Imo you're a bit dark and pessimistic in a classical ILI fashion. ILEs can be, of course, but I think it seems a natural part of yourself instead something caused by external conditioning. But I'm not sure.
In a broader sense all intuitors have a big inclination for using this resource, although the style is different in each case. Disparate juxtapositions (lol) are usually Ne, that's true.Ti is a logical function, and is therefore prone towards analogical processes, such as "A is to B as C is to D". Combine this with a love of disparate juxtapositions (Ne), and you'll have a proclivity towards speaking sometimes with metaphors.
Bolded-> I hope so, or you will be really crazy...Because this analogical process is deeply personal, sometimes it is prone to being faulty. (On the other hand, sometimes it can lead to the same conclusions as Te. We're both capitalists, but probably for different reasons. I assume your reasoning has something to do with efficiency, but me, it has to do with the only economic system which seems to adhere to the starting premise that evolution is a contest and this will direct people's behavior) I don't actually think that if a typhoon hits India that it is Mother Earth making a sentient decision to do a cleansing. I'm just saying that human beings often fail to realize the constraints that physical laws have placed on them. In another thread I might have said that men are like Icarus. There are no perfect metaphors, but I do the best I can to help others understand the "essences" or whatever you want to call Ne information that I'm seeing.
Sorry for the derail, but I don't think we need a whole other thread for me to just say that.. Ok to the rest.
I think maybe you're still not understanding my position. The NT club is not perfect (as any grouping); it cannot (and should not) be considered as determinat when gauging the potential position that its members will manifest. But it's definitely not "weak", nor using it is just an idea that I've just pulled out of my ass (the same idiom you've used several times).I said Keirsey because Keirsey doesn't seem to care about functions, which is the problem in my mind with the club groupings in either system. You yourself said it is a "superficial" grouping, so I was just wondering why you were collecting the data in the first place. Yes, the club system has some degree of merit. But I'm just wondering what it is you are trying to prove. Perhaps "NTs should love technology" ? As I've already shown with the Ben Stein thing, it runs counter to the theory to say "X type should be in favor of this or that". You can be an INTJ that is arguing for human cybernetic programming or an INTJ terrorist living out in a wooden shack in the wilderness trying to bring down contemporary civilization (Norbert Wiener and Ted Kaczynski are both INTJ/ILIs in my opinion, for example). What is important is the processes, not beliefs or "goals".
Clubs are indeed part of Socionics theory, and they're as relevant as alternative classifications like quadras. Just their implications are different. The latter ones classifies types according to valued/devalued function which is connected with intertype relations. Clubs group types according to strong/weak functions, because strength plays a big role in the goals, purposes, pofessional areas, etc, that types are naturally inclined.
NFs as humanitarians, for example, is not just a superficial label, it has an argumentation supporting it. Of course it does not imply that necessarily all NFs will choose this path in their lives. An NT can focus in people & ethical questions; an NF can be a scientist, etc. But as usual, statistically speaking, it is relevant and works in this way. The same way not all LIIs will have typical LII "ideology", goals, or will agree with each other. But there's always a trend, a pattern.
Sharing the internal process does not determine the result, but it makes it easier to end in a particular point (or set of points) than in others. Counterexamples does not disprove statistical trends, unless their population size is as large as the opposite.
I insist that this is also part of the theory. Technically I'm not making a point, as I'm simply using what it's already available.



Reply With Quote