Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
also please don't take anything i said about as like *what it is* ... i was trying to explain it as i understood it and failed to.

eta: i was basically using the dictionary definition of objective when i used that word. when i used it i was questioning the validity of the VI echo-chamber process as a means of typing (as i don't think that's a good way to type people, basically). Radio later transitioned into using it in terms of talking about Te & Ti. when he mentioned the jungian definition i incorrectly thought he was saying i'd been using that definition, which was why i said "no" (he may not have even been addressing me). i wasn't talking about jung in the conversation.
I read it again and I follow the string of conversation better this time. So I guess it's like, Radio sees the validity in non-obvious objectivity and you and pookie want it to be explicitly true. Well that's kind of a mess, because you're both right, you're just fighting for shared space in a word.

But anyway, what I'm interested in is how say, an echo chamber differentiates from a circlejerk. I think Ti is well capable of generating a circle jerk.
*goes away*

*pulls head out of deep dark water*
Alright I keep second guessing myself with that conversation. I might make a study of it later and finally get down exactly what the fuck is going on there, but it really seems like you guys are miscommunicating every single definition or something. Someone says validity, the other person hears objectivity, someone says science, one hears formal method and the other hears "it must be right if it's science."

I don't know. I'm probably misinterpreting it.