. That's a very pro-Ti and anti-Te attitude by every standard.Einstein was never really convinced of the internal validity of his frameworks, as he never produced a framework as a product for us to digest, he was notoriously unsure of things like the cosmological constant and other parts of his ideas which he criticized about himself. Nevertheless many of these things he was uncertain of casts a shadow on modern physics. It's possible his cosmological constant is dark energy, it could be something else. Einstein was always flexible about his framework, he was merely skeptical of the ontological perspective produced via the quantum mechanics of his time, which he considered inadequate to describe reality.
His stubbornness against quantum mechanics despite it's theoretical and mathematical prowess was that it did not in his estimation describe reality and was not a adequate ontological perspective. This is a product of his
I understand you, I just think that when a concept has several interpretations (in causes, nature and consequences) you tend to pick up those with line up with your POV and ignore alternatives because potential contradictions, making all ot it coherent and rounded but not necessarily true.Einstein never seriously promoted his counter-views since he had no substantive framework to counter the quantum mechanics of his time, his theory build days were at an end and his main objection to the theories of his time were skeptical and not creative. Huxley's actions fit a passionate type far more clearly as begin against "social agenda" is the same just another form of social agenda, he was a tireless promoter and far more promotional than even Darwin himself. I don't actually think you've understood what I've said fully either since you bring up a lot of points which I don't disagree with nor contradict what I've said. They're in fact in support of what I have said. Einstein did seek to fulfill his
Fe-HA as social causes only for example, as you're doing here. There are a lot of interpretations of the consequences of Fe-HA which go against this positive view, profiling ILEs ans SLEs as sometimes very pro social agendas, ignoring true "internal outcome" (so to speak) for gaining external profit. That is, focusing in "satisfying" Fe-HA over Te dem, and not after and secondarily to Te dem. I insist; id is unvalued.
By the way, it seems you could have a bit of a fixation with Einstein. We can argue all day about him, but in the long run a case is just a case. Regardless how "marvellous" he could be, he's just one individual. And there are some obscure aspects of him; just in case you didn't know, he was a shitty father. If you're looking for a positive example of an ILE I think Tesla is much better.
I doubt some/many of the Founding Fathers will agree with you, even if they totally could disagree with me (not that it is a bad thing per se). For example, Reinin has a very different view from what 8th function is. Of course you could argue that those who disagree with you have a conscious bias. But then it could be argued you have an unconscious bias, or any alternative.8th function is a evaluatory function where as 2nd function is a situation function, secondary functions are always more flexible than the demonstrative function which is a "worldview function" along with the 1st.
Function preference is important in inter-type relationships and has a major effect in communication but functional preference becomes less primary in what a individual does and and their cognitive mechanics, a individuals conscious and unconscious thoughts are dominated by the 1st and 8th function as these are the strongest functions and take precedence over everything. These 2 functions are the lenses by which reality is filtered and essentially limiters to what a individual will cognitive accept, the creative function is merely a tool to handle some of the challenges/problems/opportunities which the 8th function encounters. It is also a way to communicate with the world in a conscious fashion instead of the uncontrolled and sometimes socially unacceptable manner which the 8th function deals with things.
You're using 1th and 8th as key functions, but I see it no different from saying that 1th and 2th are the most relevant. Instead ego bias, dimensionality-bias.
...
Taking in consideration our previous discussions I suspect we will waste several posts constantly disagreeing in many details for ending as we started. So I'll try to go directly to what probably will be my ending point.
About this case, regardless I agree with you or not in how important 8th is for worldview, my point is for motivations (what I want), mobilizing matters more than demostrative. Valued/unvalued. Having a social agenda as more important than the true internal outcome of an idea is a thing of wanting something, not a thing of being able to do/see something. Valuing matters the most imo.
Beyond this, I do not doubt that you frequently use all aspects of the model much more than me. But I see it as a drawback more than an advantage. The more aspects you consider (reinin dichotomies, contact/inert, whatever), the more easily you can end justifying watever case you want. Just pick and weight what you need more than the alternative...
I'm more interested in using such aspects than I personally consider that could have an higher degree of confidence than using more but less trustable aspects. If you have followed that Cpig's thread, you already know how I see the problematic of all of this (alongside our previous conversations).
A conclusion cannot contain more truthness than the premises which originated them (Russell: a false premise can prove anything). Instead "believing" in the validity of such constellation of deduced concepts/aspects, I prefer to focus in accurately correlating the core with reality.
If you plan to continue with this conversation, please use your modpowers for splitting it from the type-me thread, it's too far from its purpose.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 07-18-2014 at 10:56 AM.
You've written a bit too much without really understanding what I said so it sort of becomes a lot of things that don't represent what I am explaining to you.
Yes ego/super-id is important, ego is the main defense mechanism and super-id the motivational mechanism(but hardly experienced independently). However, the id is doing a lot of the grunt work in the background and is the soil for the toil. The 8th function is a 4d evaluatory/contact/producing function, whereas mobilizing is 2d inert, situational, producing function. So one function is a area of strong judgements, contact with the enviroment while the other is case-by-case and self-contained. There is a reason the "hidden-agenda" is hidden, and it's quite the hidden motivator. There is a ego-bias in a lot of socionic writing, and infact Aushra has such a bias because of her focus on intertype relations. Consequently she also focused heavily on the super-id due to its interaction with the ego. However, this doesn't mean that the id/super-ego has somehow disappeared, or do not contribute equally to a individuals personality.
Each block, id/ego/super-ego/super-id are necessarily described in socionics and it is really contingent on the individual which area can have the primary role in any given situation, however the ego is the social defense mechanism which is why it's easier to analyze by others when looking at an individuals known behavior. I don't dismiss the ego or super-id I simply don't associate them with some things which you have chosen to do. I'm not really interested in continuing the conversation so I'll let this be my final post.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote