Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Member Questionnaire (EmergentPhilosopher)

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Member Questionnaire (EmergentPhilosopher)

    Member Questionnaire 1 (EmergentPhilosopher)
    What is beauty? What is love?
    Beauty is a quality such that I wish to spend more time with someone exhibiting that quality. This is often an intellectual beauty in how I and another stimulate each other's intellect (though I won't pretend I am above some sense of phsycial aesthetic too, however this is more vareid, and cerebral beauty' is a predicate for me to consider physical aestheics as valid).

    Love (in a romantic context) is somewhere between an involuntary feeling of attachment and a conscious desire for and state of having a state of mutual intimacy with another. In a less romantic context is valuing a sense of closeness to another and considering their desires on a similair level to your own.

    Largely, our concept of 'love' as a feeling, which has come from poets and playwriters, isn't much more than an electro-chemical state in the brain compelling us to pair-bond and mate; this isn't very romantic, hence the value of consciously valuing another's company as well as any involuntary reflexes (only the conscious obsession would be tantamount to limerence)
    What are your most important values?
    The idea that the best option is rarely (but on occasion) an extreme one, that the best decisions are reached through reasoned and articulate discussion.

    Intellectualism, balance, the free discussion of ideas and Socratic 'truth', consistency in internal logic and a valid description of an external reality (i.e. empirical data) and (to a lesser extent) the capacity to articulate these things to allow for discussion with one's self and with others
    Do you have any sort of spiritual/religious beliefs, and why do you hold (or don't) those beliefs in the first place?
    Agnostic with no affiliation to any religious group. Had two separate religious experiences that I consider as likely to be genuine as I consider them not to be. I'm open to the idea of a deity, though don't expect there to be one, or actively believe there not to be one. I consider most religions to be factually incorrect projections of human nature and our desires, but also functionally useful for individuals who lack the capacity to guide themselves through life (let alone an existential crisis).

    tl;dr - agnostic (not religious nor atheist).
    Opinion on war and militaries? What is power to you?
    War is an extension of conflict, conflict is a state of two parties having two (at least seemingly) mutually exclusive set desired outcomes. As long as there are reasons to wage war and more than one person to wage it, war is an inevitablility. It can be minimised through the threat of any victory being Phyrric, though likely never elminated entirely. Thus, militaries will always be formed either de facto or de jure to ensure the safety of and to secure the interests of groups, be those groups involuntary such as nations or (more) voluntary such as a collection of people of a shared ideology.

    Power, at its most simple description, is the ability to get what you want, or to make the world as you would like it to be. This encompasses control over the natural world (through tools, technology and other similair things), over other people (through the threat of force, mutually beneficial agreements or through friendship) and over one's self (the capacity to motivate onesself to achieve their own goals).
    What have you had long conversations about? What are your interests? Why?
    Politics, philosophy, history, all natural (pure) sciences and combinations between traditional boundaries of sciences, the immediate and ultimate fate of humanity, the nature of the human condition, forms of narrative in fiction, andthe practicalities and planning of achieving goals or creating some of the things discussed in previously mentioned topics. These things appeal to me on an intellectual level and provide me with a sense of stimulation that celebrity gossip does not. My interests involve mostly abstract systems, sometimes applied to a funtional or practical reality and sometimes for intellectual stimulation.
    Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body?
    Health and medicine are very interesting topics, both as they are now, their history and their future. While I have dieted in the past and have worked out, it is often difficult for me to motivate myself on matters of my body, even if I have managed to on occasion in the past and even if I theoretically know I should put more effort into it. The science and philosophy of medicine and of health are all very interesting, and the practicalities of both are also important, even if I don't apply myself to it anywhere near as much. I would like to improve my bodily condition, though will probably end up doing so using a scientific method (any dieting I have done has been based on data from empirical research, to decent effect, though after a few months I lost the motivation and/or organisation to continue the process).

    tl;dr - I consider them important, and do believe I should put more effort into improving and maintaining both, though do not actually do so at the moment.
    What do you think of daily chores?
    Tedious and largely futile (because the place eventually becomes messy again), but ultimately necessary and somewhat rewarding when completed. When my space is messy I often don't mind as I inhabit a mental (either an imagined landscape or just reading lots of factual information) or fictional (a book or game, usually) space instead. However, after having made a place tidy again it does feel refreshing to finish the chores and to have a pleasant environment to be in. Most of the time my space does not affect me, but if it is too extremely messy I find it difficult to arrange my thoughts and if it is too spartan or sterile I find it difficult to develop thoughts to organise.

    tl;dr - I don't usually do them every day or enjoy them while doing them, but can be satisfied at the end result (though be disappointed that it'll be messy again) [This may just be me coming out of my teenage years].
    Books or films you liked? Recently read/watched or otherwise. Examples welcome.
    Books include:

    'Snow Crash' by Neal Stephenson; 'The Count of Monte Cristo' by Alexander Dumas; 'Notes from the Underground' by Fyodor Dostoyevsky; 'The Catcher in the Rye' by J.D. Salinger; 'Wuthering Heights' by Emily Bronte; 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill; 'The Social Contract' by Jean Jacques Rousseau; 'Leviathan' by Thomas Hobbes and both 'The Prince' and 'Discourses on Livy' by Niccolo Machiavelli (though I prefer the latter – Machiavelli has gotten a poor reputation because of ‘The Prince’, which largely doesn’t even reflect his principles and ideals!)

    Films include:

    'The Dark Knight' (only the second film of the trilogy, with Heath Ledger as the Joker); 'Red Dragon' and 'The Silence of the Lambs' (with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter)
    What has made you cry? What has made you smile? Why?
    Emotional turmoil such as bereavement and break ups have lead to tears, not much else. When I smile it is often in relief, or at the resolution of a thorough discussion when a conclusion or consensus is reached and we flow into another topic. Enjoying the company and stories of friends can also put a smile on my face too.
    Where do you feel: at one with the environment/a sense of belonging?
    I often don't feel much association or belonging to an environment. I sometimes find it difficult to work in spaces that are very cluttered, though this is rarely an issue. I suppose I am more at home physically in places I am more used to, and feel more of a sense of belonging or comfortability depending on my company – if they value discussion, debate and similar things I would be more comfortable.

    tl;dr - I don't consciously consider it very much. I’m more at ease in a social setting with people similar to myself.
    What have people seen as your weaknesses? What do you dislike about yourself?
    I find it difficult to get on with life and just be happy with how things are.

    I often spend too long thinking about something without actually doing anything.

    I find it hard to motivate myself.

    I rarely find people I can easily relate to, and often have difficulty relating to others on a personal level.

    I’m usually not assertive enough in how I act, and thus sometimes end up being too harsh when I do assert myself in a social context.

    I can sometimes be inconsistent with how I behave in similar situations, or in how I feel about certain topics, on account of my thoughts going too quickly for my descriptions of those thoughts to keep pace.
    What have people seen as your strengths? What do you like about yourself?
    My capacity for reasoning and logic, and articulating that logic.

    A balance between creating ideas and brainstorming, and breaking down ideas to form a single cohesive system of reasoning.

    I develop very rich, coherent mental landscapes and can sometimes write them down and describe them to others in great detail.

    In certain contexts I can defuse conflict rather well, given that I know the parties involved.

    I use large bodies of factual information to inform my opinions, and am willing to change how I think when I am provided with new, more valid data that is contrary or somewhat at an angle to my previous way of thinking on a subject.

    An ability to both embellish and depict a tale, and to cut down information to its most concise form to communicate.

    I'm good at using parable and analogy to describe things to others in a way they will understand.
    In what areas of your life would you like help?
    Motivating myself and being involved in the physical world and my body; in enjoying life and the present moment.
    Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it.
    Yes, usually as a response to a sense of inadequacy about my motivation to tackle a problem (usually I can find a solution, but either can't implement given my position, or can't motivate myself to implement it, which leads to internal conflict).
    What qualities do you most like and dislike in other people? What types do you get along with?
    I dislike individuals who are overly close minded and who don't try to detach from prejudices and preconceptions during discussion of new topics. I enjoy the company of people who stimulate me, be it with humour and their stories and exploits or through talk of philosophy and history and their dissertations (though usually the latter). I like being with others who both offer their own insight and knowledge, which I appreciate, and listen to and appreciate my own.
    How do you feel about romance/sex? What qualities do you want in a partner?
    I enjoy sex and romance, but neither casually. It can be a nice feeling to hold someone close at night and to be wholly comfortable with an emotional closeness to each other, without being dependent on each other to function.

    The act of romancing someone seems strenuous relative to what I'd want in a relationship - I'd hope it would developed organically. I need time to myself in solitude, to avoid melding with the other person entirely, though this doesn't mean I don't enjoy their company alone together also.

    While being with a single individual is probably ideal, I question the ability for a single person to appeal to or satisfy all of my nuances, and if they did they might be so similar to me that if we were both in a poor state we'd end up making each other's lives very unpleasant (compounded/resonant neuroses). All in all, I need to experience more relationships in order to better understand what I'd appreciate in another within a relationship (read: I need more relevant experience to make a valid judgement).

    The qualities I would appreciate in a partner would include holding similar values and principles to my own, though with their own nuances - appreciating the abstract and being able to both stimulate my thoughts (and be stimulated my own in turn).

    Stimulating me to action in the physical world would be appreciated, but only if it didn't conflict with a core similarity in how we think, and without coming across as controlling (I value a sense of autonomy too much for that). Being able to be comfortable with each other's presence both next to each other with our books or laptops and also to be able to enjoy as much physical intimacy as we feel like, both sexual and otherwise (i.e. an enjoyment of sex and cuddling, but not an obsession with either).

    I place a lot of value in loyalty, both in my partner’s to me and my own to my partner.
    If you were to raise a child, what would be your main concerns, what measures would you take, and why?
    Making sure they develop into well developed and talented individuals, being the best they can be in terms of their abilities and faculties.

    I would hope to help them balance extending and accepting their limitations, and having to accept hardship to achieve success and satisfaction, without developing a dependence on external stimuli to have a good life (so much as a fufilled one, perhaps).

    I would hope to balance firmness with fairness, hardship/adversity and nurturing to allow them to grow - by having control and principles when developing when they are younger, I would be more confident being liberal in their teenage years (hoping they would have developed a degree of self control, and would no longer need my input to guide them as much), and allowing them to 'do their own thing'. If they needed help I would hope they would try to accomplish a task on their own, but if not I would teach them when and how to ask for help, and if they were too shy to do so I would offer to do so in as conducive a way as possible.

    tl;dr - concerns include their self-control, satisfaction with life, ability and drive to apply their 'innate' talents and developed skills (as well as a drive to continue growing and developing over their lifetime); the measure's I would take would involve nurturing and challenging them, and providing control (but not too much) as they grow up to allow self-control to develop, allowing a more liberal approach when they enter their teens (I would continue reading up on developmental and educational psychology to develop the best parenting system I could, most likely). As for why... because I consider that the best way to develop the best level of human flourishing, which is what I would want for my child in order for them to live a full and fulfilled life.
    A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward and outward reaction?
    Outwardly I would discuss with them their reasoning that led to their claim, and see how it compares to my own, and from there I would either offer a compromise, reform my opinion or reject theirs as invalid based on whether or not it is internally coherent and/or accurately describes our shared, objective reality (i.e. uses factual data). We would either resolve the difference some way or (more rarely) agree to disagree.

    In the process I may come across as confrontational, though in fact I am instead aiming for a resolution between the difference in ideas (usually with less care for feelings). Inwardly, the reaction would be largely the same - trying to understand their pattern of thought that led them to a different conclusion than my own. However if they were not conducive to a discussion or resolution and did not 'agree to disagree' for the sake of enjoying each other's company I may begin to revaluate them as a friend; if it happened repeatedly I would question why I was friends with them in the first place, and possibly find they are of some other utility to me (e.g. a good motivator in matters of physical action). I wouldn't rush to shunning them from social contact, though may, over time, passively end up spending less time with them due to a difference in core values and how we think.
    Describe your relationship to society. How do you see people as a whole? What do you consider a prevalent social problem? Name one.
    I don't feel much of an attachment to 'society' as a whole. If it were more in line with my principles, and a voluntary collection of like-minded individuals as opposed to a conglomeration of people by tacit agreement I would likely associate with it more and consider it a more productive resource. I see people as a whole as collections of individual trends in behaviour - I avoid considering people in terms of groups or collectives whenever possible, as there are many outliers and variables within each individual despite overall trends.

    To me, a prevalent social issue is the lack of intellectual rigour in policy making and social movements (eg. flawed statistics or poor interpretation of data, and poor internal logic and reasoning along the process) and a related lack of imagination and the limited debate in many 'Western Liberal Democracies' and the combination of anti-intellectualism, small-mindedness and determination of groups opposed to the free discussion of ideas (both internal to those democracies and outside of them), which is possibly correlated to the growing collectivism and partisan attitudes across the political spectrum (not to say that pure individualism and associated consumerism isn’t a potential problem also).
    How do you choose your friends and how do you behave around them?
    I usually choose my friends based on my capacity to relate to them and discuss topics of value with them, along with a consideration of shared interests (though I also consider their social utility too - they may have vast repositories of knowledge or be good at getting me to do things, in which case I will get on with them as best I can and offer them whatever I can to maintain a 'friendship' of sorts). With some friends I will enjoy a few glasses of wine and a game of cards against humanity, with others we may sit around a table for hours debating philosophy or discussing future applications of an emerging technology, and with others we may develop a plan based around some emerging technology. While I usually spend my time alone, I can enjoy the company of people who agree with me because of good reasoning and data, disagree with me because of reasoning and information I haven't been exposed too (and thus offer me new insights into a topic) and who may come to agree with me on account of my information and insight.

    At the same time I can (on occasion) simply enjoy the company of friends in a good mood with some stories being shared as well.
    How do you behave around strangers?
    If I doubt I will come across the strangers in question again I won’t care about how I conduct myself within reason; if I’m likely to see the strangers again I will likely be withdrawn at first, and if no-one initiates a discussion I may occasionally do so myself.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @EmergentPhilosopher

    Ne all over the place.

    ILE makes sense

  3. #3
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I prefer LII. In any case, Alpha NT is clear.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I think I prefer LII. In any case, Alpha NT is clear.
    That Ne seems too strong to me and I see Si DS. What makes you go for LII?

  5. #5
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    That Ne seems too strong to me and I see Si DS. What makes you go for LII?
    Mostly the described weaknesses:

    I find it difficult to get on with life and just be happy with how things are.

    I often spend too long thinking about something without actually doing anything.

    I find it hard to motivate myself.


    I rarely find people I can easily relate to, and often have difficulty relating to others on a personal level.

    I’m usually not assertive enough in how I act, and thus sometimes end up being too harsh when I do assert myself in a social context.

    I can sometimes be inconsistent with how I behave in similar situations, or in how I feel about certain topics, on account of my thoughts going too quickly for my descriptions of those thoughts to keep pace.
    Yes, usually as a response to a sense of inadequacy about my motivation to tackle a problem (usually I can find a solution, but either can't implement given my position, or can't motivate myself to implement it, which leads to internal conflict).
    However, reading it again there is a ton of Ne and also a fair amount of Te. I'm not sure I see any strong indications of Si vs Fe.
    @EmergentPhilosopher can you elaborate on the weaknesses in bold above? How comfortable are you initiating new projects or endeavors? What about seeking out factual information? Do you prefer to work with what you have or to constantly expand its scope?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    However, reading it again there is a ton of Ne and also a fair amount of Te. I'm not sure I see any strong indications of Si vs Fe.
    @EmergentPhilosopher can you elaborate on the weaknesses in bold above? How comfortable are you initiating new projects or endeavors? What about seeking out factual information? Do you prefer to work with what you have or to constantly expand its scope?
    I don't start new projects often, though I'll theorise around them a lot. Once I start them I usually take them to completion, but not always (more often than not). The easiest way to characterise this is inertia - I will spend a long time thinking about lots of things before actively pursuing something (or multiple things, but if I begin multiple endeavours at once many will fail; when I do them one at a time I usually do so to completion). However this goes both ways - once I start doing something it takes substantial energy to stop, having a great deal of inertia in motion (i.e. momentum). This is related to the second weakness in bold and the first question. An alternative explanation is a chemical reaction with a high activation energy - it takes a lot to motivate me, but once I start I will continue very exothermically, projecting a lot of energy into a project or endeavour (and using up my own in the process) until the end.

    I have a passion for seeking out factual information and using it to form and refine hypotheses, both for the sake of simply knowing more about the world and also to combine with other sets of data to shed more light on a particular topic.

    As prefering to work with what I have or constantly wanting to expand it's scope, this depends - if I deem the resources available insufficient, I will try to find a way to get more resources (usually before optimising previous processes, but not in lieu of optimising them later on - this depends. I will take the path of least resistance, as long as it achieves the goal I had in mind, though I'm not infallible and sometimes end up working harder than I had to).

    Finding it hard to motivate myself usually relates to starting new endeavours, such as going to the gym or building a kit I've now had for a couple of months.

    To address the first question in bold, I often consider potential problems in the future (both that I will encounter and potential problems for a nation, or the whole species) and thus plan around them; doing so, I often see the negatives in the world and find it difficult to live in the present moment with a sense of satisfaction, more a perpetual sense of ennui (these may just be symptoms of the human condition, I'm not sure as I don't often have the opportunity to conisder this outside of isolation)

    Regarding the question about my assertiveness: physically I usually make way for other people, being the path of least resistance and because it usually doesn't bother me - a lack of practice means that when I do need to make way for myself I have a hard time doing so without coming across as aggressive; another example - if someone wanted to take a seat that I was saving for another, I'd usually be hesitant to speak up. I will try to be diplomatic in preference to assertive, trying to use reason to convince another to makes things the way I think they should be; people around me have an expectation that I will usually yield on most matters of practicality (not in discussion - they know I am unyielding in debate or in the face of polemic, only changing when I've made an error in fact or reasoning), because I usually don't care. As a result, on a relatively small matter, such as saving a chair for someone else, due to a lack of practice I can come across as agressive when I instead tried to be assertive.

    I hope that helps! I'm currently torn between ILI and LII - I'm aware they both use different functions but both descriptions apply quite closely (though socially I feel a stronger relation to alpha than gamma).

  7. #7
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmergentPhilosopher View Post
    I don't start new projects often, though I'll theorise around them a lot. Once I start them I usually take them to completion, but not always (more often than not). The easiest way to characterise this is inertia - I will spend a long time thinking about lots of things before actively pursuing something (or multiple things, but if I begin multiple endeavours at once many will fail; when I do them one at a time I usually do so to completion). However this goes both ways - once I start doing something it takes substantial energy to stop, having a great deal of inertia in motion (i.e. momentum). This is related to the second weakness in bold and the first question. An alternative explanation is a chemical reaction with a high activation energy - it takes a lot to motivate me, but once I start I will continue very exothermically, projecting a lot of energy into a project or endeavour (and using up my own in the process) until the end.

    I have a passion for seeking out factual information and using it to form and refine hypotheses, both for the sake of simply knowing more about the world and also to combine with other sets of data to shed more light on a particular topic.

    As prefering to work with what I have or constantly wanting to expand it's scope, this depends - if I deem the resources available insufficient, I will try to find a way to get more resources (usually before optimising previous processes, but not in lieu of optimising them later on - this depends. I will take the path of least resistance, as long as it achieves the goal I had in mind, though I'm not infallible and sometimes end up working harder than I had to).

    Finding it hard to motivate myself usually relates to starting new endeavours, such as going to the gym or building a kit I've now had for a couple of months.

    To address the first question in bold, I often consider potential problems in the future (both that I will encounter and potential problems for a nation, or the whole species) and thus plan around them; doing so, I often see the negatives in the world and find it difficult to live in the present moment with a sense of satisfaction, more a perpetual sense of ennui (these may just be symptoms of the human condition, I'm not sure as I don't often have the opportunity to conisder this outside of isolation)

    Regarding the question about my assertiveness: physically I usually make way for other people, being the path of least resistance and because it usually doesn't bother me - a lack of practice means that when I do need to make way for myself I have a hard time doing so without coming across as aggressive; another example - if someone wanted to take a seat that I was saving for another, I'd usually be hesitant to speak up. I will try to be diplomatic in preference to assertive, trying to use reason to convince another to makes things the way I think they should be; people around me have an expectation that I will usually yield on most matters of practicality (not in discussion - they know I am unyielding in debate or in the face of polemic, only changing when I've made an error in fact or reasoning), because I usually don't care. As a result, on a relatively small matter, such as saving a chair for someone else, due to a lack of practice I can come across as agressive when I instead tried to be assertive.

    I hope that helps! I'm currently torn between ILI and LII - I'm aware they both use different functions but both descriptions apply quite closely (though socially I feel a stronger relation to alpha than gamma).
    Still not clear, but I definitely would not consider ILI, and keep ILE in the running.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmergentPhilosopher View Post
    This largely depends on context and my goals within that context - when faced with different circumstances and different problems, I use different approaches and favour different forms of cognition, just like anyone else.

    However, if I relate to Vortical-Syngergetic cognition the least, it's possible I tend towards Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition more so than the other two, even if I'm equally comfortable with and equally relate to all three... which isn't actually helpful. Sorry if I'm seeming an awkward or difficult case.

    In retrospect, my preference for using multiple systems consciously and gravitating towards a more holistic attitude to cognition is more coherent with Holographic-Panoramic or Dialectical-Algorithmic than Causal-Determinist.
    Interesting, maybe best not to exclude Dynamic types then.

    As for the red part, ok, but what made you think of D-A cognition originally?


    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Mostly the described weaknesses
    I do not see any of that as LII specific. The first statement about wanting to be happy with how things are could be Si-ish but I don't know if that's Si seeking specifically. @EmergentPhilosopher What do you say about that one, how important is it for you to be able to be happy like that?


    However, reading it again there is a ton of Ne and also a fair amount of Te.
    In agreement here.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    As for the red part, ok, but what made you think of D-A cognition originally?

    Reading through the description, the preference of finding a middle way between two (or more) extremes and synthesising something from a dichotomy. My cognition largely follows a combination of each of the systems described (except V-S) - the act of combining and synthesising systems or viewpoints to develop a more holistic overall function is more coherent with D-A (i.e. comparing, contrasting and combining systems to improve the result is what a D-A would do). Then again, observing things from multiple perspectives and following multiple chains of logic is also coherent with H-P cognition, hence the uncertainty. While I use deductive reasoning often and do so well, I don't consider that system as consistent with my drive for an improving system of cognition. Put plainly, while I believe my system of cognition follows all of those models bar V-S, the process of combining them and the synthesis is more consistent with a starting point of H-P or D-A.


    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I do not see any of that as LII specific. The first statement about wanting to be happy with how things are could be Si-ish but I don't know if that's Si seeking specifically. @EmergentPhilosopher What do you say about that one, how important is it for you to be able to be happy like that?
    I would less describe it as something that is actively important to me, or as something I would strive for as much - more of a sense of earnest, 'the grass being greener on the other side'. My impression is that that level of being at peace with oneself and the world would require such general ignorance/unawareness or detatchment from the physical AND abstract worlds (and my sense of ego, or who I am and the existence of my sense of self) that I couldn't sustain it for long, and since it is unsustainable for me it isn't a worthy endeavour as a way of life. I practice meditation semi-regularly, and experience that very sense of detachment, not in a happy sense but a stabilising one - not to become happy, or content, but to calm down my cognitive mind and to hone my capacity to think (maybe give it a chance to rest).

    All in all, while I think it could be 'nice', I don't think it is something I strive for or yearn for actively. When I have seen that state of ignorance or detatchment in others in the past, I see it similair to an adult seeing children playing and thinking 'it must be nice, being young and free' - though I do also (and just as often) think more along the lines of 'their innocence is a lie, born of ignorance' and 'they will have to grow up and be unhappy at some point'. So, (again an analogy), it's almost like Pandora's Box - now that I've opened it, and developed a concept of the world not being 'nice', I cannot close it - the world cannot just be 'nice' ever again - even if at times I believe it may be easier and a less resistant path, a 'pleasant' path, so to speak, it would be too fake and would eventually crumble again anyway. While 'it would be nice', I'm cognizant that it is wholly at odds with my nature of pondering the abstract; but it doesn't end up manifesting a drive to improve my condition or to make my ponderings a reality either, as paradoxical as it may seem.

    Reading back on this it almost comes across as if I fetishize my feelings of ennui - this isn't intentional, though at times I can almost be at peace with the feeling of not being at peace with the world (if that makes sense). I can tolerate my own ennui, to the point where without it I might not feel like me anymore. Similair to Sisyphus without his boulder - sure, the perpetual struggle with reality would be gone, but I wouldnt be myself anymore, and that is somewhat a scarier concept.

    Reading back on that, it really does seem like I'm fetishizing my ennui - either way I'm going to stop the navel gazing at that point. I've gone past that point before, and it ends up with me contradicting and criticising myself and each previous layer of criticism ad infinitum, like an Ourobouros eating its own tail or a fractal of looking in on the self and by observing greater complexity, creating it in the process - think of a self complicating Gordian Knot.


    I decided I'd post this part too to provide some more (potentially relevant) information about some of my trains of thought regarding my 'self' - does this fit with any particular NT type more than the others, or pretty typical for all of them?
    Last edited by EmergentPhilosopher; 11-07-2016 at 08:45 PM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Took a couple of other tests and got these results: Ti > Te (though by a close margin and strong in both); Ne > Ni (again, by a close margin and strong in both); Fe = Fi (moderate in both); Si > Se (Moderate Si, weak Se).

    Overall:
    Ti > Ne > Te > Ni > Fe = Fi > Si > Se
    (23 -- 22 -- 20 - 19 -- 15 -- 15 - 13 -- 8 ) [The questions seemed inconsistent and more associated with an Enneagram test, so this may skew the results somewhat]

    You've both said Alpha NT, which I do identify with, though I've gotten along well in Gamma NT groups of around 4 people also. I'm quite confused and lack a sense of self definition - I recognise a dominance of T and N, but as for which one and being introverted/extroverted, it often depends on context as to which takes a leading role.

    For whatever reason (largely involuntary), I care a fair bit about trying to pin down my sociotype - I know I'm not a Sensor, and confident I'm not an Ethicist, but being unsure between 4 remaining options (of which I identify with some faculties of each) isn't as helpful for understanding myself.

    Is there any further information that would be helpful for determing my type?

    Cheers,

    -EmergentPhilosopher
    Last edited by EmergentPhilosopher; 11-06-2016 at 12:43 PM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmergentPhilosopher View Post
    You've both said Alpha NT, which I do identify with, though I've gotten along well in Gamma NT groups of around 4 people also. I'm quite confused and lack a sense of self definition - I recognise a dominance of T and N, but as for which one and being introverted/extroverted, it often depends on context as to which takes a leading role.
    I really really don't think you are T base.

    Alpha NTs and Gamma NTs are in the same Club so that helps.

    I posted in the other thread but better answer here: "My mood dictates the colour of the world I see, but the shapes are what I really pay attention to" What do you mean by this btw? Can you elaborate on what you mean by colours and shades here?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I follow a sort of sine wave for how much energy I have, how willing I am to spend time with other people and how much time I'd rather spend alone, and how motivated I am to interact with the world and how much I'd rather explore my own mind and develop a fictional world with it's own set of rules. I also have bouts of exuberant pacing (often while alone) wherein I will storm out idea after idea and have to record them verbally because even if I tried to write (hard to do while pacing) I wouldn't be able to write them down fast enough - these may be related to blood sugar, hormones or posibly genetic endocrine quirks.

    When you said my Ne is all over the place it made me chuckle as it really is!

    As for the colours and SHAPES: the 'colour' of the world is a reference to the concept of rose-tinted glasses - while a sense of pessimistic realism pervades, at times I have a greater or lesser degree of optimism within those bounds - I believe that there is at least some potential in humanity, it's a matter of how likely we are to achieve how much: this in turn directs what I divert my attention towards (if there is a potential problem, I ponder it's compenents, potential outcomes and what would be needed to be done to influence each outcome). The 'shapes' are the (more) fixed (but still growing, over time) sets of data and reasoning (both independent of external data and relative to/within it) that fit together / tessellate to give an overall impression of the world as it actually is at the moment (from which I compare to how it was in the past, and how it might end up in the future).

    To elaborate further, think of the vision itself as a timelapse of a city skyline. The shapes are the buildings, representing the impression I have of reality as it actually is - some of the buildings are still being built, others are eroding or getting old; this represents a (gradually) evolving worldview as I encounter new data and consider more lines of reasoning (I don't really have paradigm shifts in how I think, this would be analagous to an earthquake and I'd dislike having my system being broken down so completely at once). Sometimes some buildings are demolished, after having found a more reasonable explanation for something based on new information, or having exposed a contradiction within a line of reasoning.

    Now since it is a timelapse, you see the same image at both dusk, dawn, noon and night, and as a result the environment is painted with different colours, which draw my attention to some areas of the skyline that others, and the different levels of light might allow me to see different parts of the skyline in better resolution depending on the time of day.

    tl;dr - the shapes are the overall data sets representing reality and all the reasoning involved, the colours are the parts of reality I pay attention to at any given time

    I hope that makes sense, I'm currently juggling this with preparation for both applied maths and astrophysics midterms
    Last edited by EmergentPhilosopher; 11-06-2016 at 05:17 PM.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmergentPhilosopher View Post
    I follow a sort of sine wave for how much energy I have, how willing I am to spend time with other people and how much time I'd rather spend alone, and how motivated I am to interact with the world and how much I'd rather explore my own mind and develop a fictional world with it's own set of rules. I also have bouts of exuberant pacing (often while alone) wherein I will storm out idea after idea and have to record them verbally because even if I tried to write (hard to do while pacing) I wouldn't be able to write them down fast enough - these may be related to blood sugar, hormones or posibly genetic endocrine quirks.
    Do you relate to Ep temperament?


    When you said my Ne is all over the place it made me chuckle as it really is!



    As for the colours and SHAPES: the 'colour' of the world is a reference to the concept of rose-tinted glasses - while a sense of pessimistic realism pervades, at times I have a greater or lesser degree of optimism within those bounds - I believe that there is at least some potential in humanity, it's a matter of how likely we are to achieve how much: this in turn directs what I divert my attention towards (if there is a potential problem, I ponder it's compenents, potential outcomes and what would be needed to be done to influence each outcome). The 'shapes' are the (more) fixed (but still growing, over time) sets of data and reasoning (both independent of external data and relative to/within it) that fit together / tessellate to give an overall impression of the world as it actually is at the moment (from which I compare to how it was in the past, and how it might end up in the future).

    To elaborate further, think of the vision itself as a timelapse of a city skyline. The shapes are the buildings, representing the impression I have of reality as it actually is - some of the buildings are still being built, others are eroding or getting old; this represents a (gradually) evolving worldview as I encounter new data and consider more lines of reasoning (I don't really have paradigm shifts in how I think, this would be analagous to an earthquake and I'd dislike having my system being broken down so completely at once). Sometimes some buildings are demolished, after having found a more reasonable explanation for something based on new information, or having exposed a contradiction within a line of reasoning.

    Now since it is a timelapse, you see the same image at both dusk, dawn, noon and night, and as a result the environment is painted with different colours, which draw my attention to some areas of the skyline that others, and the different levels of light might allow me to see different parts of the skyline in better resolution depending on the time of day.

    tl;dr - the shapes are the overall data sets representing reality and all the reasoning involved, the colours are the parts of reality I pay attention to at any given time

    I hope that makes sense, I'm currently juggling this with preparation for both applied maths and astrophysics midterms
    The only part I don't understand of this is why the colours are there or how they work to focus your attention.

    Good luck with the exams.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Do you relate to Ep temperament?
    Looking at the description of the EP temprament it accurate for during those bouts of pacing, but at all other times I very much identify with the IJ temprament, usually being quite aloof. The pacing is the exception, not the rule, and while I do so often enough to notice, I don't do so regularly enough to categorise myself within said temprament. I'd describe it as a flux between LII with bouts of ILE - predominantly rational, with bouts of irrationality, as opposed to being predominantly irrational, where as you would consider it wholly ILE.

    I assume you don't consider such variations in state to be LII behaviour, hence fit ILE better; though I spend a substantial majority of my time processing information more along the lines of an LII, so could this be a case of a strong Ne subtype?

    Either way, it seems that I and you both agree that Ti and Ne are my strongest functions, comprising my ego block, though disagree which function is leading and which is creative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Good luck with the exams.
    Cheers!

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmergentPhilosopher View Post
    Looking at the description of the EP temprament it accurate for during those bouts of pacing, but at all other times I very much identify with the IJ temprament, usually being quite aloof. The pacing is the exception, not the rule, and while I do so often enough to notice, I don't do so regularly enough to categorise myself within said temprament. I'd describe it as a flux between LII with bouts of ILE - predominantly rational, with bouts of irrationality, as opposed to being predominantly irrational, where as you would consider it wholly ILE.

    I assume you don't consider such variations in state to be LII behaviour, hence fit ILE better; though I spend a substantial majority of my time processing information more along the lines of an LII, so could this be a case of a strong Ne subtype?

    Either way, it seems that I and you both agree that Ti and Ne are my strongest functions, comprising my ego block, though disagree which function is leading and which is creative.
    Look at this: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...e_Styles(wiki)

    Do you relate to Causal-Determinist or to Holographical-Panoramic cognition here?

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Do you relate to Causal-Determinist or to Holographical-Panoramic cognition here?
    This largely depends on context and my goals within that context - when faced with different circumstances and different problems, I use different approaches and favour different forms of cognition, just like anyone else.

    However, if I relate to Vortical-Syngergetic cognition the least, it's possible I tend towards Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition more so than the other two, even if I'm equally comfortable with and equally relate to all three... which isn't actually helpful. Sorry if I'm seeming an awkward or difficult case.

    In retrospect, my preference for using multiple systems consciously and gravitating towards a more holistic attitude to cognition is more coherent with Holographic-Panoramic or Dialectical-Algorithmic than Causal-Determinist.
    Last edited by EmergentPhilosopher; 11-07-2016 at 03:17 PM. Reason: Addendum in red

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @EmergentPhilosopher, I was thinking that the fact your ego is so "opposed" to Si would indicate ILE-Ne.

Posting Permissions

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