ILE (ENTp)
SEI (ISFp)
ESE (ESFj)
LII (INTj)
SLE (ESTp)
IEI (INFp)
EIE (ENFj)
LSI (ISTj)
SEE (ESFp)
ILI (INTp)
LIE (ENTj)
ESI (ISFj)
IEE (ENFp)
SLI (ISTp)
LSE (ESTj)
EII (INFj)
oh yeah I agree with all that. i think people being Fe is fine like I've said all along, I think that's what rubs betas the wrong way, they can't accept that as a premise of mine when interpreting whatever I'm saying. if you re-read my post and, for the sake of argument, assume I'm not implicating beta as evil, it should make a lot more sense
I wasn't assuming you were saying anyone was evil. I think you missed the point. For example, you should probably stop typing me as LSI since I'm not a social-climber by any stretch of the imagination. You've drawn conclusions about what a type is, what their motivations are, and then you've applied those motivations to people that you've typed as those types. Point is, you're probably wrong, both about the types as a whole, and the people you've typed. That's why I said it's better to just listen to people. There's probably a lot more going on than you'll ever get from your me/not-me divisions. Those divisions are probably hindering your understanding of people even while you think they're clarifying.Originally Posted by Bertrand
what do you think I mean when I say social climber?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...cial%20climber
Unless you've invented your own definition?
dictionary definitions don't really help here because that definition is susceptible to multiple interpretations, it only pushes the question back. by this I mean what do you think the ethical function of the term social climber meant. before you post another link to the dictionary, let me say by ethical I mean within the context of socionics and by function I mean "purpose to be served"
whatever let me cut to the chase, you found within "social climber" ill will where there is none, so if you reinterpret the original post without said ill will or negative implications of any kind, then you will have your answer. if you can't do this and can only insist on finding it in words, then you have to realize the evil is something you're equally responsible for bringing to the table
I actually took it to mean the dictionary definition of it, and didn't assume an ulterior motive on your part. I think that you believe yourself to be "Fi quadra" and that you think everyone in a "Fe quadra" is somehow socially-motivated. To call someone a social-climber is to say that they highly value social opinion and prestige. This is NTR, and that you believe it to be type-related is the assumption that I was pointing out. If you want to make social-motivation a typing criteria, then you should at least consider whether the people you're placing in this category even fit it. (And this is where you become blind - as an example you've directly called me socially motivated before, referring to me as a "Fe wind-up soldier" which completely mischaracterizes my motivations or my character. But, because you've determined the categories, and you've determined who belongs in each, you let your assumptions rule, closing your ears and mind to anything else.)
I didn't find ill will. I thought I already explained this, that I wasn't assuming any kind of attack. . . just a lack of understanding. I believe the narrow-mindedness on your part is due to the way you (and people in general) often make classifications. In other words, you see yourself as "Fi quadra" and you assume certain traits are related to Fi, and the opposite traits are related to Fe without taking into consideration that you could be wrong on all counts.whatever let me cut to the chase, you found within "social climber" ill will where there is none, so if you reinterpret the original post without said ill will or negative implications of any kind, then you will have your answer. if you can't do this and can only insist on finding it in words, then you have to realize the evil is something you're equally responsible for bringing to the table
yes but what does it mean to highly value social opinion? in fact what is social opinion? we could go on all day like this, the point is simply you are bringing a background intuition to the picture that is fixed, that needs to be adjusted for you to read my posts without finding them objectionable, whether you call it "lack of understanding" or what it really is "ethically wrong." your whole thing is to try to get there via word games, and its that demand that makes the two views intractable, which is simply put the source of all conflict. however it is intractable because neither side will budge. what this ultimately means is that wherever you see "lack of understanding" (since we're using your words) it is just as much your fault as it is anyones. the solution of LSI is to exclude those opinions, which is a solution, but it fundamentally forces others to aquiesce to the LSI for the reason that they are willing to fight and anyone who is not must give way one way or the other. this is a fine approach to life, but you exclude yourself from the benefit of those points of view at the same time. this is precisely why LSI must outsource their values, because its only by doing this they find inclusion in any system at all, given that their ego is subjective to the core and their methods are uncompromising. in the final analysis they are dependent on the benevolence of others in much the same way they feel the world and others exist at their indulgence (this is what Jung means when he says authoritarians, like Stalin, grow increasingly dependent, even as they inflate their ego to the highest of highs--Stalin for all his power could not think up an original thought and was wholly dependent on his spacial environment for some measure of approval, which is why he had to be surrounded by sycophants--this is isolation in a deep sense, in the vein of enantiodromia, and is what gives rise to pervasive state driven societal paranoia--an outer reification of the inner state--congratulations Stalin, you did it, you imposed the system)
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Believe what you wish.
I'm sure more than a few people were sent off to the camps with those words
@Avebury, yeah probably, I thought you correlated individualistic claims with aristocracy and occupying a certain position with democracy.
? If someone can't do his job he will be fired / he will have no more customers / so on. He's not forced to be professional, it's just good for his life.
But I think Fe and Te types have a somewhat different perception of being professional (or not).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
My Fe DS says nah. He's dry af. Maybe passionate about his own Ti thoughts but dry beyond that.I think he's EIE in model G. The way he talks is very dramatic (-)
That's just his Ti opinions. Interesting how he thinks Agreeableness is basically Feeling tho' heh... It does have a pretty decently strong correlation to MBTI Feeling, but I think the problem with his pov is that placing emotional intelligence inside a Big Five framework is not conducive to researching and developing a more refined understanding of it. He's just too stuck in crappy Big Five.and although he has a very crirical mind, I think he is more focused on having an emotional impact on people, rather than just making logical statements. Because he is very logical, he has an image of being a spokesperson of reason and truth, but often he makes statements that are more dramatic than true, which isn't necessarily bad, he has a positive effect on people, but sometimes he sacrifices simplicity for the sake of making a point or to make an impact on people. For example, he once said that "emotional intelligence doesn't exist", because he argued that it was the same thing as agreeableness.
Lol seems like a Ti pov with him not liking that concept... at least in my case, I do think self-respect makes way more sense, since it's not a touchy-feely thing (yah Feeling/Ethics) like self-esteem. As for the last part of his reasoning here, I disagree with that though. It makes me feel like he's even less clear on some Feeling related things than I am and that's saying a lot lololAnd he doesn't like the concept of self esteem, because he wanted to make some point about how you need to earn self respect and that self esteem is the same thing as saying that "everyone gets a medal" and that we should all be proud od ourselves foe no reason.
It's 1D Fe dramatic at best.Well, emotional intelligence is a term that refers to something, and so it's useful for communication, and saying that it doesn't exist is just dramatic for no reason and because he's trying to sell the idea of big 5.
That actually was just citing some idea from a theory, not really an edgy thing.And saying that he dislikes self esteem is also another edgy thing he says to make people pay attention.
Ne for the bolded. Ew.I'm rambling, but hopefully you get the point, he's dramatic, talks about the world as if it's a magical heroes journey
Lol uhh that's kind of what alpha NTs are about. Rambling about theories to people all day in lectures and wanting to start new world order that way heh. But that part needs Se.Also, he'sseeking, he wants to bring order back to the world, but jordan is not the order, jordan is a poetic mess that rambles about frogs and lobsters for hours
It didn't rub me the wrong way. The idea about drawing the line between things based on personal values is full-on Fi lol... Sure everyone has some of this but LSI never thinks that this should be the main way of deciding things. It's such an antithesis to Ti.
I'm soc-last so it's not really directly social climbing, what I do, but yeah I'm hierarchical like that otherwise.
Yes, they probably would have a different perception of the term. I knew what she meant when she said she forgot there was such a thing as professionals, something like as long as they were doing their job they weren't held to a standard different from anyone else. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but I got what she meant when she said it.
I don't even remember why I said the other person was acting unprofessionally because her comment was more interesting to me. We both got a realization of how we were seeing the world through different eyes at the same time, and both found it interesting, maybe because we're a lot a like in other ways. It was also interesting to me because I saw that my own response was automatic rather than being reasoned - and that's a curious thing too, because where does that come from? Is it from upbringing, something taught to me that I internalized, or something else?
edit: because I realized that it sounded like I was calling my friend unprofessional. I wasn't. I was speaking about someone else to her when she made the comment.
Last edited by squark; 04-23-2018 at 04:01 AM.
LII, my arguments are in earlier posts in the thread
arguments are very speculative to be convincing, anyway
I'd say that to wave by hands so fast and much like him is not about introverted types to assume LII
seems estj to me
possibly entj, but seems very practical like s
Try to act more adequately, please. I react on your activity in my life.
You may use ignore function in case to see my opinion is too painful for your tender soul.
Last edited by Sol; 04-23-2018 at 04:22 PM.
Over several pages, sorry, it won't be faster for me to locate them than if you do it.
A very quick summary is that he seems pretty out of it with his idealistic ideas (really incompatible with my Se tbh) and he's very analytical. He seems disconnected from his audience when talking, too. And he orients in his thinking by academic psychology theories rather than by real people contact.
What in his ramblings is practical
Introverts still have muscles that they can move fast if they want to at times. Introverts can get excited too and LxI definitely can get enthusiastic about presenting their understanding.
can, but behave more restrained in general. as with more attention inside they have lesser wish to influence on people
introverts mostly give the impression of shyness and quiet
I like to see introverts, they calm me. while that dude acts in opposite way
Yeah and this applies to him. He remains inside himself while giving his lectures, doesn't connect with the audience directly. This has nothing to do with how fast he moves his hand to wave it.
Ambiverted introverts don't particularly give the impression of shyness and quietness. Also, Peterson is a successful introvert right now with so many people watching his lectures etc. Apparently he was quite low-key before in videos before the popularity.introverts mostly give the impression of shyness and quiet
I like to see introverts, they calm me. while that dude acts in opposite way
Would it be heresy to suggest that maybe it's due to an NTR factor that he doesn't calm you? But also, he's not a Feeling type, would that have anything to do with not calming you?
Everything in your brain is like a compass or orientation. Not just sexual lmao but everything else too. You're orientated to prefer faggy feelings over logical discussions, dick over pussy, night over day, etc. Business over homelife. Violence over peace, cruelty over being nice. As you get to know other people its obvious what they prefer as long as you aren't being naive and living in some fairytale world or something and gaslighting yourself to believe they are really one way when they are the other. And yeah people can be conflicted or complicated. Maybe like the compass pointing to cruel/nice is shake-y in the middle and they don't know what to do so they come across as neurotic. But in other stuff its a lot purer and obvious and campy.Suppose that there is an "Aristocratic" part of the brain. Since this "Aristocracy" is a highly abstract, and even a social concept, it seems improbable that one is "born" with such an abstract idea about the world (how can the brain just somehow "know" these abstract concepts?). It must be that this "Aristocracy" is an abstract concept which is based on other abstract concepts, such as beliefs or value systems (for they are based on beliefs about the world). To "know" how to act in Aristocratic ways, it must mean that information is gathered from sensory data, then it must be somehow passed onto this "Aristocratic" part of the brain. Does this "Aristocracy" perform an executive function? Or is this Aristocracy fed into the executive part of brain, which makes all the final conscious decisions? And on what criteria does the executive part of the brain make the decisions? Is this Aristocracy ever rejected, and do other things ever get considered? How would it conflict with all the other traits?
Its like people don't wanna be labelled this way but the label already comes from how they behave in a variety of different external factors, like they start to not really matter and they can't use the excuse 'I'm complicated!' to get out of it anymore. The real world is big, but it's only so big.
eta: I realized what I said was probably ti-valuing as hell. Suck it up gammas/deltas. =D
i think a better way to think about it is: aristocratic notions are just what name we gave to certain social instincts, namely hierarchical ones. in other words, people didn't become aristocrats because they heard about the idea somewhere and adopted it. rather, they were by nature aristocratic and its that pattern of behavior that we ultimately labeled aristocratic, as well as all its attendant abstract justifications and instantiations in literature and philosophy and politics etc. ultimately this must be true because its not like people don't embody concepts until someone tells them the magic words, the magic words had to come from somewhere and they first were lived by an individual and only described, by an individual, later.
the words aristocratic don't even mean anything unless you realize what they reference. its like speaking in a different language if there's no underlying phenomenon, at best you can define it into existence as a consequence of a relationship of ideas, which is sort of like what reinin's traits do, but if they don't reference something observable we reject them on the ground they're useless and therefore lacking in application compared to any of the other infinite variety of ideas competing for space in our brain. in other words, I can come up with all sorts of nonsense but if it doesn't do work there's no reason to hold onto any of it. note: entertainment value is work. also observable does not mean physically measurable by current means.
in the final analysis one can accept that aristocrats are out there, without elevating oneself above them, and at the same time thinking aristocratism is (mostly) bad [1]. that is the essence of democratism
[1] but not entirely if one subscribes to the idea of enantiodromia
Last edited by Bertrand; 04-23-2018 at 10:10 PM.
No, because there is a such thing as unanticipated, unforeseen consequences of the emergent phenomena that arise from complex interactions of social behaviors. So what may start out as basic functions of the brain, or the basic "laws", may turn into something complex and unforeseen. It is possible that these ideas are the ideas of certain institutions, or certain groups, that were imposed on the individuals.
So basically, how does one just "know" how to act in these ways from simplistic and basic functions, when these behaviors are rather complex and require complex understandings of social interactions and knowledge?
There's just something off about the guy. He relies too heavily on his role and/or hidden agenda which appears forced and unnatural. It comes across weak.
SLE - Ti
I think he was more in his zone of competence with his early lectures, all this politic stuff while interesting and despite his obvious efforts, are not really his forte. he seems to be imitating something, you're right. I wouldn't be surprised if you're seeing him from his weak side very clearly if SLE-LII is at work. for an LII he's looking powerful, but like you said there's something not quite right about it. at the same time I think its his right to try and he's doing a decent job, its more like a quibble from my point of view, but I definitely acknowledge that being there and see it too to some degree. I think he makes excellent points and is a real genius but I'm not sure if this phase of his life entails some maybe ego inflation. maybe we need this right now, but at the same time he's not a real Hamlet as far as I can tell
good point. I could see a supervisory relationship at play. Despite his obvious intelligence and far greater experience in speaking and debating than myself, I have no doubt in my mind I would dominate a conversation with him.
Despite this I don't inherently dislike him. He has some decent points but is more boring and tryhard than anything and I don't see the immense fascination others have with him. There's far more engaging people discussing similar stuff that have much less of a following.
SLE - Ti
yeah that sounds like supervision, his strong points kind of drown in your own so it seems like he's relatively insubstantial. I think in the academic world he sort of kicked the door down in talking about this kind of stuff in a non straightforwardly literary or ideological way. In other words, I think he did a lot to legitimate humanitarian intuition within academia outside the humanities (this is why I think he attacks them for their shortcomings so much, because he sees the divide clearly, although in his own way works to bridge it). In some sense such intuitions were already at work, but they have always been on the periphery acting from behind the scenes in academic culture (which is what he drags out into the light). Its like he laid the groundwork for a theoretical head on analysis of a lot of those ideas, which had really been hitherto constrained to literary style analysis or idealogical debate within political science and sociology/womens studies, etc. This is actually a major weakness from the point of view of gamma which can do something similar but from the point of view of economics, so it tends to disregard a lot of that input. I think a lot of radicalism is in response to being ignored. For Jordan to bring in a legitimate scientific psychological (inasmuch as such a thing exists) ground to the discussion (i.e.: on Solzhenitsyn, Nietzsche, Jung, etc) by connecting it to the existing research, he actually has done something really tremendous. But I think beta's whole way of being takes a lot of that stuff to be self evident, but the point is a major divide has emerged between those who think like that and those who don't. Going back to the economics point, I think people don't fully realize what a substitute for spiritual well being on the level of public policy considerations it is... I think what Jordan stands for in some ways is a counter balance to that approach that was getting progressively more and more marginalized and therefore radicalized, for lack of scientific basis sufficient to stand up to the kind of results economics can measure and produce. I don't think the full force of this has even begun to be felt, but I think something like this is a major cultural moment, although it won't be fully realized for a long time. I think academia really needed someone like Jordan. I think people like Jonathan Haidt are also doing similar work which will be bolstered by his popularity and legitimating influence. The biggest benefit may be the interest generated in this area so the next generation will face less roadblocks to developing these ideas and what they come up with stands to be really exciting. I think for all that people will look back on Jordan as being a major figure. Probably not just a flash in the pan, but I worry if Jordan focuses too much on this book tour, i.e.: this new version of himself, and not on doing more research and continuing to develop new ideas, he might actually fade away, because its not his strong side and I think to fully realize social impact one needs to work from their strong side
Good shit
SLE - Ti
Woah, never really heard of this dude or know much about him, but this showed up on my youtube feed and I was curious. He basically says something I would think, but not really want to say. Spooky.
I think he's Ni creative. Maybe EIE because he's such a good orator. But I don't know. LIE could fit too I guess. Yeah, that's what I "think".
good bye
uh-oh, you got PETTERSONED.
Woah, never really heard of this dude or know much about him, but this showed up on my youtube feed and I was curious. He basically says something I would think, but not really want to say. Spooky.
I think he's Ni creative. Maybe EIE because he's such a good orator. But I don't know. LIE could fit too I guess. Yeah, that's what I "think".
don't worry man it happens to everyone.
Didn't happen to me.
Bravo you escaped. I think its because you are still to young and inexperienced in life to really understand his messages yet. I already viewed your thoughts about his personality and his style and mannerisms though, so its cool if you wanted to discuss those you don't need to. I was talking about his message more specifically in my post to strangeling.
Unfortunately I'm not young and have had way too much experience. I understand his ideas but I see nothing that's a big deal about it like that. Why not say it if you want to say it, anyway, why wait for him to say it.
I think I remember seeing you say young as in under 28. not minimizing the life path her, just framing this as in: how much have you personally experienced? Loss of love? Separation? Disillusionment? Regret yet? Disenfranchisement? Loss? Failure? Ruination and destruction? Apathy? The list of things a person needs to know, on and on before you can understand a message is required. Even the logical reasonings trying to find the root causes with religion and psychology..those are not just a simple rationalization process. Intellect can't just wrap up neatly everything and then toss it aside once it has some comprehension factors.
It's just interesting to me that you say I can't see the big deal about the ideas themselves, as though the big deal is found in the vacuum of the ideas exsisting as they are. It's not about that, about the ideas for the ideas sake, which is why you probs are missing the entire point of the movement, why there even is a movement, and where the broad appeal is coming from.
You probs would make this a socionics matter, saying he's probs just your kindred so his bouncy conclusions are just colour ful Ne blocked with Ti, so you brush them off as being to much disjointed for the sake of an argument.
These are the factors that make me state you might not be *understanding* him, beyond some surface concpetualization.
As far as waiting for him to say it..not everyone has the rigour and capacity to do so. That's like saying if you can youtube a video about how to fix your car's carburator why not just do it yourself, its like erm, okay, ya I probs could, in a perfect world, but why bother if I can just bring it to a mechanic?
Look my life is not a typical life path. It's pointless to make assumptions about it based purely on age, that's too little info.
What do you mean by disenfranchisement here?
No, I had no such Socionics argument in mind about him lol. Nice of you trying to predict my answer but it's not as simple as that
Where I said why not say it yourself, I meant it in the sense that the original comment was about how the person didn't *want to* say it. Why not. What kind of capacity is missing for that?
Really I just don't get the hype is all I'm saying. I'm happy to hear from others about why there is such a hype about this stuff tho'
True, it can be to little, yet unless you have exp all those things I;ve mentioned and perhaps several others I can;t think up off the top of my head, then yes, you expo might be to limited, or your exposure in real life to people who have gone through these things and have shared such insights with you, might be to limited. It's just a little strange that you have felt no affect by listening to Petterson..? Is he so much intuitive in the wrong way for you to feel anything?
From family, job, society. ect.What do you mean by disenfranchisement here?
Was I to far off though myst? Be a little honest.No, I had no such Socionics argument in mind about him lol. Nice of you trying to predict my answer but it's not as simple as that
Okay. Well obv its socionics. hah.Where I said why not say it yourself, I meant it in the sense that the original comment was about how the person didn't *want to* say it. Why not. What kind of capacity is missing for that?
I don;t get it fully either, but getting it and noticing it don;t need to go hand in hand.Really I just don't get the hype is all I'm saying. I'm happy to hear from others about why there is such a hype about this stuff tho'
I get what Peterson means in the videos I watched, I just either find it trivial or I have a different take in some of the things.
Btw the negative feelings you listed, I have a simple opinion on all of it: don't let them overcome you. You overcome them. That simple.
You mean isolation from society etc?From family, job, society. ect.
Was I to far off though myst? Be a little honest.Very far off yes, I don't like to try and explain everything with Socionics when it'd be too ambiguous an explanation for it.
Let's not make everything SocionicsOkay. Well obv its socionics. hah.
I get what Peterson means in the videos I watched, I just either find it trivial or I have a different take in some of the things.
Btw the negative feelings you listed, I have a simple opinion on all of it: don't let them overcome you. You overcome them. That simple.
You mean isolation from society etc?
Let's not make everything Socionics
Sorry lol, for not making everything Socionics
I don't really care about that and it wasn't the main drift of the original line of thought.Sorry lol, for not making everything Socionics
PS you should be sorry, everything under the sun earth and moon is about socionics.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote