Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819 LastLast
Results 681 to 720 of 747

Thread: Socionics For Dummies

  1. #681

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,619
    Mentioned
    1058 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    You do not need to be knowledgable, experienced and reasonable to do not doubt in your opinion about types. Choose any opinion you like today and just do not care about later time consequences. You live now and if you feel good now - then everything is good.
    When you see someones disagrees with your opinion, even insultingly dares to do it reasonably so you could not just to ignore, - hence gives a treat to your pleasant for today opinion. You definetely dislike the situation and that opposing opinion very much.
    Then just ask moderators to forbidd him to say that "bad" opinion to you or about you. Or better to ban your opponent.
    And they'll do! As it's their highest duty to support your pleasant emotions today by any means.

    @VenusRose
    Last edited by Aylen; 02-26-2019 at 04:32 PM. Reason: removed mention due to mutual ignore issued
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  2. #682
    Impermanence para's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,012
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu
    But are all theories not just based on appearances? Does the fact that Socionics, ostensibly at least, isn't unified theoretically make it more ''unreal''? I think my question is: What do you think the ''end game'' should be? What should theories do, and why?

  3. #683
    Landlord of The Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,773
    Mentioned
    336 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Just because something was the case for how I acted towards you in the past doesn't mean it is every time in the future too. I don't know what you're talking about, you filthy empiricist. Get out of here.
    A SEI would say that, subjectively speaking. Otherwise, mb LIE. In a opinion someone might hypothetically hold.

  4. #684

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by para View Post
    @Singu
    But are all theories not just based on appearances? Does the fact that Socionics, ostensibly at least, isn't unified theoretically make it more ''unreal''? I think my question is: What do you think the ''end game'' should be? What should theories do, and why?
    Well theories make assertions about reality in terms of what can't be seen. If there were to be a theory of the mind, then obviously you can't see a model of the mind existing or floating somewhere or something like that.

    So if you were to say, "You only say that because you want people to have things explained to you", then the only thing that's pertaining to is "Because it says so on Model A", and it's not at all relevant to how it actually is in reality. It says something about Model A, but it doesn't have anything to do with how my mind works or what my motivations were.

    So the purpose of a theory is to make assertions about reality in terms of what can't be seen, and also in ways that it actually is objectively describing what's actually going on in reality.

    And you might say, "Well how do you know that it's accurately describing reality?", and you don't really, perhaps until you can test it. The often used criteria is to predict something by assuming that if the theory is true, then we expect X to happen. If X doesn't happen, then there must be something wrong with the theory, because it means that the theory isn't accurately describing reality.

    But predicting things can't be the main point, because it's possible to correctly predict something and still have a useless theory. For example, I could say that "I predict that virtually anything could happen", and then it does, so my theory is true. That might be so, but it's useless.

    So another criteria is that it's solving a problem of some kind. A theory that can solve the problem better is preferred. And that criteria is going to be choosing a theory that can explain things better, and explain things more without complicating more things than necessary. As in, it solves more problems than creating more unresolved problems from the alternative theory.

  5. #685
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    A SEI would say that, subjectively speaking. Otherwise, mb LIE. In a opinion someone might hypothetically hold.
    Eh?

  6. #686
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Right, and you still haven't changed your mind about Socionics. Like I said, it doesn't matter whether you got the idea from Socionics or not, your assumption about my motivations were wrong, period.

    Maybe when you finally stop being influenced by Socionics or Model A, even unconsciously, then you'll stop making absurdly wrong assumptions about people's motivations.
    Maybe I’m just bad at making assumptions about people’s motivations (Fi and Ni) because Socionics is right

  7. #687

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Maybe I’m just bad at making assumptions about people’s motivations (Fi and Ni) because Socionics is right
    You can use Model A to "explain" anything. If you're bad at it, then it's because of "weak Fi". If you're good at it, then perhaps it's the "strong Fe HA". Or perhaps you're using Ti to understand it. Or maybe it's the "strong, unconscious Te" that unconsciously gathers data. Maybe your Fi isn't really that bad, because PoLR is actually strong. And on and on.

    You might as well as say that you do anything because of a certain structure of your brain. Which isn't actually saying anything.

  8. #688
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You can use Model A to "explain" anything. If you're bad at it, then it's because of "weak Fi". If you're good at it, then perhaps it's the "strong Fe HA". Or perhaps you're using Ti to understand it. Or maybe it's the "strong, unconscious Te" that unconsciously gathers data. Maybe your Fi isn't really that bad, because PoLR is actually strong. And on and on.

    You might as well as say that you do anything because of a certain structure of your brain. Which isn't actually saying anything.
    Model A has a set structure. It’s just that you don’t see or think it’s real. Probably these caveats people make, make you feel insecure about it, like daddy is going away on a business trip for good.

    Just because YOU cannot observe or agree with something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, you filthy empiricist.

  9. #689

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Model A has a set structure. It’s just that you don’t see or think it’s real. Probably these caveats people make, make you feel insecure about it, like daddy is going away on a business trip for good.

    Just because YOU cannot observe or agree with something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, you filthy empiricist.
    Well you already got my motivation wrong, so I don't see how it could possibly be accurately describing my brain or my mind. You're just not being honest with yourself and make excuses when it get things wrong, and only remember when it confirms your own biases.

  10. #690
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well you already got my motivation wrong, so I don't see how it could possibly be accurately describing my brain or my mind. You're just not being honest with yourself and make excuses when it get things wrong, and only remember when it confirms your own biases.
    What if you’re merely being dishonest with us about your motivations, and then on top of that, also hypocritically assuming I got your motivations wrong because I’m ESTx and you’re not admitting your own biases?

    Well that’s some major projection if I’ve ever seen any.

  11. #691

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    What if you’re merely being dishonest with us about your motivations, and then on top of that, also hypocritically assuming I got your motivations wrong because I’m ESTx and you’re not admitting your own biases?

    Well that’s some major projection if I’ve ever seen any.
    Then explain why my motivation must be that "I want people to have things explained to me".

    Why not something else, such as "I'm just trolling and want to annoy people", or something like that, and countless other explanations? They're all equally valid, because they're all basically explanationless and have no compelling reason to prefer one over the other.

  12. #692
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Then explain why my motivation must be that "I want people to have things explained to me".

    Why not something else, such as "I'm just trolling and want to annoy people", or something like that, and countless other explanations? They're all equally valid, because they're all basically explanationless and have no compelling reason to prefer one over the other.
    ... I never mentioned that.

    Look like someone’s doing this all to themselves here, bud.

  13. #693
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You might want to try injecting more empirical evidence into your arguments. Just a little hint there.

  14. #694

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    ... I never mentioned that.

    Look like someone’s doing this all to themselves here, bud.
    Uh, yes you did:

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Now I see why you like your spiel so much. It’s a good way to set the stage for telling people they need to prove themselves to you off the bat. There a problem arises tho because nobody cares about doing that for you.
    I'd suppose it depends on what you meant by "doing that for you". Anyway, what is my motivation, according to Model A? And why should we take the Model A's supposed explanation at a face value? What makes it the correct one?

  15. #695
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Uh, yes you did:



    I'd suppose it depends on what you meant by "doing that for you". Anyway, what is my motivation, according to Model A? And why should we take the Model A's supposed explanation at a face value? What makes it the correct one?
    Good job with quoting me! Now: Can you find the word “explain” there anywhere?

  16. #696
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe you’re interpreting me wrong or disagree with me because you can’t even read anything, as you’ve proven above.

  17. #697
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Might want to try going back to the basics with motor eye movement and a b c before dipping into Karl Popper etc next time.

  18. #698

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Good job with quoting me! Now: Can you find the word “explain” there anywhere?
    You quoted me saying "Define competence, which will be defined by a theory.", and you said "Now I see why you like your spiel so much.". I'd assume that this "spiel" that you're talking about is about me asking for a definition which will be defined by a theory, which is an explanation...!

    Yes, it could be that this is about misunderstanding or misinterpreting things, as that happens all the time because no communication is perfectly clear. So anyway, what is my supposed motivation, according to Model A? And how would we know that that motivation is the correct motivation out of many other possible motivations? And why would that have to do with Fi, Ti, etc, other than just saying that they have to do with them?

  19. #699
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Back to sleep. Z z z ...

    (You’ll get there eventually after a b c btw .. 23 letters later.)

  20. #700

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well you just totally copped-out, changed the subject and meandered to pointless nitpicking over details. Nothing new...

  21. #701
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well you just totally copped-out, changed the subject and meandered to pointless nitpicking over details. Nothing new...
    Do you know what a mirror is? Have you ever looked in one?

  22. #702
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I'd assume that this "spiel" that you're talking about is about me asking for a definition which will be defined by a theory, which is an explanation...!

    Lmao you’re totally wrong by the way.

    A theory proves nothing.

  23. #703

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,619
    Mentioned
    1058 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    A theory proves nothing.
    Partly you are correct. Any idea needs objective experiment for final approvement.
    But it's also possibly to take a theoretical basis for some idea and to trust it for practical usage. For example, some med was effective on many people and we assume it will work similarly on other ones. With practically useful result so will be, though not with anyone.
    The problem with Socionics - there is too much of theory without any objective approvement. Too weak basis to trust highly to many theories.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  24. #704

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Partly you are correct. Any idea needs objective experiment for final approvement.
    But it's also possibly to take a theoretical basis for some idea and to trust it for practical usage. For example, some med was effective on many people and we assume it will work similarly on other ones. With practically useful result so will be, though not with anyone.
    The problem with Socionics - there is too much of theory without any objective approvement. Too weak basis to trust highly to many theories.
    Well no offense to Sol but this is just wrong on so many levels.

    What makes something right or wrong will always be based on the arguments. And that argument will keep changing as people keep making new arguments and find new ways to be more objective. What people thought was "totally objective" before might be found out to be not so objective after all, and hence people find better ways to be more objective through better arguments.

    This just goes to show that there's no such thing as "Te", as these supposed "super objective" Te or Ti types keep making plain bad arguments based on bad thinking and bad philosophy. I don't blame them or their innate abilities, I blame their bad philosophy that they got from their bad culture. These types of thinking are cultural, not innate.

  25. #705
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well no offense to Sol but this is just wrong on so many levels.

    What makes something right or wrong will always be based on the arguments. And that argument will keep changing as people keep making new arguments and find new ways to be more objective. What people thought was "totally objective" before might be found out to be not so objective after all, and hence people find better ways to be more objective through better arguments.

    This just goes to show that there's no such thing as "Te", as these supposed "super objective" Te or Ti types keep making plain bad arguments based on bad thinking and bad philosophy. I don't blame them or their innate abilities, I blame their bad philosophy that they got from their bad culture. These types of thinking are cultural, not innate.
    No. That’s Pyrrhic.

  26. #706

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    No. That’s Pyrrhic.
    Well like Sol, your mode of thinking is Empiricism, Inductivism, Verificationism... because that's the "default" mode of thinking in Western culture. So you just assume that's the criteria for what makes something "true" or "objective", because the culture tells you so. You know of no other modes of thinking because you've never questioned it, and you're just going along with what the culture or everybody else is saying is true.

    Socionics can't tell you what is truly objective or not objective, just as science can't tell you what is truly objective, because that has to be done in "meta" philosophical discussions that works outside of the boundary of Socionics or science.

    Apparently, Socionics tells us how our minds work, and not what kind of information is considered objective and not objective. The same with science. Saying that "Te is objectivity" is pointless, because within the framework of Socionics, Te just means something like Empiricism, which is not to the best of our current knowledge that is considered objective by most philosophers and scientists. And if you say "Well if Empiricism is not considered objective, then we'll just change the definition of Te to something else", then that's going to arbitrarily change the entire logical framework of Socionics, and it would mess up the whole thing.

    What's considered "objective" has changed over time. People used to think that myths were objective. Shamans were objective. What the kings and the bible said were objective. Because they knew of no other way of thinking. So it would make sense if they thought those things were objective, because they knew of no other way. And a "Te" person wouldn't have known Empiricism before even Empiricism was even conceived (in the 17th century). So before then, they would have thought Shamanism was objective and beat people around for not believing in Shamanism (just as they beat people around now for not believing in Empiricism), even though it's actually subjective (!?!?).

  27. #707
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu You’re telling us to look outside of frameworks... by giving us more frameworks.

  28. #708
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,730
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well you just totally copped-out, changed the subject and meandered to pointless nitpicking over details. Nothing new...
    isnt that what you do all the time

  29. #709

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    @Singu You’re telling us to look outside of frameworks... by giving us more frameworks.
    Why all the sophism? It's just not possible to discuss what's objective and what's not objective within Socionics or even within science.

    It's simple enough to say, "Te types are objective" or "T types are objective" and there's that, but then the question becomes, what makes T types objective, other than just saying that they are?

    So we're going to need a criteria for what make something objective, and what makes something subjective.

    The criteria used in Socionics is merely the criteria derived from the current intellectual climate of the dominant culture. Namely, what's considered to be "objective" in Socionics is the Western culture's Empiricism. And what's considered subjective is something like Rationalism. Te vs Ti.

    Well, they're both found to be wrong or at least inadequate. A lot of progress have been made in philosophical and scientific arguments since the days when Jung was around. Both Empiricism and Rationalism are very old and outdated 17th century thinking. We have much newer systems of thought, such as falsificationism or critical rationalism.

    Even if you completely reject this kind of thinking and say that there's nothing wrong with Empiricism and that what I'm saying is total nonsense, someone else is going to find better ways to be objective. And that someone, obviously, is going to be making a better theory, and hence beat you to the game of finding the most objective psychological theory that there is.

    So these people who will find better ways to be objective will leave you to the dust, while you'll be stuck in the old and outdated way of thinking forever.

  30. #710
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,161
    Mentioned
    231 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    the game of finding the most objective psychological theory that there is.
    ...

  31. #711

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, for some reason you take it out of context and attempt to change the meaning of the sentence. Nice try, you sneaky devil.

  32. #712
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,968
    Mentioned
    709 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    Someone asked about the difference between Ti PoLR and Seeking, and I came up with a little description. (Discuss!)

    "Ti seeking is interested in how the inner workings of things are, the details of logical frameworks, when EIE then it is more about practical things, when ESE then it is often about more abstract things like astrophysics, but they can like both of course. with Ti PoLR, they may appreciate it if someone is good at that stuff, but they don't really wanna deal with those details, they annoy them, they don't see a use in them. IEE can be a bit of an exception because they are open minded to all kinds of ideas, practical or impractical, in that sense their Ti PoRL is more "flexible" perhaps thanks to Ne lead, at least in practice. with SEE, if you tell them the details of some abstract theory, they get bored and want you to get to the point, aka what is the meaning of this in the grand scheme of things (Ni seeking), why do you tell me this, what can I actually do with it (Se/Te)"
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  33. #713
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,968
    Mentioned
    709 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default Type•volution Taxonomy

    Someone came up with a spreadsheet document, which features descriptions of the IEs, including my take on it!
    He calls it "Typevolution Taxonomy". His overview of my article has the stamp of approval from me, hehe.


    Extroverted Thinking


    Categorization and employment of external logical information
    Assessing objective reality of available information
    Uses information for best effect or desired outcome
    Facts cannot be refuted as they are "objectively true"
    Objective realities with primarily objects - overlaps with Se
    (except more mental than Se)
    Logical application in the outside world


    Introverted Thinking

    Subjective categorization of logical information
    Attached to their own subjective assessment of logic
    Attachment to models which can be used in various applications
    No need for practical application of logical information
    How information fits into their "blueprint" of the world
    Logical consistency between information
    Personal set of "standards" that are logic based


    Extraverted Sensing

    External Properties of Objects
    Interaction with those Objects
    Perception of Power & Influence
    Resisting Outside Pressure
    Habitation of their own space / in control
    May appear "overbearing" to some people
    Knowledge of how to apply self in physical world
    Physicality in space and in the mind


    Introverted Sensing

    Attuned to one's own physical reactions
    Improving the physical experience of others - "comfort"
    How objects affect us "over time" & recall these experiences
    Internal Memory "Recall" of such experiences
    Awareness of one's physical state
    Sensory recall


    Extraverted Intuition

    Experience of ideas which can be found in the external world
    Seeing potential in people, ideas, and objects
    Novelty in concepts
    Anti-traditionalism, open to change
    Draw ideas from many different sources
    How these "things" could turn out to be


    Introverted Intuition

    Subjective experience of ideation
    May have Difficulty getting others to "see" what they see
    Every object has a deeper value than what is observable
    Inner "essence" of objects
    Observance of time, and how things unfold over time
    How a particular object will be / act in the future
    Subject to "visions" or "snapshots" of what is going to happen
    Inhabit an "inner voice of wisdom" from an early age
    See deeper meaning, significance, or essence of objects / people


    Extraverted Feeling

    Emotions and Emotional Tone of Others
    Observable feelings and moods of others
    Changing or influencing a mood to match others
    Wearing "heart" on sleeve
    May be overbearing in the "emotional" sense
    Adapting others to fit emotional mood
    Assessing the mood of the situation


    Introverted Feeling

    Personal assessments and internal sentiments of things & ppl
    Assessment of internal unexpressed states of others
    Character assessments
    Awareness of relations between other people
    How do I personally feel about something
    Get their feelings hurt easily
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  34. #714
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,968
    Mentioned
    709 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  35. #715
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,830
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Olimpia, wouldn't "Inner "essence" of objects" apply to Ne more? I've often seen that for describing Ne...

  36. #716
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,298
    Mentioned
    958 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    @Olimpia, wouldn't "Inner "essence" of objects" apply to Ne more? I've often seen that for describing Ne...
    I have seen that too. It is defined as "getting the gist of things" by some. I think Oli is using essence a bit differently but I could be wrong.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  37. #717
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,968
    Mentioned
    709 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah with essence I mean "core being", which would be one, generally.

    Whereas Ne is about a myriad of possibilities and aspects, it would be the possible or potential "essences" of one particular object, but that's not what I mean.

    And I don't even believe in "essences" within one object, in the way I understand the term. As I said, core being. There cannot be several. Kind of like the "soul" of something. You only have one "soul". You only have one "core essence/being".
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  38. #718
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    1,542
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    @Olimpia, wouldn't "Inner "essence" of objects" apply to Ne more? I've often seen that for describing Ne...
    Ok, I'm not Olimpia, obviously.
    I'd say: (Inner) essence is the description of the structure of a single object, that's not .

    is more about what I call "pattern matching"; means: In which ways the attributes of object A matches the attributes of object B.
    Basically the comparison of attributes of different objects and grouping them by similarity or non-similarity.
    is also about attributes that are non-obvious.

    For in NF types I guess they compare the behaviour of people and look for similarities.

  39. #719
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    1,542
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olimpia View Post
    You only have one "core essence/being".
    Even people that have "multiple personality disorder"?

    P.S.: Is this board only for me slow, or is it slow in general.
    I already want to start raising money to buy a faster server. I'm annoyed by frequent server hangups.

  40. #720
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,830
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ok.. hmm... I think Ne too is about some kind of inner essence tho, I explain it to myself as this: since Ne sees the potential of the objects, it's able to capture the inner essence of something/someone and develop from that.

    perhaps it's something in common to both intuitions, as feelers share in common an understanding of humanity, sensors are aware of the body, and thinkers stick to logical consistency.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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