Self types as ENTP. Yet:
Does not bother to use the correct punctuation and syntax in a secondary language as this would take too long and why bother to observe anal-retentive rules that restrict personal expression anyway. Makes simplistic binary assumption about the nature of information gathering, assuming that all Ti knowledge is internally derived without any reference to external connections (which would be like living in a cave without any light).
Weak Ti indicated. Most likely a Victim of some sort due to his stated attraction for MILFs. This is typical of the low Sensing F types, who wish to be sexually dominated by older, more experienced partners
^
Observe this power play by n9, an appeal to popularity and status. He claims his opponent is a virgin to increase his standing in the eyes of others. This is a classic tactic of Beta NFs, who are too poor in Logic (Ti) to recognise that this claim is unprovable and hence unwise to make, but who nonetheless feel compelled to compete with others for power, especially if male. Olimpia attempts a similar tactic in a more subtle manner, and accuses Spermatozoa of projection for proposing a concept that clashes with preconceived notions of who is high or low in the Beta hierarchy...this is her "shit test", or attempt to assess whether she should alter her position.
Sure but Myst's point is that both Ti and Fi filter. Both functions could come to the same conclusion; the difference between them is in how they came to it.
Ti filters the idea or object according to its invented categories and rules. A good example would be that in music, in the tonal system the position of a note may be rejected as disharmonious/incorrect (in other words, rejected) if it leads to consecutive dissonances. The intervals defined as "dissonant" are made clear in the rules of the system, but which intervals are defined as such is still a subjective decision, albeit one created by Ti to give structure to the Ne ideas, ordering them in space. You could use a different system which might allow this but impose different restrictions in other areas.
So a distinction to make would be that the system itself is not correct or incorrect (it is after all subject to revision), but the individual axioms that comprise it are either correct or incorrect, much like a set of mathematical formulae.
I mean sure, it's one way to look at it, and I'm not saying this is entirely without a logical structure, but maybe some people just had enough of the constant sexual topics about dominance, male power plays and this weird sexual darwinistic thing, bodily fluids, slutty IEIs and whatnots, etc. that come up many times due to projection and constantly being horny. (Here I'd like to point out that no, sexual topics don't bother me, but I feel like I'm looking at a whole theatre of someone's struggles, someone who never seems to ever address any issues himself).
Besides that, I'm not saying in some of your post there is no truth (at least from my point of view, I understood in a few of these good points you made), or that nothing ever makes sense. But to be honest, sometimes I think you are trolling with the constantly sexually oversaturated thematics which leaves me baffled a bit, and it started to become incredibly awkward. I don't know about the conflicts of you two, but "Olimpia ate horse cock" was really one of the lowest demonstration of this, and passive-agressive AF.
Last edited by 0i0; 07-31-2018 at 11:51 AM.
@Avebury, the “popularity” vs “principle” argument can be illuminated by a knowledge of Socionics. It is basically an Fe vs Fi debate.
If you ask yourself which is better, to criticize that one whack job who is always disagreeing with rules that society has agreed makes it possible to live together, or to stand on your principles regardless of what everyone else is telling you, depends strongly on whether you value Fe (group values) or Fi (personal values).
Note which types are making which arguments above.
Personally, I believe that most philosophies come down to valuing one IE or another.
a record that sells a lot of copies is objectively good according to both Te and Fe
whether its bad because I personally judge it so and that is the deciding factor is Ti Fi
in other words, people can come down on either side from any quadra. its actually the basis for projections and misunderstanding. one person says its "objectively good" and they mean it in a Te sense, and the other person takes it in a Fe sense and thinks thats rubbish and counters with Ti reasons "its musically unsophisticated, the system is rigged, consumers are automatons that buy whatever their corporate masters push".. Te type thinks they're getting Fi and is like "that's just your personal sentiment" when Ti may actually have thinking reasons for their position
alternatively one person says its "objectively good" because it brought a lot of joy to a lot of people, so in a Fe sense: like spice girls. Person thinks they're getting Te and responds with Fi saying "just because it inspired a lot girls with girl power doesn't make it objectively good, the actual quality of the music is insincere, its been done before, it would have been better if they spent the same amount of money on something else" etc. Fe valuer takes the Fi as Ti and thinks Fi person is advocating some kind of ideological formula which all music should be subjected to in order to be considered good, etc etc
Sure, a record is objectively "good" if it makes a lot of money. But you can judge success by more factors than just how much money is made from the record, and it is also true that a recording can make a lot of money and make a lot of people feel great, and still be kind of crap when you analyze it musically. But then of course you do need to be able to sell your work in order to survive.
Yes, I agree with this.
I actually agree with Bertrand here.
Let me explain.
I think introverted rationality is more abstract. will indeed judge value by popularity, whereas will judge values by a subjective value system, which you could call principles. However, will judge by facts, whereas will also judge by principles. Are and the same information, then? Not at all, because will judge by what it considers "logically sound" or "just" whereas will judge by its personal value system "that behavior repels me". They both judge principles though, but they are not the same IE.
My argument 99 vs 1 was not really about principles, since principles are subjective. What I meant was simply that people believing in something, not necessarily valuing it in an sense, but believing in it, does not it make it true. For example, at some point in history the majority of people believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. This is objectively false by today's knowledge, but Galileo was forced to recant his "beliefs" at the time. That did not make him wrong.
Basically, I think principles comes down to introverted rationality, whereas objective judgements come down to extroverted rationality. Yes, is objective, it just deals with information that affects people, whereas is impersonal object-related information. Jung already pointed out the problem of how ethics/feeling is "subjective" but how introvertsion is also "subjective" so our language is really defective when it comes to expressing the functions, since the meaning of the words "subjective" and objective" in this case overlap. "Objective" can mean impersonal information, or it can mean the objective world. "Subjective" can mean personal information, or it can mean the subjective (inner) world.
Ok cool if no offense taken
I didn't see the post about n9's type.
Oh I don't call all Ni stuff rabbitholey, some Ni is really really great to me, I just call conceptual reasoning without any way to make an anchor from it to tangible things rabbitholey.
Thanks, I see what you mean, and why an LSE could respond in an Ne-like way. In practice I’ve seen that kind of response framed as “But don’t you think [positive possible outcome?],” answer no, stalemate. The statement there from an LSE is more like prompting for Ne input to reinforce an Ne-oriented view imo.
I’ve also seen blank responses as if I said nothing, and Te responses about what should be done in a practical sense.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I don't entirely disagree with the distinction you're drawing here, but very often that "one whack job" is arguing from Ti, rather than Fi (see the Unabomber or Julian Assange or any number of strongly principled Beta activists). Fi vs Fe is more like "doing your own thing even though it goes against how society expects you to be".
edit: @Avebury kinda already said this "I think principles comes down to introverted rationality".
Ever have a rope or cord that you coil and set aside for later use? One day, you go to use the rope and for whatever reason it has become a big fucking ball of knots. "How did this happen?" you say to yourself. "I haven't even used it!" Then, you realize that shit just gets more knotted over time. At some point, you moved something next to the coil, or set something on top of it, or moved the coil to another location, which caught on something else. It all escaped your attention. Over time, the knots slowly formed as if they tied themselves. But they didn't tie themselves. There were reasons for it, even if you don't know what they were, exactly. Socionics is a lot like this fucking knotted coil. It is useless unless you take the time to untangle the knots that have evolved over time. ~translated from Nebulenko
@Avebury mb ILI
speculative metaphorical thinking. boring talking style