"I don't like attending this professor's lectures. He takes hours to deliver every lecture when each lecture can actually be summarized into and delivered within 5 minutes."
Which sociotype would go...
"I don't like attending this professor's lectures. He takes hours to deliver every lecture when each lecture can actually be summarized into and delivered within 5 minutes."
LII
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
ADD
Often excessive wordiness can be a symptom of Te or extroversion, with Ti / introversion on the opposite side. But I could see a lot of types saying this.
Gulenko says involutionary types move from complex to simple, and holographers take this a step further... in this sense, and on its face I would say LII or SLE would be best fit for this sort of sentiment. an example could be hemingway (purported to be SLE) saying he wrote the shortest story, 6 words, "for sale. baby shoes. never worn." something to that effect. wanting to strip out the unecessary is very Se->Ti (complex->simple) creative, with a little bit of Se volitional pressuring in there and Fe pizzaz for good measure
Some Ti type
Types with-ego is probably the most answer. In my case it depends. If a lecturer can stimulate my
and I don't perceive boredom then I wouldn't say that.
It's the focus on the pure prinicple, dismissing real world application or implication that causes that percieved boredom.
Do you think that the focus on the pure principle causes boredom in you? I feel the opposite way, i lose interest when the information has too much of a practical component. I like the theory of the theory of math, but not the practical theory of math so to speak.Originally Posted by WinnieW
Types with
It's the focus on the pure prinicple, dismissing real world application or implication that causes that percieved boredom.
I don't value theories or principles that much which are completely detached or isolated from the real world, but I don't mind if the principle itself is abstract.
sounds very Te profit like in the very stereotyped sense of it, lacking any Fe's effects and courtesy of sort.
I quickly grasp the general idea that speaker is getting across, as well as their biases (lots of intellectuals have biases they seem to be blind to and people take for granted). If a topic interests me though, I'll go more in depth. But this is not something I force myself to do, either I pursue something because I am passionate about it, or I don't because I'm not interested. There is no try.
I am the opposite way: for example I prefer to use math to calculate something practical (like profits); I'm not interested in the abstract theory of math. But I don't feel that listening to an extensive lecture on something has to do with practical applications of that thing, usually lectures are long because the speaker gets into the history of their idea, its evolution, social context etc. This type of content has nothing to do with either the practical or the theoretical: its more of a formality. This is what I don't like about lectures.
Personally, I like philosophy for example, but I don't like the overly convoluted aspects of it. I like living by abstract principles, according to a philosophy if you will, but that doesn't mean I spend all of my time thinking, and I don't like intellectual problems that have no relation to reality at all.
I'm not sure Gulenko has a ranking system, he just sort of says however complex or simple you believe the fuctions are at the start, its the relationship between base->creative that is either "complexified" or "simplified" that evolutionary or involutionary means. he does say Ni is the most abstract function, so there's that
I respect hemingway's style when he writes prose that cuts out every interpretation of the story. Just pure descriptions, because in those you can read so much into the affect. Short Story: 'Hills like White Elephants' comes to mind if you are interested in what I just said.
https://lirroaringtwenties.weebly.co...-elephants.pdf
@popcornflorals I'm curious, is this the same person that you were wondering about in your thread about whether an ENFP could be mistaken for an INTJ?
This sounds so stereotypically Myers Briggs INTJ that I'm wondering if the person is trying to sound like that on purpose. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but it might be.
Hello Xaiviay! Yup it is the same person. This person is a conundrum, so I'm intrigued to determine her type! 0.0
I'm not sure why people say Te. Getting to the point of what you want to say without saying unnecessary things and not getting lost in other thoughts is actually a sign of strong Te. The LxEs I know are very to the point, straightforward people who hate to waste time with unnecessary details. Isn't Te all about effectiveness and facts?
The people I know have issue with being to the point are those who lack Te. The person I know, can say the most unnecessary things in one sentence and double its length with details nobody really cares about is an EIE. Whenever I hear him talking, after a few minutes of listening to meaningless crap I always get so nervous I usually shout at him to FINALLY get to the point!
N
Te types also enjoying conveying facts though. I wouldn't say they're averse to unnecessary details.
But definitely EIEs can be like that which is why I said extroversion as well. The OP isn't really specific enough to say which one it is.
I agree with Te type of some sort. They tend to get frustrated with any perceived lack of efficiency, and often prefer direct, brief communication that gets right to the point.
We probably need to know more. Is he following a structure? Does he fail to get to the point or does he procrastinate? Is his voice monotonous or engaging? Does he comment on students activity mid-lecture or is he lost in his mind?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote